Initially, let us affirm our position of welcoming the film. We in no way want our comments to give the impression of disparaging or undermining the sincere efforts or overall message of the authors and supportive cast, in terms of wanting to establish a better global socialization for humanity. But we also recognize that many people in authoritative positions would be quite sympathetic, in a general sense, that is if they would take time to watch the film; except that they think their practiced methodology is best suited for the task... but we whole-heartedly disagree. Those in authority must either lead us towards the establishment of a New Government (a Cenocracy), follow our lead, or vacate the premises of their position. If they refuse to do none of the above, we will be forced to evict them.
However, those in authority are not seeking our perspective nor attempting to establish a dialogue with those of us wanting to pursue greater improvements, because they arrogantly perceive themselves to have greater experience, intelligence and wisdom... or at least not let ours over-shadow theirs; whereby they must use the time they have in their position to pursue career goals— regardless if it has deleterious effects on the public. They have no interest in our council except when it can serve their self-centered motivations... many of which are pursued by way of impulsiveness denoted as reactionary. At such moments when their peers and colleagues disagree with their views, it is then that some of them will seek the council of the public's approval by calling for a Referendum; but such a process is not put into place as an established Constitutional means of directing the government through the collective council of the people. We are viewed as little more than a means to the ends those in authority wish to achieve... with or without the public's approval.
...Such a circumstance propels the collective mind of the public with the entrenched necessity of committing ourselves to a Revolution. And yet again those in authority as well as the common-place public, do not perceive the seriousness with which such persistence is becoming embraced as a factuality amongst those surveying the social terrain in preparation thereof. Those in authority are not truly cognizant of how many in the military and para-military civilian (police) forces will come to stand with the public once our Declaration for Greater Independence reaches the emblematic stage of a social Manifesto. The Zeitgeist film is part of this manifesto in the making. And though it is not reviewed by those in main-stream film or art-critiquing publications so as to define an accepted state of publicized legitimacy, its underground appeal as a generalized assertion is acquiring an enterprise of intellectual agreement for a purposive Revolutionary stance to egress even further.
Yet expressions of societal-governance disapproval, such as the Zeitgeist film poignantly illustrates, are looked upon by some in authority as a fringe perspective of a disgruntled few miscreants with mis-hygienic mysticisms projecting personal woes onto an externalized 'politically correctified' would-be foe with "Establishment" credentials, and not as a large consensus of the public desiring a Cenocracy. Our collective views and voice do not matter to them, since they arrogantly believe they Represent us and know what we are thinking... or should think, according to the views entertained by those in some authoritative position. It is not that we are without the necessary clout, we are simply not exercising our Will— collectively. The Zeitgeist film(s) transgress the "forbidden corridor" between desire for purposive change and an actual step in that direction. However, for many of us... it is time that we stand sentinel with flame-lit torches in hand in order to mark the way for those wanting to go further. We need a detailed film about conducting a Revolution and not merely an historical review and analysis.
Emphatically... however, we do not need a television series about a group of people from different walks of life having banded together to conduct a defined Revolution which leads the people back towards an adoption of the same ridiculous form of governance and accompanying society we have today. The so-called Democracy of America is like an early computer code fraught with errors and subject to being hijacked by various individualized viruses. Nobody in their right mind would want to create (or re-create) the nonsense being experienced today... and in fact, no one actually did— because the mess we are in is the product of a series of patch-work applications due to leaders in business, government and religion that consistently do not have a far reaching rational vision of existence beyond their own survival interests within the parameter of a given social sphere. They feel that what is good for their business (or religion), is good for everyone. Such ideas are short-sighted piece-meal functionalities for a given selection of life-times. Recreating a government like the U.S. is like letting a group of Revolutionists strive for re-creating the Roman or equally disgusting British or Chinese Empires... some other ancient Kingdom... or Emperor-controlled domain; because they feel such societies represent some impassable greatness. Follow-up discussions about pursuing a Revolution must be wide-spread and very public. Every single person must be informed that a Revolution away from the present nonsense government(s) (and businesses as well as religions) is being sought. Indeed, those in authority... all authority... must know how extremely serious we are about establishing a Cenocracy. We are sick and tired of their falsified Communisms, Democracies and Socialisms... used as garnished figure-heads for control over the many exerted by a few.
The Zeitgeist film(s) is an attempt to express a given Collective Will by standing up, stepping forward and speaking with a voice representing numerous shared minds... It is the attempt to establish a global petition demanding change, that may otherwise be best introduced nation by nation. But in order to better present our case to the larger population, we will need a series of films, books, and radio programs. We need to stir the development of a new culture of thinking collectively, and not rely on the present forms of vicarious representation that have gotten us into the mess we are experiencing and have experienced for decades. Clearly, though we disagree with the directions taken by those in positions which have created the developmental quagmire we are in, we would like to think that most of those in governing positions sincerely feel they are making a contribution towards maintaining, if not creating a better governing structure than any that have come before. We would like to think that they too want a better life for themselves, their families and the public... but they are deluded into thinking their strategy is best. But we neither share in their delusions nor illusions. It is disgusting to be presented with a government that seeks to answer our call for purposive change, by creating some societal foe (terrorism) requiring the implementation of another war or the establishment of another government office to give the impression of pro-activity instead of being but another step backwards; by going sideways with spit-shined shoes and pressed slacks carrying another officially designated three-lettered identification card.
The film is greatly welcomed to those of us sharing a similar venue of social interest. But we are dismayed as to how obscure it has remained from the public. However, the content needs to be re-tuned, restructured, and recorded with a wider lens... even though some effort in a generally serialized comprehensibility was attempted. A series of films need to be made so that they can be shown in classrooms during the requisite allotment of class time for different age groups. Many of those teaching young students about government no doubt believe they live in a Democracy... regardless of how erroneous we know this to be. Such instructors are not at all familiar with the views being espoused in the film, as well as privately shared communications, and will need to be taught how to teach the ideas of a new vision... or they will continue to teach our young the same falsehoods in order to perpetuate the many delusions and illusions we have come to see through.
Principally, this present review concerns the "Moving Forward" DVD selection, since the "Addendum" follow-up appears as an intentioned replication with a more definitive focus and increased presentation of ideas that contains an accentuation of the "Venus Project" ideology. In short, the "Zeitgeist addendum" is a prominent static repetition of the ideas conveyed in the "Moving Forward" presentation, with an effort to scintillate an objectified emphasis of aforementioned views. It does, however, provide some other information about insidious (U.S.) government tactics which foment exceptionally terrible circumstances for millions of people. Actors and their actions in the U.S. government's internal and external policies, can be so maliciously bad from time to time. Such people like playing out evil roles regardless of the consequences it has on the lives of millions.
To begin with, the viewer is initially presented with the idea of art being used for a purpose beyond the mere convention of aesthetics. For those not familiar with the word "Zeitgeist", it is regularly defined as "spirit of the time"— (or moment, era, etc...) though alternative uses and labeling abound, depending on one's imaginative inclinations. Nonetheless, in order to better grasp what the authors of the film may have been attempting to convey as a supportive realization with the production as both an art form and detailed signature of ideological explication, it might be of value to momentarily include an excerpt from a Britannica article on aesthetics:
Kant, Schiller, and Hegel
...Kant's "The Critique of Judgment" introduced the first full account of aesthetic experience as a distinct exercise of rational mentality. The principal ingredients of Kant's work are the following: the antinomy of taste, the emphasis on the free play of the imagination, the theory of aesthetic experience as both free from concepts and disinterested, the view that the central object of aesthetic interest is not art but nature, and the description of the moral and spiritual significance of aesthetic experience, which opens to us a transcendental point of view of the world of nature and enables us to see the world as purposive, but without purpose. In that perception, observes Kant, lies the deepest intimation of our nature and of our ultimate relation to a “supersensible” realm.
Schiller's "Briefe über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen" (1795; On the Aesthetic Education of Man), inspired by Kant, develops further the theory of the disinterested character of the aesthetic. Schiller argues that through this disinterested quality aesthetic experience becomes the true vehicle of moral and political education, providing human beings both with the self-identity that is their fulfillment and with the institutions that enable them to flourish: “What is man before beauty cajoles from him a delight in things for their own sake, or the serenity of form tempers the savagery of life? A monotonous round of ends, a constant vacillation of judgment; self-seeking, and yet without a self; lawless, yet without freedom; a slave, and yet to no rule.”
Schiller's "Briefe" exerted a profound influence on Hegel's philosophy in general and on his "Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik" in particular. In discussions of remarkable range and imaginative power, Hegel introduces the distinctively modern conception of art as a request for self-realization, an evolving discovery of forms that give sensuous embodiment to the spirit by articulating in concrete form its inner tensions and resolutions. For Hegel, the arts are arranged in both historical and intellectual sequence, from architecture (in which Geist [“spirit”] is only half articulate and given purely symbolic expression), through sculpture and painting, to music and thence to poetry, which is the true art of the Romantics. Finally, all art is destined to be superseded by philosophy, in which the spirit achieves final articulation as Idea. The stages of art were identified by Hegel with various stages of historical development. In each art form a particular Zeitgeist (i.e., spirit of the time) finds expression, and the necessary transition from one art form to its successor is part of a larger historical transformation in which all civilization is engaged.
The incidental discussions of Hegel's "Vorlesungen" introduce most of the themes of contemporary philosophy of art, though in the peculiar language of Hegelian Idealism. Nineteenth-century Idealist aesthetics can reasonably be described as a series of footnotes to Hegel, who was, however, less original than he pretended. Many of the individual thoughts and theories in his lectures on aesthetics were taken from the contemporary literature of German Romanticism (in particular, the writings of Herder, Jean Paul [pseudonym of Johann Paul Friedrich Richter] and Novalis) and from the works of German critics and art historians (notably G.E. Lessing and Johann Winckelmann) who had forged the link between modern conceptions of art and the art of antiquity. The influence of Hegel was, therefore, the influence of German Romanticism as a whole, and it is not surprising that the few who escaped it lost their audience in doing so.
Source: "Aesthetics." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
It should be noted that the addition of the prologue quote by the Anthropologist Margaret Mead near the beginning of the "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" film was not read with the respect and wisdom as the author(s) no doubt intended... since it is somewhat tarnished when it is recalled that some of the work Ms. Mead recorded involving comments of young Island girls in her (coming of age) studies, were later found to be flawed... after the girls learned to read, write and speak English. They were humored when they were later able to read her accounts of what they said— because they had told her what they thought she wanted to hear, and not that which was actual or factual. The pressures of the age in which Ms. Mead lived and worked must be taken into account when accessing her views. The addition of her quote did not do anything to assist in increasing the value of the information which followed. The information in the film(s) stood well on its own individual merits...
...And while we can appreciate the desire for the material to be available to a larger global audience made possible by offering multiple translations, what is being lost in the use of such translations is the attendant cultural sensitivities of content, context, and communication. Such a realization is readily acknowledged when English sub-titles are added to foreign films containing numerous mistakes because of a misunderstanding and misapprehension of cultural subtleties. Whereas many emotional contexts are readily made translatable via a collective empathy, this is not the case with intellectual content... which may have to go through various stages of re-translation— even to grasp the "gist" of what is said.
This movie leaves us with the impression of being targeted to those with a very elementary (rudimentary) understanding of Anthropology, Banking, Biology, Economics, History, Penology, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Social work, Sociology as well as bits and pieces of other subjects... plus those whose knowledge may be instructively more acute, but have not organized their reflective inclinations towards a sociologically-global application for improving the conditions of life. It is a perspective representing a montage of ideas based on selective social perceptions set into a start-to-finish fashion suggesting a cause and effect progression... and yet arrives at a suppositional conclusion based on a naive interpretation of what a responsible solution should entail. While it presents us with a propositional social architecture based on an altruistic formula of resource management (and distribution), the draft is a generality without a governing blueprint. In other words, what sort of government is then best to be used? We want to know the specifics. We can not rely on some sort of expected exceptional property to emerge as a consequence. We can not embrace a "build it and they will come" philosophy if the "they" are much the same as the "those" visionless idiots who have gravitated towards leadership positions because they have the necessary psycho-pathology for the time and place.
While the label "Corporatocracy" was portrayed and defined in the "Addendum" selection, the definition of what type of government the U.S. has— remains variously described... such as Oligarchy, Plutocracy, Plutocratic-Aristocracy, etc... We Revolutionists or Reformists as we might refer to ourselves, even though those advocating a retention of the status quo may view us as Idealists, Utopianists, Terrorists, Anarachists, or whatever suits their inclination for disparaging us; have not yet attained a consensus of what word best describes the government nonsense we are subjected to. But regardless of what one may use, it is a negligible digression in the larger discourse of our pursuits. However, it should be mentioned that the film stirred one observer to recall the old technocratic movement because of expressed similarities. An article from the Britannica on Technocracy may be of serviceable interest to some readers:
(A Technocracy is a) government by technicians who are guided solely by the imperatives of their technology. The concept developed in the United States early in the 20th century as an expression of the Progressive movement and became a subject of considerable public interest in the 1930s during the Great Depression. The origins of the Technocracy movement may be traced to Frederick W. Taylor's introduction of the concept of scientific management. Writers such as Henry L. Gannt, Thorstein Veblen, and Howard Scott suggested that businessmen were incapable of reforming their industries in the public interest and that control of industry should thus be given to engineers.
The much-publicized Committee on Technocracy, headed by Walter Rautenstrauch and dominated by Scott, was organized in 1932 in New York City. Scott proclaimed the invalidation, by technologically produced abundance, of all prior economic concepts based on scarcity; he predicted the imminent collapse of the price system and its replacement by a bountiful Technocracy. Scott's academic qualifications, however, were discredited in the press, some of the group's data were questioned, and there were disagreements among members regarding social policy. The committee broke up within a year and was succeeded by the Continental Committee on Technocracy, which faded by 1936, and Technocracy, Inc., headed by Scott. Technocratic organizations sprang up across the United States and western Canada, but the Technocracy movement was weakened by its failure to develop politically viable programs for change, and support was lost to the New Deal and third-party movements. There were also fears of authoritarian social engineering. Scott's organization declined after 1940 but still survived in the late 20th century.
Source: "Technocracy." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
In our collectively growing New Government (Cenocratic) dialogue, even though the film did not emphasize such a description, there was a need for the film to publicly address an expressed desire for non-violence, non-rioting, and having no discussions about precipitating a Revolution while at the same time detailing plans for an armed rebellion or coup... even though the ideas presented in the film are extremely violent and destructive to the equally violent and destructive status quo. In other words, it is of value to discuss the necessity for moving forward with a Revolution as a means for establishing a better societal governing direction, but do not publicly discuss such in an atmosphere that tries to implement references to the stock-piling of armaments or intentions for a specific target to be the recipient of aggression. We need to make this clear to both journalists and those in the government that have created a dossier on a movement that is gaining ground... though it is well known that security agencies typically fail to recognize the beginnings of an historical event which is raging beneath a perceived (relatively speaking) "social calm". Explicitly stated, a non-violent approach to societal improvement is desired, but we will not shirk our responsibility if we need to assert ourselves aggressively.
The film should have addressed the need to avoid setting ourselves up for committing such actions that our against the law, and could be used against us, even though many of us are cognizant of the fact that we are headed towards a confrontation. Throwing money into a pile is not a pacifist practice since such a situation would create untold dire social problems... because the film did not provide the blueprint for a smooth changing-of-the-guard ideology. Throwing money into a pile is reminiscent of the government's own wasteful spending habits. It is like throwing money away... or good money after bad. Simply stopping to participate in a widespread social function (such as using money), will not automatically create a wave of alternative change for the better. Transporting a population from one reality to another will take time, particularly if the infra-structure outlined in the film is to be implemented. The day-to-day aches, pains and needs of people will not go away as if subjected to a binary switching mode. Though throwing money into a pile can be perceived as a symbolic gesture for getting the public to collectively address the need for excusing themselves from participating in a system of nonsense; far too many people will not interpret the situation as a symbol... they will take it literally. There are a lot of simple-minded people in the public domain just as there are in authoritative positions.
While the film did show a laudable futuristic picture, it did not provide the numbered dots for a majority who neither think nor practice an artistic perspective as outlined. Many people are incapable of the desired and necessary visualization required to grasp the beauty of the message intended for all the world's peoples. They can neither visualize all the present nonsensical social policies we are subjected to nor visualize a path towards a better future by way of an action which suggests to them the loss of a means they have learned is a vital necessity of life in the way we presently live. It would be extremely troublesome to expect an entire population to give up a symbol of livelihood that they are addicted to... but nonetheless asked to sacrifice for some ideal they can not touch nor see... but must experience the very real effects of what amounts to as a cold turkey withdrawal (in other words: a total abstinence from using money and those institutions which control this bartering and exchange tool).
Many people are unable to see the future that is portrayed in the film. They see only a film made up of images and sound which do not translate into a recognizable social portraiture of obtainability available to them. They might not even discuss it with anyone and thereby not participate in a word-of-mouth telegraphing service that is needed for the establishment of pursuing a dream to become a reality. It appears that most people do not like to engage in the initial push or pull of a snow sled, but they will readily jump aboard once it is in motion.
In other words, for example, if we were to place a troop of actor/actress monkeys in a complex environmental setting, an audience of monkeys will not recognize the merits of the environment that the monkeys are in. Both sets of monkeys have an internalized means of interpreting any and all environments in very general ways, though one environment may be richer in resources than another. Far too many view and treat resources in the manner that the DoDo bird was. (Used it to extinction.) The audience of monkeys will be mostly consumed by the antics and activities of the actor/actress monkeys themselves. Their perception of the world is particularly simplistic. The portrayed environment remains fictional and is not seen as a real-live actor worthy of extended discussion.) Many, many, many people need to have their hands held when facing an unknown which invites feelings of uncertainty. This is why such programs as soap-operas, cartoons, game shows and serialized ideations (fantasies) have large viewer ratings... because they do not present viewers with situations which require a level of in-depth thinking that might create consternation that causes red flags of danger to be hoisted up the flag pole of internalized social mores. In some instances, the theme song of a television show is more recognizable than those aligned with a serious social practice (such as a national anthem).
Some sort of presently devised bartering system needs to remain so that it can be replaced by a system which eventually permits money to be replaced by a diplomatic consensus on behalf of everyone. Giving money back to the "State", no matter how it is defined, is similar to the notion of giving Caesar back the coinage stamped with his image on it. Money, like medicine and a myriad assortment of other artificialities, are only as useful and non-evil as those who are in possession thereof. Most people would gladly sacrifice their money, time, and effort if this was the rule-of-thumb being practiced for a sincere cause or as an adopted belief by the majority. Money is not inherently evil or copies of the Zeitgeist movie(s) would be freely given away and not bartered out. Money is required to fund the production and resulting efforts to get its information out, because that is the reality under which we presently live... despite any and all antagonisms which may be levied against such a system. Yet, the message being provided falls short of representing the reality that those of us who share in the desire for establishing an improved lifestyle... byway of adopting a new form of governance (a Cenocracy)... all too clearly realize we are at the fore-front of a Revolution. We are fully cognizant that Revolutions take time to mature, that serendipity frequently lends a hand in developing historical scenarios (even if by way of a comedy of errors), and that it keeps its own time, temperament and daily planner.
If the Zeitgeist film happens to evolve into a visible social movement that threatens the status quo, those advocating change because of the film may no doubt be referred to as Zeitgeist Terrorists. Humorously noted, just like the youthful generation of blacks who have adopted the word "nigger" as a sign of affection amongst one another, the Zeitgeist "terrorists" can do the same. We can tap knuckles together and say "Hey my Terrorist" followed by a head nod of deference to one another. We could even develop our own rap "song" and dance routine as an attempt to portray some "wannabe" (want to be) sophistication, or instead choose to wear some symbol of "terrorist gang" affiliation. All of our correspondence could contain the word "terrorist" as a reference to ourselves, and the espoused ideas as Zeitgeist "terrorism". Instead of giving all the money back, let's give "them" back the word they like to use as an excuse to conduct all sorts of untoward activities around the world. Instead of the government being able to use the word "terrorism" and "terrorist" to fulfill various illegal motivations, we should use it to fulfill lawful Zeitgeist motivations. After awhile, the government will no doubt instigate some other ghostly tale and use an "officially" described and journalistically sanctioned newly devised "public enemy number 1" label to meet the requirement for carrying out its nefarious deeds. The government is a repository of ghost stories and attempted myth-creation obfuscations. It snacks on Urban Legends when trying to think up a new name to be used for blaming someone or something for forcing it to carry out destructive deeds.
While the authors are no doubt sincere in their desire to address a multitude of globally occurring concerns, the initial introduction beginning with Biology instead of planetary and geological science promoted unwarranted stepwise interpretations and suggested conclusions... though... again, the presented ideas can readily be seen as an attempt at developing a global discussion... so long as the proceeds from movie sales go directly to this end. Indeed, the positions, lifestyles and incomes of the speakers are part of the equation in determining the ambient factuality of content dismissed of ulterior motives. This is because ulterior motives abound... even in the most sincerest of intentions.
The film does not adequately address the reality that those presently in charge of perpetuating the status quo will neither change their inclinations or go away quietly. They will use whatever means they can, make any under-handed deals that they deem necessary, in order to undermine efforts for creating beneficial change for the whole of humanity... if they can not serve out some position on an elitist societal rung and have access to entitlements they think they are deserving of... no matter who or how many must play the part of some sacrificial lamb. Many people are cognizant of this and feel that preparations for the possibility of an eventual head-to-head confrontation need to be addressed. Preparations for a Revolution can be made as an intellectual exercise— without discussing armamentation, since to do so might well invite government legal action. Acquiring explosives, various projectile weapons, computer 'disrupters', and articles for protracted embattlements are easy enough to acquire at a moment's notice. There are many who have already begun to stockpile the necessary goods needed for carrying out a revolution, should it turn into a bloody and destructive confrontation... but only after we have submitted an Article of Proposed Revolution— if those in authority do not heed our -in preparation- requests for developing a Cenocracy.
It is a violent and vicious breed of animal that our Zeitgeistly-Cenocratic ideas are focused against. Additionally, we also need to be fully aware that if those in charge of the present status quo reality feel they are losing control, they may well play out the role of Hitler and want to burn everything to the ground. In short, they will be sore and spiteful losers who see their wealth and power as indications of harboring a speciality of purpose... instead of seeing it as we do: a mediocrity embellished by socio-pathically tempered avarice. We must prepare ourselves for such a possibility, and be in a position to forestall their efforts... because they will not care who gets hurt, killed, or what gets destroyed. If they can't have it, then they want no one to have it— and have no qualms about undermining our efforts directed at undermining theirs. No doubt, we may even be labeled as terrorists, as anti-democratic propagandists, even though they themselves are the terrorists and do not practice an Actual Democracy. They are a filthy, disgusting lying breed of carnivorous beast-of-prey whose malicious deeds are best carried out under the cloak of some dark social circumstance they have participated in creating.
But the practice of an Actual Democracy, a point that the film does not mention, needs to be interviewed with the realization that the implementation of such may well produce a condition similar to a person winning a large lottery. It is a circumstance that will no doubt have wide-spread profound effects... and that some people may experience dire results from. Whereas tales are told of those whose lottery winnings have created many problems which cause them to decry ever having won the lottery, others will no doubt prosper well under the social conditions of an Actual Democracy. Giving a Nation the practice of an Actual Democracy may well be like giving everyone a vast wealth they are not prepared to handle well. We must have a social mechanism in place which provides the necessary support, or introduce the practice of an Actual Democracy in a graduated scale... like that when one advances due to experience and education. However, it is a scale that must be designed by the public and remain under the public's direct control, and not some stupid "Representative" model used to conceal the control of the many by a few.
In addressing the notion of "Obsolescence" in terms of resources and social structures, it is of necessity to mention that all of biology is inherently marked for obsolescence. Making long-enduring goods and services instead of throw-away items may sound good, and may give the impression of being a logical solution to a given resource issue... but the fact remains that humans die... and so may the entire human civilization... if evolutionary theory is taken into a broader holistic account; since we are dealing with a philosophical and mathematical issue based on conclusions reached by a given set of criteria.
No less, just as our biology is headed for obsolescence, the Sun is headed for a burnout and the Earths' rotation is slowing down. Such planetary and geological facts are well known... and yet for all the studies done on biology and sociology, the incremental effects of these events are not taken into account as to the adaptive requirements we have... and should be incorporated into any sociological ideology promoting sustainability, be it specifically entitled "resource" or otherwise. In short, all life forms, many of which make up our resources, are forced to adapt to a decaying environment. It is a decay brought about by the natural changes taking place in the galaxy and solar system, and not those being imposed on us by the destructions carried out in pursuit of Capitalistic inclinations. Hence, our lifestyle, whatever it may be called or designed after— with whatever rationalizations we apply; are following a trend along a similar course of destruction because we are adaptive organisms. Our ideas, our beliefs, are rationalizations developed as a mechanism for establishing a relative balance in an incrementally decaying environment. All too often that which is defined as "progress" is little more than an act of accommodating an incrementally increasing state of decay, like a re-footing or re-griping of the reality presented to us by conditions of decay we are unobservant of, but must nonetheless adapt biologically and psychologically to.
...Hence, any desired change in governance and our social philosophy must include the necessity of directing efforts towards removing the human species from the degrading effects of the planet, solar system, and galaxy. These cosmological effects have nothing to do with human behavior in terms of environmental destruction. In other words, the behavior of humanity did not create the conditions causing the trend of ultimate solar system decay. This was set into motion long before life on this planet came into existence. They are a process of inheritance directed towards obsolescence. There is no present genetic program written into humanity's DNA which guarantees the species is meant to exist forever. We must strive to increase our viability by removing ourselves from an environment marked for obsolescence... or we will incrementally adapt ourselves accordingly, and find ourselves faced with an inevitable extinction. Such a realization must underline the fact that all histories (biological, social, economic, scientific, religious, music, art, planetary, etc.) have no value if we do not remove the species from its present path of obsolescence.
It is extremely naive of us humans to not consider the possibility that extinction is written into our collective DNA just as the inevitability of death appears to be an absolute for each of us individually. Death of the individual may be a microcosmic representation of a much larger macrocosmic inevitability that we have not as yet developed a working philosophy for removing ourselves from this cyclic event. Either by accident (plague, asteroid, etc.) or design, the extinction of our species may be little more than a biological certainty so long as we remain tethered to an environment headed towards decay. Developing a new type of society and/or a new formula of governance is a fool-hardy gesture if we do not adequately address the circumstances of decay of the species in a decaying environment.
There must be a concerted social effort, and not some ridiculous NASA (or elsewhere equivalent) program, to get humanity to build a society away from the effects of the planet Earth, the solar system, and the Milky Way galaxy. If we leave the exploration and habitation of space to NASA and its counter-parts in other countries, only those in control of the resources will be provided the option of getting off the planet as its demise increases the degradation of effects on human birth, development and living standards. Humanity must cut the umbilical cord to Mother Earth. This "mommy" Earth of humanity will not live for eternity. It is dying, and will continue to do so. Death of the planet Earth, the solar system and the galaxy, are inevitable. That death is occurring right before our eyes and its effects cause us to make incremental adjustments in our biology and mentality in attempts to sustain a level of equilibrium in accord with the conditions we are being presented with. In other words, we are being forced to make the best of circumstances headed for obsolescence. It is rather naive to think of creating a better life for humanity and other life forms in an environmental situation targeted for complete obsolescence. The degradation of our societies, of our species, is due to the fact that we are being forced to live in a global environment that is decaying on a planetary, solar system, and galactic scale. Human businesses, governments and religions of today are short-sighted philosophies that want humanity to forever cling to the apron strings of this planet, even as the apron and its strings are being buried in the dust of decay. It is past time for humanity to practice its exploratory independence beyond the stupid philosophy adopted by NASA and government advocates; because of budgetary constraints that mimic the government's constraint against citizen participation in an effort that rightly belongs to all of us and not just our tax contributions.
If we do not develop a government philosophy which identifies itself, its subject society and all of humanity as temporary conditions existing in a decaying environment, regardless of what concerted inter-national effort is exercised to curtail environmental destructions; and do not employ collaborative developments of removing life from this decaying situation... our computers will have to be enabled to sustain some part of human consciousness (if for no other reason than as a footnote of an evolutionary history with a dead end). Our Artificial Intelligence units will have to be built with the means of getting off the planet and away from this solar system as well as this galaxy... but also how to initiate the creation of biological life elsewhere, with a type of intelligence that does not involve the idiocy humanity is portraying at this juncture in its history of temporary activity... commensurate with a geological and planetary time-line of decay.
A philosophy that does not include the insistence of directing humanity to leave the overall decaying environment and its decadent effects which encourage one philosophical addiction of rationalization after the other, is simplistic childishness. In short, it is rather stupid to encourage humanity to develop a social philosophy supporting an altruistic endeavour suggesting sustainability and growth, when the very environment where such is to be practiced... is decaying as a natural process of galactic, solar system, and planetary/geological evolution. This is little different than encouraging humanity to develop a modern civilization on the precipice of a cliff... yet hide the existence of the cliff's position in legal small print and expect everyone to sign an agreement after they have been intoxicated by business, political and religious nonsense... each sporting their own advertising forms. We can not let the philosophy of NASA, its counter-parts in other countries, or the prevailing business, political and religious philosophies to continue directing our behavior according to their self-serving interests. Their views oppress us from the freedom necessitating a departure from a planet headed for extinction. We need a new form of governance which will free us from the chains of such ignorance.
The philosophy of the New Government must entail a widely known and easily understood realization that any and all social structures developed on Earth are intended as a short-term means to reach the goal of removing the populace off the planet. Humanity must somehow reconstitute the itinerate perspective which enabled it to move away from its earlier primate origins which subsisted on a diet of territorial claim. Ideas which promote the Earth as belonging to the species of humanity we have involved into, and requires the responsibility of a stewardship land owner, need to be replaced with a respectful regard of being a short-term tenant and guest. We must strive to remove the species, and all species of plants, insects and animals we can, from the ravages of decadence being presented to us by the larger planetary 'social' circumstances. No business, no government and no religion... nor individuals there-in, can be provided with a "living will" which emphatically states its existence is unquestionably necessary; and must therefore be sustained at any cost, no matter if its executive leaders are repressive, sadistic, corrupt, corruptible, or engage in nefarious deeds that would otherwise cause a so-called "normal" person to be imprisoned, executed, or put out of their misery by way of some government designed "accident". There is no promised land nor promised people, if such land and people are to be incrementally sacrificed because a government philosophy can not see beyond its own greedy self and short-term interests without taking the long term effects of the planet's heading, into account.
Is it of need to Review general planetary events which affect biological behavior, even though they were not included in the film... but should have been, along with the short discussions involving developmental parameters:
Such cosmological events are not items that might be dismissed while being introduced to a subjective interpretation and discussion involving some personalized Astrology. Just because humanity (and more-so less complex organisms) are on the diminutive side of the effects changing along paths governed by light speeds at far distances, does not mean humanity is not being affected. Our biology makes incremental adjustments even though we can not consciously perceive such on macro scales, (even with the help of as yet non-existing equipment designed with the necessary sensitivity). Our physiology is adjusting its environmental calibrations like an internalized gyroscope faced with contouring its orientation tweaked to the settings of an era-specific equilibrium; in order to maintain a given "field of vision" such as the status quo of a business, social order or religion. The problem is, that because our body and our subsequent mental state are "tweaked" by a degree defined as minuscule or insignificant, we do not realize we are like a fish that has been hooked... but is being permitted to swim away under the illusion of freedom and liberty... and do not realize we are being slowly reeled in, because our energy resources are being depleted in activity that is neither productive nor sustainable due to the eventual planetary and solar system demise being "orchestrated" beyond our control (and not necessarily under the direction of some "Intelligent Conductor").
Metaphorically speaking, while some would argue that such cosmological effects are small, they are nonetheless cumulative and cause "addictions" (such as traditions and rationalizations) in our thinking, as part of adjusting our biological rhythms thereto. Traditions and an established status quo thus become externalized representations of biological rhythms in an attempt to establish some semblance of permanence in a flux of change. And like a sailor whose adaptation is the requisite acquisition of "sea legs" which are automated gyrostatic mechanisms of balance; such an adaptation becomes overlooked and is not recognized as a real phenomenon until one attempts to walk about on land. Being on land requires the adaptation of "land legs" which are frequently substituted with emotional and psychological variations that become easily overlooked by those whose intellectual sensitivities and sensibilities become calloused and obscured by activities amongst a population that defines its behavior as normal and therefore natural. Regaining objectivity requires a difference in emotional and/or intellectual and/or physical settings in order to be recognized after an experienced period of "jet lag" where senses are put into a type of short-term hibernation. A re-balancing act then ensues and may cause moments of exhilaration, exuberance and euphoria, because one takes in a different emotional and/or intellectual and/or physiological vista. A new setting may create the need for establishing a new formula... a new approach... a new design of balance that opens up a door for additional appreciations, possibilities and rewards.
For example, the developmental usage of a twin-hull craft called a catamaran was found to have advantages over the traditional usage of a single hulled craft known as a canoe.
As a variation of the two-hull design, no doubt the usage of a single outrigger on canoes provided extra stability as well, though the application of two parallel small hulls might be interpreted as out-riggings.
However, needless to say, the development of a canoe provided an excellent means of transport for many years before the advent of larger versions leading into the development of boats and then ships... and must be placed into the context of admiration for its ingenuity of design, scarcity of materials and required tool development. While superior materials today assist in transport, durability and water-way handling, canoes require users to assume some measure of balancing act, just like riding bicycles, driving a car, and multiple other activities such as cooking, sewing, artwork, playing cards, checkers, chess or simply walking. The two-hull version not only offers a point of greater balance, it is faster and permits connecting the two by a platform which provides added space and physical accommodations. It proved to be so fast that its usage was not permitted in races where others used a single-hull design. It had to compete solely with other catamarans.
Like a catamaran with two outboard parallel hulls, external practices of internal biological rhythms act as a method of increased buoyancy in an unrealized turbulent sea of cosmologically-related decays. A binary-based computer coding is another, and the presumed predominance of binary star systems may relate to a balancing act that our present human understanding of external space beyond the shores of Earth has not yet learned to grasp the reality of a larger Universal circumference; because our present notions are akin to a flat Earth hypothesis using terms and mathematical indices which conceal present science formulated superstitions held within religious-fashioned test tubes and petri dishes. However, it is important to note the many expressions of "three-based" balancing methods are also used (amongst other numerically-assignable configurations), such as the triplet coding system in DNA and RNA, the trio in atoms (electrons- neutrons- protons), the Earth is the 3rd planet from a source of solar energy, and the multiple logic triples such as Major premise- Minor premise- Conclusion, Yin-Unity-Yang, And/Or/Not gates, Red-Yellow-Green (stop lights)— as well as the customary holding of pens and pencils with three fingers... etc., etc., etc... See the following pages for variations of the "Threes phenomena":
Creatures of habit that we are, we need to import (through adopted modes of social/cultural export) the necessary adjustment which permits us to break any habit that has (non-balancing) deleterious effects; such as that we are now experiencing on a global scale, though past alterations in government formulas were thought to be the requisite answer to preventing such abusiveness. Our bodies and minds are being molded to adopt certain effects in order to sustain a relative equilibrium that fabricates rationalizations— like trying to adapt our situation to the diminishing presence of some flotsam left over by a sinking ocean liner; and adopting a philosophy best suited for the circumstances at hand (such as either being in a life raft, floating by way of a life vest or wearing a life preserver) while calling it rational... even though the behavior leading up to the incident was a comedic mismanagement thriving on the irrational. In other words, if one is on a life raft they will develop one type of self-governing perspective. Yet if they are floating by way of a life vest or life preserver (or perhaps some debris), they will develop a perspective according to the reality of their situation.
Humans all too often call the implementation of an idea or practice which has superseded an undesirable situation; that which is labeled rational, logical and good... only to find it too is but another irrationality to be identified at a later date... though it was the best guess in some former era. This is where humanity is today. The embraced ideas of yesterday have, in many instances, become unseen pools of quicksand today. And though some are called superstitions, wives' tales, or malarky, they were nonetheless thought at one time to be truth.
As a beginning end note, we do not want to imply that the movie(s) are without merit. On the contrary. Those of us seeking a better life for the whole of humanity (and fellow life forms) are sincerely grateful for the efforts put into the production and the ideas being espoused. But there is too much repetition and the expanse of needed considerations fall short of a desired ideal. Nonetheless, it provides the semblance of a foundation for a much needed larger effort from alternative perspectives that would provide a broader insight to other issues which need to be addressed and comprehensively denoted as a necessity... thus involving the situation which will prevail as we continue to move forward against the status quo who will want to impede our intellectual march as it begins taking-on actual physical dimensions. Some refer to this as a forthcoming Revolution involving sharpened quills that can be used for arrows, spears and spikes taking on the function of a modernized halberd. For some, the notion that violence never solves anything is a childish interpretation of history. Since it is well-known that every form of business, political and religious governance today is a position acquired by some sort of violence... be it physical, financial or philosophical. If violence did not serve some purpose, than no government in the world would use it, because it is extremely costly.
Despite the open-armed welcoming we extend to the producers, cast and promoters of the film, our view necessarily contends that the movies "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" is Moving Sideways and the "Zeitgeist Addendum" only provided an additional footing of its previous position. It rightfully presents an examination (albeit rather truncated); regarding some of the steps humanity has taken backwards, though social leaders and others may call it progress... because the efforts take place on the other side of the same hill that is all too often overlooked by historians and journalists. Nonetheless, the film is trying to show viewers a bird's eye view of the human landscape so that it may better grasp the whole of our social-global setting and bring everyone to a consensus so that a productive concerted effort might ensue. Unfortunately, even the view of a high-flying migratory bird leaves us a little short-sighted. A film is needed which transgresses even this height... attached with the necessary means of focusing attention by way of a concerted explanation using both analog (generalized analogy) and digital (specialized analogical) representations. However, the material and ideas are in some ways rather dated (old fashioned) because they are entrenched with the prevailing political preoccupations that assist in keeping us bogged down.
A film addressing a broader philosophy with an encapsulated orientation of action is needed, and will no doubt subsequently produce a great deal of controversy because it addresses an organizational formula involving a revolution that appears to be a necessity in order for the desired transformations to take place. And though it is not commented on, there exists a silent one-upmanship contest taking place amongst the world's Revolutionists with respect to the promotion of their views... even though many might claim otherwise and say that we are all taking different roads directed towards a similar destination... and is the same comment used by those taking stock of the similarities seen in all religions... yet their disagreements precipitate continued conflicts and world-wide misery.
In short, the Zeitgeist film is a 20th century perspective that needs to be replaced with a 23rd century relativity. Cenocracy.org in conjunction with others, could do a better film making job if we had the financial wherewithal. However, there would have to be an open atmosphere of accepted latitude when selecting the director(s), writers, actors, actresses, and in short, the whole of the production. We could make a theatrical production that would (figuratively) kick our social leaders in the shins, punch them in the stomach, and slap them in the face... or if necessary, (hot) tar and feather them, wring their necks, slit their throats, or put a bullet in their heads... all of which would be to whittle away at their resources (with a guillotine). We've had enough of the various pussy-footing specious social philosophies being espoused. The Zeitgeist film is for intellectual (male) dandies and (female) dainties. Whereas many are familiar with the expression that the pen is mightier than the sword, this is only true so long as you're not using invisible ink or some cryptic codification as the Zeitgeist film employs from an artistic vantage point.
One of the Revolutionary films to be made is how a Cenocracy (New Government), however it may be called, would actually function. Perhaps we should call the film "The Zeitgeist Cenocracy" (A New Government for the Spirit of the Time). But there are several films that need to be made concerning various issues all involving the requirement for a New Government. We don't want to simply talk about adopting a New Government or participate in some business, government and religion-orchestrated diversion such as permitting some government-sponsored committee "to determine the public's need for a government"... or some other spurious rubric to be used in order for the government to provide a grant to a few friends and colleagues whose committee action is supposed to give the impression of doing something but they actually accomplish little more than wasting time.
Speaking with a Utopianist or New Age ideology is fine (even if one denies such labels as an accurate description), but the people need to know how their government is going to function with respect to current issue-events, and not as a narrative inserted as part of a historical chronology formulated by way of truncated data explicitly reserved for a given point of discussion involving an intellectual departure to prove a point that has undergone only a minimal public review process. In other words, the people need to know how such an idealist world of purposed infrastructure might be reached, or whether the proposal falls far short of the achievable once the creative spirit and industry of the public is unleashed by a form of governance which unfetters them. If we permit the present government to create policies of creative expression guided by the sensibilities of a status quo that has learned how to navigate the sewer-ways produced by an oppressive socialized politicalization ludicrously calling itself a democracy; then we participate in a New Slavery contoured to the economic dictates of this age.
The adoption of a Cenocratic perspective, if not a full-blown Cenocracy... might well provide the necessary social insight that The Venus Project is not the ultimate goal to be sought after, but is a mere ideological stepping stone along a funneled path humanity's stride has been obstructively detoured in concert with— in order that the people may be better ambushed by so many self-centered businesses, governments and religions... all of whom attempt to advocate their own version of "we-ness" to give the impression of being a needed social viability. Such institutions would not like it if they woke up one morning and were publicly subjected to the same selfishness and greed they are permitted to indulge in against the people... And they would not like it if their practiced fantasies just happened to burst by being pricked under the pressure of spearheads wielded by a New Government social philosophy which treats them as the vermin they are and eradicates them for the good of humanity. It's time humanity got past the filthy obstacles by way of a Cenocracy.
The words "city", "town", "state", etc., are ideological concepts that humans made up. Too many of us incline ourselves to adopting them as necessities represented by a given structural practice. Humanity has got to think differently... outside the influences of an environment whose decay is forcing us to comply biologically, physicologically, emotionally and intellectually. Incremental effects over large expanses of time increases the propensity for habitual creatures to accept habits as truth without a viable alternative. Let us reemphacise: The Venus Project is not the ultimate goal to be sought after, but is a mere ideological stepping stone.
The films we need to create will permit a means by which philosophically-based thought experiments would be taken off mental chalk boards and placed into a similitude of applied practicality, in order to give non-visual people a means to see ideas put into a socialized application. The movies must strive to remove ambiguity, prevarication and generalized superficiality from the introduction of a Cenocratic approach. It is a view that quickly apprehends the similarity with the presented image of the Venus Project as a modern day adaptation of some ancient Stonehenge cosmology and philosophy, as if it offers us an incomparable age-old wisdom concealed in a presumed library of time-forgotten simplicity, and is of great need for currently mangled social conditions that needs to regain some Earth-instructive centrality of purposive orientation that humanity needs to re-orient itself to in order to achieve some imagined "oneness" with the nature and nurturance of the environment.
For example (denoted as being modifiable):
Such a film is long overdue... but the subject matter must be approached from the vantage point of an instructor whose different class sessions must be taught according to the elements being indicated by the overall class personality and its individual student characteristics. In other words, effective teachers are more instructive if material is structured in accord with the dynamics of a given assemblage of students. However, it is not that there aren't scores of unknown excellent actors, actresses, writers and numerous others who would gladly participate in making a film against the ridiculous form of governance we are now forced to endure, it's just that all of us haven't found anyone with the necessary form of Zeitgiest innative to finance such a film... in order to instigate the desperately needed revolution of transferring ideology into actuality.
The talent of this nation in multiple avenues of human endeavour is going to waste because those who have the means of funding, lack the vision of trial and error adventurism, just like the government lacks the vision of self-improvement by not giving the public a chance to solve its own social issues without being chained to governing policies that are part of the problem. The government is standing at the gates of liberty and actual freedom and won't let the people get past... like a king who has lifted the drawbridge and refuses to fairly redistribute the wealth of the kingdom that the people themselves were forced to provide... but not be able to equally enjoy. This is why the people are speaking of a Revolution.
Neither Hollywood nor Bollywood, as well as numerous other production companies... appear to have the courage to do such a film without incorporating their own many-flavored back-scratching voyeurisms, vulgarity and vapid narcissistic inebriations running rampant in motion pictures... particularly those made from the perspective of the British indulgences in pornographic inclinations and mis-managed anger that are more in tune with bestiality or some socio-pathology, than any semblance of sophisticated sensibility and sensitivity. Their usage of "production sexualty" is not artistic creativity, it is the abandonment of the creative license for lawless lust born from a culture whose inhibitions are being eroded by a wide-spread cultural acceptance of socially practiced alcohol-induced mental degradation... now stupidly being accepted by segments in many other cultures. Such forms of artistic expression are little more than the scribblings of 3-year-old children (at the level of adult chimpanzees) never before having held crayons, colored pencils, markers or paint brushes. With little artistic vision, they attempt to excuse themselves with overly-employed emotive indulgences catering to sadomasochistic meanderings attempting to find a projected means of expression so that a resolution for their mental illness might be found... and thus having created a false-hope social syndrome phenomena having followed after the enterprise of a self-help literary genre.
The formation of a Cenocratic Production Company, if funded properly, can instigate wide-spread discussions and directive application of individual energies towards the development of a new form of government so desperately needed. The making of movies with this in mind is one approach, others involve purposive protests with strategies which trespass traditionalized normative efforts that have little expressive results. We can show different approaches towards conducting such a revolution and the possible responses of those in social leadership positions (who may resort to the old standby of policing interdictions, or more subtle approaches such as involving internalized instigations of rift in order to conquer by way of division, creating falsified illegalities so as to stir negative public opinion... as well as the reactions of the general public provoked into some otherwise dormant pseudo-patriotism protecting freedoms under the currently practiced false democracy. All the while our intent is to promote the design of a Cenocracy... as an equation with adaptive variables, or as a conglomeration of serendipitous events. Because the time, place and manner of Revolution is indeed a difficult aura of the collective social karma to predict. Sometimes it is explosive, and at other times it solicitates vibrations, oscillations, or echos that become focused like divergent sources of energy passing through a prism and exiting as a single entity.
Some readers may be interested in a comment attributed to Noam Chomsky about the Zeitgeist and Venus Project movies:
Noam Chomsky on Zeitgeist & Venus Project
“I don’t regard The zeitgeist Movement as an activist movement. Rather, it seems to me to be a very passive movement that is misled by doctrines that have a pleasant sound, but collapse on analysis. Among them is the idea that we should “stop supporting the system” and should not “fight it,” that is seek to change and overcome it. That means that we should withdraw into passivity. Nothing could be more welcome to those with power. My feeling is that however sincere the leaders and participants may be, the movement is seriously misguided. It is not leading towards change, but is undermining it by encouraging passivity and withdrawal from engagement, and offering a false sense that some real alternative is being proposed, except in terms so abstract and divorced from reality as to be virtually meaningless.” Noam Chomsky  (Retrieved via google item: "Zeitgeist is a mind heist – venus project is a scam?")