Goolash Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Hello, I think I had a very interesting email exchange with my brother and father which started on with a Fed/Rothchild comment from my dad. Knowing my dad supports the venus project also called the zeitgeist movement which is where he gets all this no money society stuff, I thought I'd try to show him his error and get him to change his mind. Religion also came up and I'm a recent atheist convert where my entire family is Catholic except for my brother who is also an atheist but leans on the realativist side of things. I think this has some entertaining value though kind of long winded. It may have some educational value on what may have worked on talking to them and what may have been a bad idea. I welcome feedback on my approach and what you think of my family, maybe I'm missing something here or maybe they just haven't spent the time to really educate themselves so its pointless to converse about this until do. Thanks, Paul From: Dad Are you familiar with Fractional Reserve Banking and how it came about? If you are then you will understand my question and if you are not you should take the time to learn about it. My question is this, why doesn't anyone in the media talk about this? I've heard Ron Paul talk about the evils of it but it occurred to me recently that I've never heard Rush Limbaugh or Hannity or for that matter ANY Republican or Democrat politician ever mention it. Could it be that they are afraid? Also, I mentioned a while back my belief that we, as in the United States, was still under the control of the bankers that we fought to free our selves from in the Revolutionary war. I believe there is a single family that has controlled the world as if it were their own empire for several centuries. If you doubt this, do some research on the Rothschild family. They are by far the richest family in the world with an estimated wealth of $100 trillion. They have had there hands in everything for centuries, including profiting greatly by supporting both sides of major wars. I encourage you to do your own research. From: Me I know about fractional reserve banking, cant recall exactly how it came about, but probably somewhere around the beginning of the fed i would guess, and I watched a few videos about the Rothschild's, its very interesting. The answer to your question of why doesn't anyone talk about it is very simple, it doesn't serve their interest. I think you are underestimating the level of corruption of the politicians, and I mean like all politicians. Republicans, democrats, talk show host, media, all have interest they serve and none of them would gain anything from trying to take on fractional reserve banking, the fed or any of the fundamental things that are wrong with this system. When Ron Paul addressed congress he spoke to a bunch of people who rolled their eyes and probably laughed inside because of how pathetic his attempt was. Politicians get to be candidates because they make promises to companies that if they get elected they will do this or that that will help the company in return for campaign funds. Once they are in office they continue along the same road. Look at Paul Ryan and his budget cut proposal, not a single dime from the military where he obviously gets his money from. The purpose of government is to steal from its citizens while pretending to serve them, the Rothchilds could of never got away with what they have done without using governments. Politicians are really good at projecting they are good people and there to serve you but they all only serve their own interest and their constituents interest. They're vultures looking for any needs we may have to dingle in front of us for votes but never follow through. The media was a little more difficult to get control over but now that they have control there is not a chance they will break rank. Wish I could remember the podcast where he talks about that, its somewhere here http://emergingrenaissance.wordpress.com/best-of-freedomain-radio/ If you got some time I suggest starting at 1 and going through, I'm currently up to 1105. From: Dad The question was actually rhetorical in nature. Another piece of information you won't find in any history books is that every president or government official that has openly opposed the fractional reserve banking system has either been publicly vilified or assassinated. We shouldn't be surprised that greedy power hungry bankers have persisted in trying to continually gain more and more wealth and power. That's what they do. We should expect no less. What is disturbing to me is the means by which they could obtain this power was never completely removed. It mattered not that over the centuries a few brave souls were willing to step up and point out what was taking place. The governments and much of the public new what was happening and yet time after time these people were allowed to come back and try again. Now it is to the point where removing them would probably require the death of not only our nation but society as we know it. Like cutting off your head to get rid of brain cancer. In this case the cancer has taken over the brain and is certainly not going to make the decision to remove itself no matter how unhealthy it makes the rest of the body. Besides, as long as we are on any kind of monetary system, whether it is the gold standard, green backs or what ever, they still have more than anyone else so you haven't solved the problem. By the way, in 1933 all US citizens were required to sell their gold to the government for $20.67/ounce and the gold was then moved to Fort Knox. It has been said that all the gold has been removed from Fort Knox and given to the share holders of the Federal Reserve Bank as collateral on the US debt, i.e., the Rothschild's and there partners in crime. If this is true, it is the biggest scam in human history. From: Me Well yeah once the bankers are embedded in the system they are not going to allow power to be relieved. America escaped the bankers with the revolutionary war and were able to keep them out until the federal reserve was made. After that america is now controlled by the bankers and nothing can relieve that power except a highly educated public which takes generations to grow. Its amazing that back then they couldnt prevent it with how knowledgeable everyone was. The public was highly educated and went to war over a 2% tax. They despised large government and knew the importance of liberty. Now we have a public educated by the government where they dont teach economics or values or anything, and that includes private schools because they are regulated as well by requiring certain curriculum for higher education. At first you still had those of the previous system teaching the young so the population was still able to be highly productive when they grew up, but each succeeding generation you get more and more ignorance in the general public where now the population is more ignorant than ever. The upside is that we have new tools that no one in history has had so there is still hope that it can turn around, but these tools can be taken away. And just as we look back and say why didnt they free themselves 100-200 years ago when the state was a fraction of the size it is now, people 200 years from now who live in complete tyranny may look back and say why didnt we free ourselves when there was so much more freedom than there is now. You say that the problem is that the Rothschilds have more than everyone else no matter what. While they will be very rich for centuries to come, how is that the problem. I think your focusing on the wrong issue here. The question is how do we even the playing field? Remove the government. In an even playing field free competition will keep the price for the consumer low, while they have lots of gold or whatever that could inflate the currency there are many ways in a free society to prevent that from happening such as competing currencies where certain measures are taken on any particular currency to prevent someone from inflating it. The Rothschilds will not be a problem in a stateless society. The only reason they have so much control and are able to expand on it so much is because of governments. Remove the gun and their power will fall. From: Brother to Dad I've heard of em. And yeah I know how the reserve banking stuff works, at least enough to know its totally messed up and is basically slavery. To answer your question... It's a loooooong journey down that road. But I've come to find that the media like hannity or Limbaugh and politicians that we think are on our side simply aren't on our side. They aren't afraid. They get paid, they know where their paychecks come from. They know the more ignorant people are the more money there is to be made. All in all I like to refer to "the machine." It's a state of consciousness that has infected our civilization. Because really, even these super rich evil bastards are infected with it. They are simply the ones who are at the top of its hierarchy. But everybody understands that they are a part of it and that they perpetuate it. The thing is, people(not excluding us) are so reliant upon this state of consciousness aka "the machine," so completely absorbed it its grasp, that if you speak against the most basic levels of its evil people look at you like you're crazy. Suggesting another way contrary to the currently accepted way of things is considered insane, or childish. Nobody wants to be an outcast. And "the machine" is self perpetuating, and always growing, cause if it stopped growing it could collapse, and probably would collapse. Constant growth is its purpose. People continue along, following the norms, not questioning or only questioning what is convenient or what doesn't shake their world too much. So if you ask me, with Hannity and Limbaugh, Obama or Bush, newspapers, TV shows, federal/state/ local governments, stores, restaurants, neighbors, me and you... It's a state of mind. The best way to change the world is to change me and to be that positive change I wish to see in the world. In that way we change others, just as when we continue down the same path, we encourage others to continue down the same path as well. From: Dad to Brother I agree with your depiction of society, i.e. "the machine". For those of us that see our society this way it seems obvious. For the majority of society it's as if they have blinders on and either can't see what we see or simply refuse to go there. When I say refuse I mean that literally. I have tried to give people in our community a small glimpse of the issues we have talked about and the reaction is rather astounding. In my opinion the very foundations that "Western" civilization are based on are an image created and perpetrated over time to the point where people refuse to consider anything else. For example, I sent a video out to all the people in our St Matthews community. It was the one Stefan Molyneux made talking about the wars in the middle east that we started. Personally, I thought he did a great job of making a case against the United States and the way we have conducted these wars. I was literally shocked by the flat refusal of many people to accept what the video said. Some people watched like three minutes of it and stopped because they immediately thought this must be liberal propaganda against their beloved USA. I believe these are good people but these issues cut right to the core of how many people identify who they are. Allot of these people are parents with young children and they must feel like they must stay focused on raising them to the best of their abilities. This includes perpetuating the ideas that they and the community consider necessary for a stable and healthy life. And there it is. When you get right down to it, they can't admit that the very things they base their entire life on may not be real. By doing so they could jeopardize the relationships, jobs and even their status in their community. Even family relationships that have been rock solid can be tested when people step outside the norm. Most people aren't willing and able to make that kind of drastic move. On the other hand we must be making some progress because Uncle Allan agreed with the video. From: Brother to Dad Agreed. Did you ever read Ishmael? That book was the first thing that broke me out of my mind set about the way i thought things were. And in it I think he says something about how these ideas can potentially alienate you from others, because it puts into question the fundamental groundwork of how we live and how it came to be. You're absolutely right about people, and i'm not surprised by their reactions. They'd rather keep what comfort they have and just outright deny any other possibilities. Some people get really upset and sometimes violent. That's funny about Allan, and good that someone who's been so closed minded has opened up a little I've watched some videos lately that kind of blew my mind. Not in the way that I thought everything said was fact and now i believe in something completely different, but some of it has actually called into question the very basics of where we think civilization has come from. Some crazy stuff but extremely fascinating. I'll send you a video later. I did a little research on the stuff after seeing the video and its kind of amazing. From: Dad You boys need to use "reply to all" so everyone can participate in the discussions. (included previous emails) In and of itself the Rothschild's and those like them are not the problem, but lets face it, money is power. I think we are deluding ourselves if we think we can ever have a level playing field where money is involved. It is true that governments have not only allowed these obscenities to happen but have perpetuated the problem. That's what happens when greed is involved. These people have risen to power through manipulating governments and politicians for centuries. It's like a game to them. Politician's, administrations and even whole governments come and go but they don't care. They thrive and advance their own interest no matter what happens because they always position themselves to profit no matter what. My point is, any solution that involves money keeps the playing field completely warped in their favor. Have you ever played poker with someone that has unlimited resources? From: Me Watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg5K07c72Tw (stefan respone to venus project) From: Dad I've heard Stefan discuss this with the creator of Zeitgeist. You can't really base anything on this video because many of the points Stefan made here were in their conversation where both of them had an opportunity to make their points. Other discussions involving Zeitgeist and the Venus Project discuss things in more detail, such as religion. There is this impression that in this new world religion would not be allowed but they make it clear this is not the case. It's unfair to say that they should have capitalist in a film about creating a world without money. Also, nobody thinks we could go from the world we live in today with the mindset that people have about consuming and owning their things, to a world where everyone basically shared all the resources equally. In order for a world like that to exist people would have to change drastically. For now I am with Stefan that the next best thing is to create a world that allows people to make choices that will drive the economy, not the government or government backed banks. From: Me I know there is a counter argument to every argument. That doesn't prove anything. It's our job to look at both sides and decide what makes more sense. I've listened to the debates and the counter argument and it seems clear as day who is right. I'm showing you very good logic about what is wrong with the system you propose and I think you should really analyze it, otherwise you are not basing your beliefs on science, reason, logic, and evidence. Please try to refute the points of the less good etc because no one has been able to do it. Here is a short video with some historical examples. Gotta catch the car pool talk to ya later. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9WEWcbfnHg (Stefans response to his criticism) From: Dad I'm watching the video and as Stefan makes a point I pause and give you my thoughts. First of all, I hate the idea of communism. It has been shown time and time again that it doesn't work. To compare what Zeitgeist and the Venus Project are proposing to what happened in Russia from 1917-1921 is not fair and he is playing some of the same tricks he accuses his critics of playing. I can't go along with the notion that we have tried every type or combination of self government possible. It's using the scientific method in a way that is inappropriate. Scientist will be the first to tell you that as soon as you say you know everything you have limited yourself from learning anything new. To say that every system of government that has ever existed or will ever exist has already been tried is a narrow minded arrogant statement. The society we live in today is different than anything Plato ever imagined. Not because of it's basic structure but because no one back then could have imagined the advantages our society has because of technology. A classless society, as imagined by Plato, is not the same as the classless society imagined by the creator of the Venus Project. And as such, the disaster of central economic planning in Russia cannot be used as an example for all types of government involving central economic planning. There again the other historical examples of failure using what Stefan perceives to be similar types of governments are in my mind, not valid at all. One thing he mentions is the commitment to the non use of violence. I agree that this is very important for the creation of a new government. He gives other examples but one thing he is leaving out is the fact that every one of these examples takes place in a world where most governments use money. It would be impossible to just set up a new government where money was not used and expect it to thrive in a world ruled by money. Of course chaos and starvation ensued. How could it work unless they had absolutely everything they could ever need right there in their own country. They were doomed from the start. The main factor in the success of the Venus Project is the entire world would be on board. I like Stefan and I can't help but think that he knows the Venus Project Proposed society is a vision that includes the whole world. The thing that really stands out is he goes on and on with statistics showing how much destruction and death has been caused by central planning governments and yet he knows the creator of the Venus project designed this dream world to benefit all of mankind. From Me: I understand your criticism with comparing our society with its technology with any society from the past because we do have many advantages that make everything a lot easier and practically instantaneous as far as communication goes. But there can still be a lot we can learn by understanding why things turned out so poorly to plans like this that have been tried before. If you think this idea is different than the ideas of marx and communism please tell me how. Because what I understand of the idea is that this is a central power controlling resources. If its a computer, someone still has to put in the parameters towards how it will work and the majority of people will not be happy with it nor will it succeed in providing those resources. The economy is a very very complex network of systems where everyone's input changes everyone else's and it is simply impossible to replicate because it cannot predict everyone's preference or desire. Russia did not fail because they didn't have the internet. It comes down to a debate of economics. You also made a few comments I'd like to address briefly: You: I can't go along with the notion that we have tried every type or combination of self government possible. Stefan does not say we have tried every combination of government possible, in fact he is all for trying new ways for communities/societies to work together. He is simply against the use of force which is government taxation. You: Scientist will be the first to tell you that as soon as you say you know everything you have limited yourself from learning anything new. Once again we're not saying that we've tried every system, we just use what evidence we have, for instance we use early America as the closest thing to a free society, and controlled societies as the closest things to the Venus project. Without making comparisons there is no science. You: There again the other historical examples of failure using what Stefan perceives to be similar types of governments are in my mind, not valid at all. The societies he gave examples of believed in abolition of money, everything held in common and no state, or no currency and common ownership. Surely you can find commonality in that. You can't dismiss all previous societies as completely irrelevant because of technology. You: He gives other examples but one thing he is leaving out is the fact that every one of these examples takes place in a world where most governments use money. It would be impossible to just set up a new government where money was not used and expect it to thrive in a world ruled by money. This goes back to my understanding of economics, trade is essential and will always exist because it is far more efficient and necessary in a voluntary society. Money would be anything from a coat to a your enemies eyes. The idea of having an certain amount of money and ordering what you want on your phone sounds like it could happen. But how the resources get allocated so that people can get what they want is by using money. There is no other way to assess the value of spending resources to do this or to do that. Resources are limited, desires are infinite. There is no way to know what people will desire in the future in an every growing and changing world. I think you don't understand Austrian economics like I do because I think that is what this whole argument comes down to. And to try to convince me this sci-fi utopia will work without any success of similar societies or an explanation of how allocation of resources will work or proving that Austrian economics is wrong in theory or practice in everyday life or entire countries is not going to work. You: The main factor in the success of the Venus Project is the entire world would be on board. I like Stefan and I can't help but think that he knows the Venus Project Proposed society is a vision that includes the whole world. Stefan knows that's what he means, that's why he drives home the point of non violence. If the whole world has to be on board, violence will be committed towards those who do not want it in one form or another. That's why he gave the example of the society who killed anyone caught using money because that's what this leads to. You:The thing that really stands out is he goes on and on with statistics showing how much destruction and death has been caused by central planning governments and yet he knows the creator of the Venus project designed this dream world to benefit all of mankind. He does not show the statistics to insinuate the creator is a bad man, only to derive similarities from the past. Once again to ignore human history because they didn't have the technology we have and think that we have the magic solution that has never been tested successfully and fails even in theory is ignorant. I know you and the venus project have good intention but intention is irrelevant and we can see that all over the government. From Dad: Great conversation! I do understand Austrian economics. In fact I would go so far as to say that we don't really need banks nearly as much as we think we do. We could be our own bankers for most purchases. Which brings me to a point I believe needs to be made. I believe that no "man",i.e.person, has the right to control another man and/or tell him what to do. Throughout history man has tried to control other men. The ways men control each other are not always obvious to those being controlled. Laws, rules, regulations, taxes, religion of every kind and money are some of the ways men control other men indirectly. Some of these means of control are more direct. Kind of "do this, don't do that" or you will be punished. Some means of control are more discreet but create dependencies. Religion, for better or worse, is a good example of institutions that create the illusion of free will. They say we have freedom of choice but to choose not to follow them would subject you to unthinkable agony. This is a harsh assessment of religion coming from someone that is Catholic but I look at things differently than most. I don't see God as this fire and brimstone ruler and to be quite frank I don't think the Catholic church feels the way most people think they do. In one of our Men's Group meetings Bob Smith read a paper from the Vatican. The paper clearly stated that salvation is not just for believers of Christ. There is more to it than this but hearing this from the leaders of the church gives me great hope for the future. We can discuss theology another time but needless to say this is a huge change from a church that used to preach that not only did you have to believe but if you didn't follow every little thing you were going to hell. I mention this because I have been a critic of religion because it is a huge creator of dependencies in our world and by taking this stance the Catholic church is going in the opposite direction. Now back to the last thing I mentioned that our society uses to create dependencies, money. Money in it's purest form is just a means to trade things or services. In a society where the value of money is fixed and everyone knows what they are getting and giving, money can be a very good thing. Free trade, like Stefan states is the best way to determine value. Supply and demand in its purest form is a great thing. We have talked at length about our current system. That being said is there a better example of a group of men controlling other men by creating dependencies than our current banking and government systems? This is at the core of this conversation and the mess our world is in. Before I continue I have some questions I would like you to consider. If I take the concept of the evils of a society that creates dependencies to control its citizens and extrapolate that to a concept like the Venus Project what do we get? In other words would a society without money have the same problems of creating dependencies which inadvertently take away mans freedom? On top of that if we take the concept of free trade, which in its purest form is said by some to be the only way to determine a things value by trading in a market where goods and services can be sold or obtained, can we find a way to determine a things value without trading anything? I understand, even in a moneyless society you would need a means of determining somethings value but speaking in scientific terms, couldn't somethings value be determined based on its availability and practical usability? In terms of Stefans criticism of the all powerful computer controlling everyones lives, don't we use computers today to help us make decisions? In Jacque Fresco's world, the cities would all be self sufficient with the all powerful world wide distribution computer communicating with the main computers at the center of every city to make sure the things that a city doesn't have are shipped via high speed transport tubes. Basic necessities could be provided for anyone living in the city without anyone buying anything. It's easy to nitpick about every little detail but with some careful planning why couldn't this work? I haven't seen the answer to this but if a city can be self sufficient why couldn't someone live outside the cities on there own in the same way? In fact, I think real freedom to choose where and how you live could be achieved. In fact, with every ones basic necessities provided for, real freedom to barter without government intervention could be achieved. Is this a pipe dream or could a version of this work? From Me: I agree great conversation!! So on one hand you believe no man should control another man, yet you propose a system that would be more controlling over man than anything in history. I think you do not see this obvious truth because of something other than economics but rather philosophy. It's very interesting that you bring up religion in this conversation because I think it relates to this very much. You understand religion is about controlling people and you don't like that, the church it seems has wised up to this and I heard Pope Francis say something along the lines of salvation is also for atheist because what you do is more important than what you believe. But to me this is very contradicting to what the very core of the church is all about which is to get people to worship God, not to just live a good life but believe in a higher power and depend on the church. To me the Catholic church which is the largest church throughout history has done so well throughout history because they do not exclude anyone. Just by looking at the bible you can find a justification for doing anything in the bible. People have done this throughout history from paying the church in advance for salvation to committing horrible sins to justifying slavery in America. You can be of any personality whether good or bad and the church accepts you. The people controlling the church are not dumb people and they have caught up with this growing philosophy of individual freedom and cannot refute its logic. So they are somewhat embracing it just as they have done with all truths that have come about throughout history. They have never been on the leading edge of any new truth only accepting what is know at the time. If the bible is truly inspired by a higher power why did it never give say anything that wasn't known at the time. Germs cause sickness, the earth is round, incest causes retardation, any of this would have shown some sort of greater knowledge. They have even tried to prevent the advancement of human civilization by murdering the proponents of the scientific method. The greatest atrocity I think they have committed is ignoring the truth about the value of a free society for their own selfish interest. They want to eliminate poverty right, well the only proven way to do that sustainably where you don't create dependency is capitalism and the smaller the government the better. Voluntary poverty was on the verge of being eliminated with a decreasing percentage point a year until the government stepped in with its social programs. Small governments lead to big governments which is why no government is the only sustainable model but that's another conversation. The roman empire revealed the value of a free society and the church ignored it then because it needs the state to survive just as the state needs the church which is why they always coexist so nicely, look at America, biggest government in history by far and some 90% believe in God. So back to the church following major advancements, I think the atheist salvation is another example of the church accepting new philosophy and trying to include everyone even though it contradicts with its core purpose, which makes me wonder where it'll go from here. I think believing in God only takes away from the importance of the individual, I think forgiveness from God is only for the evil and I haven't seen that my belief in God has done anything to make me a better person in fact quit the contrary. I think we have a very intelligent and good family and they all attribute this to God because they are only defending their parents beliefs because to say the parent is wrong is very difficult because of the indoctrination we all received as children and the general cult of the family that is portrayed throughout society and in our DNA because asterism from the family use to mean death and still does in a lot of ways. Kind of going off on a tangent here but this is all connected in our motivations and why we believe what we do. Just think of families in very religious families and communities around the world and throughout history, they all believed what they did because of the family. I think this personal desire to believe in a some sort of higher power making the world just in this life or the next is why the state survives. It is why most people cant comprehend a society without some power or controller in the end. The venus project sees the problems of the current system but are unable to imagine a society without rulers yet they hate the idea of rulers so they put some sort of super computer in charge without realizing this is just another controller. Belief in God is not something that can be reasoned out of, it is trauma inflicted on us as children, just as I don't think I can reason you out of the venus project because it is the same as your belief in God. A need for a some sort of system to control how society operates, and this blinds you from not knowing the answer to your own questions. You ask "couldn't somethings value be determined based on its availability and practical usability?" and the answer is no because there are a million factors that contribute the value of anything anywhere at any given time and they are always changing. Look at your own life, what applies to your life also applies to society. How do you make decisions on how you will spend your time, money, resources. You make a million calculations every day and people prosper when they can control there decisions because no one can tell them what their time money value is for anything. Think of all the decisions that go into a simple thing like remodeling a bathroom, the negotiation of cost, how can something else tell you how much your time is worth to remodel that bathroom or the million other things that go into that remodel. When I say resources are limited desires are infinite, I'm not saying we have limited food or wood, I'm talking about the relationship of that resource compared to another. You can pretend to think somehow all resources can have a price based on availability but desires are ever changing which is the true cost of an item. Yes computers help us make decisions because we have a price for things and we can evaluate cost vs benefit. Computers can only do what we tell them to do, there is nothing a computer will do that we don't program it to do. People believe computers have this magic ability to solve impossible problems but they cannot solve an infinite loop or make 2+2=5. Once again I'm sure you can counter any argument I make with some abstraction and we could go on forever this way. Its funny how you speak of a world where you can barter and trade without government and live where you want and all these principles that I believe in precisely and yet you can't expand these anarcho principles to society as a whole which would work beautifully and I wish you could see that. From: Brother Oh man I just read these! I've been super busy lately with opening weekend of my show. I'm at work now and bored with some free time. I want to reply so bad to this conversation, but I'd rather type on my computer cause doing this on my phone at work just doesn't cut it, takes forever and I get distracted and then I loose my train of thought. So hopefully I'll get back to this in the next day or two. Btw I got nominated for best supporting actor here in Austin. One of like 13 people to get nominated for the entire year for the whole city. Pretty great Didn't win but it was an honor just for the nomination. From Dad: As I indicated earlier, I watched the youtube video's Stefan Molyneux made rebuffing the most recent Zeitgeist movie. I like Stefan to a point, but his use of hyperbole, exaggeration and out right sarcasm to try to make a point is getting old. He talks about his philosopohy of life in other videos and how he wants empirical scientific evidence for everything and yet when it comes to his criticism of Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist movement he is anything but scientific. In fact his bias and self promotion are becoming blatantly obvious in his videos. Below are two youtube videos made by Peter Joseph in response to Stefan's attacks. Response to Mr. Stefan Molyneux by Peter Joseph 1, Peter Joseph's Response to Stefan Molyneux [Zeitgeist: Moving Forward] You misunderstand my stance on religion and for that matter I believe you need to give some more thought to this matter. I understand the power a personality like Stefan can have on someone but it seems you have given up much to blindly follow this man who's logic is not infallible. Yes, he is just a man who is no different than you or I. He has biases effecting his opinions just like everyone else. Any grown man in today's society has heard and seen the scientific argument against religion and God. The things that keep me a Catholic are complicated in some ways and simple in others. First of all, it is clear to me we don't know everything about our universe and the possibility that the universe was created has never been disproven. That being said, science may someday have the last word on this. Until then, I must base my life on the realities I have been brought up on and the life I live today. I refuse to run around telling the people I have loved and cared for my whole life that this guy named Stefan Moltyneux says you can't prove God exist so I choose not to believe anymore. As I said earlier, I chose to believe and to remain Catholic for my own reasons, but beyond that it would be cruel and irresponsible for me to suddenly announce to my whole family and community that I am giving up on a huge part of my life that has been at the very core of nearly everything in my life. I refuse to treat my loved ones and my faith with such callousness. In addition to that I understand the criticisms of religion and I chose to live a life based on what I believe are ethics everyone should follow, no matter what their faith is. The more people I can influence to live that way, the better society will be. I can't achieve anything if I alienate myself from them. Your statements concerning religion and history seem to elicit an unwillingness to acknowledge the very reality that Mankind has been on a constant journey to grow and evolve. To ask why God did not simply make man aware of all the truths in the universe is to ignore the reality of Man's long evolution. We are and have been an ignorant species ruled by superstitions and fear. To suggest that Man could or should have understood what we know today when they first appeared on Earth is absurd. You have stated that the Catholic religion is responsible for much of the ignorance and death throughout history but I believe the church has been instrumental in helping Man pursue the truth. We are aware of thousands of years of ignorance and idol worship before Christianity. Say what you want about the dark ages and the sins of some members of the church, but who can say where man would be without the Catholic church? To suggest that my belief in what Zeitgeist and the Venus project are trying to do is somehow related to my belief in God makes no sense. If that is the case, why are the creators of both, atheist? What need are they filling? Could it be that I simply see that they are trying to create a better world? A world where everyone, no matter what they believe can live fulfilling worthwhile lives. A world where people in third world countries aren't born into a world of hunger and despair. A world where all men can share equally in the planets resources. A world where people are free to pursue their interest in science, technology, theatre or farming without the limitations of money. From: Me I know it seems as if I think I have it all figured out all of the sudden, you think I got manipulated by this Stefan guy and am making some huge mistakes. Well maybe I am, I can't rule it out. Perhaps God refuses to be known to most everyone and somehow the Church, where maybe doesn't have a direct connection is still the wisest to his will. I don't deny the Churches actions and philosophy about a lot of things are good and make the world a better place. I understand your situation and if you for some reason changed the beliefs you held your entire life, I would never expect you to suddenly announce to everyone you're not Catholic anymore. That would simply alienate you from everyone you know and do nothing to serve your purpose. I know it was rhetorical in nature because you were referring to me and what I'm doing does not make sense to you. But look through my shoes, first off I'm not in your social situation. My wife and kid are the most important things to me now and if I knew my wife would choose religion over me then the problem I'm in would be completely different. I do not intend to suddenly announce to the family I'm not Catholic, I have only expressed my new beliefs to you and Ryan. I do not plan on discussing this with the rest of the family for I know they are not interested in such things, plus I don't see how it will affect our relationships at all. Though at the same time I can only pretend so much, so I guess if it comes up I'll be perceived as a holiday Catholic not too involved in the church, though I never was really involved so I don't think it'll be a big deal. I'd have to be in more contact with the family to have heart to heart conversations where I slowly explain what I think in pieces that aren't offending but that's really not the case for now. It'll eventually have to be known because of my kids which is how this all came about. Before my son it wasn't something I thought a whole lot about, but after opening up to opposing ideas for the purpose of finding what I believe to be most true for society at large and our individual paths I learned something I cannot unlearn. Of course something new can always change my mind, because that is my path, the one of progression towards the truth no matter how painful. I speak of this truth and I can see you roll your eyes for believing I am foolish and ignorant. But I am only speaking of the philosophy of trusting your inner compass as you trust yours. I know you want me to reexamine my choices here but I cannot let my fear of ostracism be my guide, although immediate family would be another story but that's not the case with me. Perhaps there is a God, but that's not the point. What matters is what we let dictate how we live our lives. Perhaps believing in God and trusting the church is the better way to live life, but that's not what I believe anymore and I am very sorry if that hurts you, which I'd really like to know more about how you feel on this. Because if it does hurt you as I think it does try to look at it this way. It has nothing to do with you. I think you are the best dad I could of ever asked for, for without you I would of never had this desire to search for what is right and true and work towards living with more integrity, virtue, confidence, and happiness. I have found reasons to believe that a world without superstition and rulers is better than anything we can imagine. The only way I believe we can get there is to rid our children of these superstitions and raise them to think morally, logically, empirically and without violence. Perhaps that will lead them to the church as the best model for living life as there is much you can learn there but I don't think it is the best way. This path I've chosen may not be good for my relationships with the extended family but I think it will be better for my families life. I could be wrong but I have stronger reasons to believe this over the alternate that I could try to explain to you in more detail if your interested. But given your situation perhaps its wiser to end this conversation. I really don't mean to insult your integrity or intelligence by implying you prefer everyday comforts to exploring new ideas because you have proven you are open to ideas that alienate you from the community such as the Iraq video. I just don't think I will be able to convince you of this way of life I speak of without an incredible amount of effort and stress on our relationship where offending each other is inevitable and the result will likely be the same. Maybe you could give me your thoughts on that. Because your opening argument of attacking the messenger (Stefan) is more of an attack on me and my ability to judge what I hear than on him and I take offense to that. If you don't respect my intelligence, ability to judge good reason from bad, or think I am easily manipulated, then your are not going to teach me anything. Me and Ryan spoke of an Alex Jones video where he made himself look like an ass. I agreed that is no way to act or attempt to engage in a debate, etc. I still gave Alex the benefit of the doubt because of the circumstances with mainstream media and how these 5 minute segments are designed only for stereotypical, common ideas, Noam Chomsky has more on that and I tried to simply look at what he said because of some truths hes uncovered in the past and the nature of what he is saying. But regardless if he was right or not in the end his philosophy of how he lives his life is a legitimate reason to question a lot of what he says, the reasons behind them, and most importantly the purpose he is serving which only alienates those not already on his side. Therefore I don't listen to him or entertain his ideas because he is going the wrong direction. Ryan is right, be the change you want to see in the world. Alex is not the change I want to see in the world even if some of our goals are the same. Stefan on the other hand, the way I see Stefan live his life is the closest to the change I want to see in the world, not because I agree with everything he says but because he avoids talking about his opinions as much as possible and respects his listeners to work problems out in there own head. He caters to the biggest skeptics which is why I find his teachings so intriguing. Nobody is perfect for it is impossible not to offend people when talking about such volatile subjects even though he has tried his very best to not offend as you can see in venus project debate where he gives every benefit of the doubt to the Peter and the project itself with an over the top explanation of what it is. I think you are projecting your problems with my new beliefs at Stefan and his sarcasm which makes sense, however I shared the same sarcasm before I saw any of Stefan's rebuttals. Given the material, I think it is completely appropriate as I cant help but roll my eyes a thousand times while I listen to Peter's rebuttal and think of a thousand ways it is completely retarded and blatantly obvious, Stefan is much nicer than I would be. Sorry for the insult, I'm being honest, I have little patience for the Marxist way of thinking. Adding computers doesn't change it. I've entertained the ideas before as some of my friends made me think about it, but they fail to answer or even attempt at answering every test of logic and empiricism opponents have come up with. This is the difference between Stefan and every other system, he has tried to answer every criticism. His show and podcast are mostly based off of the forums and criticisms. I have only listened to a few hundred or so and your not the first one to attack his personality as he has even done podcast on the criticism of sarcasm #712. About the last email, I said a lot of things that make the Church sound really bad. As I mentioned early I do appreciate the good that the church does. Without the church the world could be a lot worse off or a lot better off. If no organization ever perpetuated mans fears and superstitions then its possible the industrial revolution could of came in the roman age and we'd be using flying cars today. Man is easily ruled by fear and superstition so many organizations could of taken advantage of the situation as so many religions and governments have done throughout history. Where the church may have been the lesser of other evils, it still doesn't make it right to control people based off of superstition and fear, but I might be wrong like I said at the beginning. I said some other stuff that really needs a lengthy explanation rather than a one sentence statement, sorry for the confusion I was in a hurry and trying to finish the email to send without reading it over once or contemplating the probable comprehension of it. I think I was just hoping you'd take the ideas and do your own research as to what it meant but I realize that is foolish for several reasons which are all my fault. Stefan makes an argument how the state and religion are related, that you cannot get ride of the government without getting ride of God. The fire and brimstone image of God is mostly gone nowadays and most people now put there faith that the state and democracy will make life better which is the last great illusion to ride people of. I didn't buy the connection at first like all abstract ideas but I pieced it together over time and one day there was this amazing ah ha moment where it all came together. So that's where I got the idea on a psychological level that belief in God ruling people is related to belief that society needs some sort of ruler as well. I think you are an exemption, this is just about an analysis of the mass psychology of humans as a whole. I'm just letting you know where it came from, if you really want to understand it you'll have to spend a lot more time on this but I don't think you have the interest which is fine. I think you'd be more interested in the short books everyday anarchy followed by practical anarchy. The greatest hits podcast will also broaden your perception as well. Well thats all for now, maybe we can discuss the venus project another time. Love you From: Brother Hey there guys! I'm not dead Sorry its taken me so long to reply to this conversation. I've read the emails as you've sent them but just haven't had time to reply lately. Quite the conversation! Wish I've had the chance to contribute more. Such is life here I am now. Since I'm way behind I guess I'll start with Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist, and The Venus Project. I think that the ideas behind The Venus Project are sound. They hold enough weight with me that I can see their vision of the future and get behind it. Now, here is where I need to make something clear. In no way when I like an idea am I solely committed to that idea. I can get behind several ideas of the future. I think its good there are multiple people, organizations, and networks working toward a brighter future. We need these ideas, we need these people... All of them. We need as many of these people we can get. And from what you guys are saying about your understanding of the state of our civilization, I think we all three see many of the same problems. So with that said, understand that I don't think and any of these groups or people have all of the solutions needed for this world. But I do like The Venus Project, created by Jaque Fresco by the way... I can't remember if anyone has said that yet. Its vision of the future and a "resource based economy" are groundbreaking as far as modern civilization goes. Is it the entire future? Is it the end all be all? No. Buts its not trying to be. Its a guide to a future far more mature than anything the mainstream populous is even thinking about these days. It, along with The Zeitgeist Movement have completely redefined, I think more accurately then most, the fundamental diseases our civilization has, and has come up with what I think to be solutions that could work. Something Stefan doesn't seem to get about TZM and TVP is that the future they invision leaves the old way of looking at economics behind. It rethinks where incentives come from, what needs and wants are, how human behavior and environment influence and cycle the fundamental norms people fall victim to. These ideas aren't necessarily all new but are being brought together in a way I think speaks to people's gut feeling that something just isn't right in this world. Something deeper than the violence and greed and all the apparent things. It speaks in large part about the monetary system and the failures of it. Stefan never really addresses Peter Joseph's critique of the monetary system itself. He confuses Peter's critique of money and makes statements against claims that Peter didn't make. Also, all of Stefans critiques about Zeitgeist attack it from a vantage point still within the current monetary system. One of the reasons he calls it "Marxism with robots" is because he fails to step out of the box of the current monetary system. Its almost as if he just doesn't see the box, which if true would be odd considering he is a very intelligent person. Peter Joseph has called out Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism as being fundamentally corruptible, and therefore corrupt. I think its a rather shallow attack on Stefan's part to call it Marxist. It does away with the proletariat and bourgeoisie like Marxism and it has a few fairly similar elements of the ideas surrounding ownership but is so drastically different then Communism that it just seems like Stefan hasn't spent the time to understand the ideas behind The Zeitgeist Movement. Like he watched the movies once, thought he got it, but didn't really, and then started spouting critiques that completely miss the mark. The system envisioned by TZM and TVP are not a tomorrow solution. They are a future that will take time to get to. But their vision is something that can start tomorrow. The technology available to the public today is being held captive do to the incentives behind the monetary system. Profit is by far the biggest priority in all money economies in the world. When looking at models of money economies they may not seem that aggressive in the beginning but as the economy evolves, and as we've seen, competitors find ways to compete more aggressively and eventually the incentive is high enough to cheat. Once the cheating starts there is virtually no way to stop it and you end up with a situation like the one we're in. Part of the reason the cheating doesn't stop and really can't stop is because the people acting under the money economy have been psychologically evolving with the trends of the economy, like how people's thought processes evolve as language changes. So the people become used to it, and even aspire to be in those positions of privilege, not necessarily thinking of cheating to do it, but once there the power corrupts. By removing these corrupt incentives from the economy we change peoples minds, they evolve towards that kind of society. What Stefan doesn't realize is that TZM and TVP's future involves people with different incentives. He takes for granted what he thinks is human nature to play the survival of the fittest game. When what Peter and Jaque are talking about is the mailability of the human condition. Humans adapt so well that in a society where bettering the human condition is the goal they will act as such. In a money economy such as we have, profit and the need to ensure constant and inflating consumerism to keep the economy from crashing is priority, and people act as such. Its about the kind of world we build. Like we've talked about, its about being that change... or at least living as close to it as you can while on your journey. And these visions of the future are certainly a journey. Speaking of journeys and each having our own and all that, Paul you seem to have taken a turn in yours. You both have known about my own disconnect with the church and not believing in any gods for a while now so I'll skip it. What I will say about my experience is that I don't think people choose what they believe. We can choose what influences us, and what we shelter ourselves from. But once information has reached us, our brain interprets it. Not everybody interprets things the same, but if you learn something that changes your perspective, there isn't a lot to be done. We can fight it all we want, but it will always nag at us in the back of our mind. Those of us who take new information and are changed by it have courage. It takes courage, and I think each of us understands that for all the changes we've made in our lives, especially the more difficult ones. Its late. I'm sure there is enough here and enough that I didn't make clear Goodnight guys. Love you both! From: Dad Before I get to the meat of the discussion concerning how we are going to change the world I wanted to comment on what both of you have said in reference to our respective beliefs. This topic is especially meaningful and at the same time stressful to me. Paul we have gone back and forth on this topic but I'm not sure you really understand where I'm coming from. Ryan you said that you, “don’t think people choose what they believe and that we can choose what influences us, and what we shelter ourselves from”. I think this is a very insightful statement that can apply not only to our faith but to this whole conversation and life in general. We all tend to gravitate towards information that agrees with our beliefs. That being said, if we are really seeking the truth we cannot shield ourselves from information that contradicts our “set” of beliefs. It is true that once we are exposed to a contrary belief system and see the merit in it, we cannot just expunge it from our minds. In some cases we just need to do what we feel is right in spite of our perceptions. Thus is the source of stress I referred to earlier. I seek a balance between my life as it is and has been and my pursuit of truth. Maybe this makes me a hypocrite or maybe it simply makes me a realist that sees the need to prioritise my life so I can justify who I am and couple that with treating people the way I believe they should be treated. To give you an example, I’ll tell you something about my Dad that came to mind recently when I was thinking about him and how he lived his life. I thought of this because I was thinking about the critisism’s we’ve all heard about religion and it’s negative affect’s throughout history. I considered how my extremely religious parents conducted themselves and in particular, my Dad. I didn’t agree with everything Mom and Dad did in their lives when it came to their faith. That being said, I believe my Dad was a great man and I’ll tell you why. But first I must say, you can’t really appreciate how great until you take into consideration that he was married to a women for 54 years that he new was mentally ill. Tom and I talked about the fact that he made an effort to come to everything his kids were involved in. We all remember Dad being at events but none of us remember ever seeing Mom at anything. The fact is he new she was mentally ill and went out of his way to compensate for her shortcomings when it came to how he raised us kids. Funny thing is, when I was a child, I never suspected that my Mom was mentally ill. He was very religious but I don’t think that is what defined him. In my mind, his unquestionable love and kindness in spite of everything I now know he was dealing with, defined who he was. If you combine this love with his willingness to do whatever was needed to provide for his family, beyond financial support, you see why I think so highly of him. Only now do I truly appreciate the complexity of what he was dealing with, and yet he never waivered from always doing what he thought was right while setting a great example for everyone to see. So you see, courage comes in many forms. Things are not always as they seem and sometimes it is necessary to shield others from certain truths in order to help them seek a greater truth which is treat others how you want to be treated and real love is unconditional. From: Me Hey Ryan, welcome back, glad to hear from you. Btw congrats on the nomination and the commercial, good stuff, keep it up. So about the venus project, I really don’t understand how to get you to see what I see. Its like your telling me the phone will work without towers and I’m telling you no, you need the tower, the tower is how it communicates. Why do you give a second thought to something so abstract that requires people and society to be completely different than what they are now and have always been? What is the point of envisioning a future that requires the most basic principle of life to be false? It’s like saying I want to make a rollercoaster, but gravity has to be the reverse direction for it to work. The odds of a small portion of the population let alone a significant portion changing how their brains have functioned throughout history is impossible. What baffles me is that you understand this, that people will have to be different and you say yeah that’s possible, no big deal. And on top of that you say we have to ignore everything we know about economics and how the world has functioned throughout history. What is the point of imagining a utopia that has nothing to do with reality? Basic principle: people respond to incentives. You say you want to remove corrupt incentives from the economy, I agree, then you say people will evolve to a kind of society with different incentives. You say humans adapt well, true, adapt so well that the goal of people will be to better humanity, FALSE. That goes against the basic principle that people respond to incentives. In no way can the betterment of society be an incentive. A real incentive is the reason jobs get done and done well. What’s the point to work your butt off if it doesn’t matter? If it doesn’t matter what the payoff is then you get crappy work and crappy results. So to say this new world will not follow the basic reality that people have and always will respond to incentives and they will simply do jobs because they want to better humanity is dumb. This environment would only have the opposite effect and make people feel like slaves where they have no control over their destiny, slaves serving the master which is “society” or some greater good bull shit propaganda only the ignorant buy into. A simple reward is not always even enough, there has to be another incentive to do a good job like losing your job, otherwise performance falls. There are many studies on motivation where higher pay doesn't correlate with better results and many other counterintuitive results but a real incentive is always necessary. I can give you a million examples in society but apparently that's irrelevant since people in the future world will be different somehow. Motivation to do anything has always and will always rely on an incentive whether noble or not. People have always and will always want more for less. It’s why they started using the horse to plow fields instead of hand digging, its why corporations lobby governments for regulations to reduce competition instead of competing fairly. As long as there is an avenue for an easier way people will use it. Removing government removes the largest most widely used avenue for cheating that if abolished would lead to a society where there are no viable avenues but an honest one. To understand how that could work requires more explanation that we can maybe discuss another time. Your premise that competition will always lead to cheating is also false. It will always lead to cheating only if that is a cost beneficial option. A free society would make cheating far more costly than simply competing fairly. Now we have a system that requires cheating just to compete. Using the violence of the government is so widespread now that the game has changed and if you want to play you have to follow the new rules to have a chance. It’s like playing a soccer game that the rules changed so the goal is twice the size of the old one. You don’t continue kicking into the old goal for you’d lose every game, you have to use the new one to compete. So far all I've got from you two is: attack the person who criticizes, it’s a different world so no argument against it is valid, you give a few lame catch phrases that show a complete lack of understanding of the difference between our current system and anarcho capitalism, and a bunch of idealist hopeful statements about what the world could be that mean nothing. I have an idea, instead of discussing what the end utopia will be while ignoring what type of world has to exist before it’s even an option, why don’t we work from where we’re at now and go forward. The first goal is to identify the real root of the problem in today’s world. We have to recognize human’s nature of wanting more for less, responding to incentives, etc. and not try to change that because that is impossible. The real problem is that there is such a huge incentive for evil and no consequence for acting on it. Is there a way to remove such an incentive for evil and lack of consequence? Yes, since the government is the organization that has created this avenue for evil and removed consequences, all we have to do is remove the government. What happens then, could society operate without this, would cheating still occur? If you have a good understanding of free market economics then you would know that competition drives down prices and spreads wealth. Every market where high profits occur is a target for competition to come in and undercut them for less profit. The government only decreases competition to benefit the few while hurting the majority. This is true theoretically and empirically. In the past when a company’s efficiency lowers prices for consumers the people never complained to the government, only the competition. You probably believe cheating would occur without the government because it’s so prevalent now a days and the fact that you’ve been propagandized your entire life that the government is there to protect you from evil corporations. If you change your mind on this, you’d have to change your beliefs on a lot of ideas which would probably cause you a lot of stress. This is a main point of the argument that is incredibly important so if you dismiss it without a thought, then there is really no point to this conversation because you will believe what you do and that’s that. If there is an avenue available for cheating, an ability to move the consequences for your actions off for generations, and make it incredibly profitable and easy to accomplish, then its use will only increase. In a free society people cannot use the funds of the population to unjustly force others out of a market. Corporations were created by the government to give owners freedom from consequences. In return the government helps the corporation with regulations, etc. Without the government there is no unfair advantages, no corporation, only people who own companies and are responsible for its performance, accidents, etc. So going back to the people change argument, its true that in a better society people will change for the better. How a child is raised drastically influences what type of person he will be and his subconscious motives. Entire societies have changed from one generation to the next. But as a whole and at the fundamental level, people have never changed. At a basic level humans have needs and wants: food, water, shelter, entertainment, happiness for loved ones and for strangers, etc. Some people get caught up in collecting what others call shit, some people have preferences others call ridiculous, some have no preferences or desires besides the basics, some only want to help others. But in the end all people have a force that drives them to accomplish their goals no matter how big or small, and they prefer to accomplish those goals as efficiently as possible. Most of the time goals are mixed and they accomplish multiple ones simultaneously with the level of direction divided up between priorities. Like I have a goal to buy a coat as fast as possible but not rushing as I want to somewhat enjoy myself and I also have a goal to make my wife happy and she likes to shop so I’ll enjoy myself with her at the mall and get a coat at the same time. I also have many desires for what I want in that coat that range from, cost, looks, comfort, warmth, size, of which I’ll have to make compromises that fit my preference best. The manufacturers of coats also have many compromises to meet the needs of the customers. These tradeoffs are endless and the one that calculates them the best will make the most money. Others will have to discount the coats in order to sell them all or hold them on the racks for a long time which will hold up some capitol of said company which is another trade off. And still others may lose money as the design, materials, manufacturing cost, etc. is more than what people will pay for the coat. In the end I get some of my desires filled and the seller gets some of his filled in a voluntary win-win exchange. If a trade is voluntary then it has to be a win-win exchange otherwise it would not occur. You understand this on the consumer side but it is the same with the productions side, if the person does not voluntarily choose to work somewhere for some compensation then it is not guaranteed to be a win-win situation. Without money there is no trade negotiation or choice and therefore cannot be voluntary which will create a majority of win-lose trades, aka slavery. I understand you want what is best for the future. Perhaps this little experiment could work somewhere with the right people, resources, etc. In order for it to come about peacefully there can’t be a government. The government could certainly force this no money society or any other thing but you don’t believe in violence or force right? So if you want a different world made peacefully, the government has to be removed first. Wouldn’t how to remove the government be a more relevant ambition sense that is the next step towards such a society? From: Dad I understand what you are saying and to kick start this conversation to the next level I'm going to side with you on one thing, for now. That is that in order for any of our ideas to work the government as we know it must come to an end. I know that's not much but it's a start. By the way, I heard something on a radio talk show the other day while driving back from Hutchinson. The host of the show was interviewing a guy that was supposedly an ex-general from Pakistan. He said he has knowledge of what is going on in the middle east that very few people are aware of. He said the USA was instrumental in making sure the crops they use to create cocaine(I forget what he called it) in Afghanistan continued to thrive. He said the US government was in business with companies making and distributing these drugs. He also said the US had a practice of blowing up buildings, bridges and everything else so contractors could come in and rebuild them. He said the US created their own wing of terrorist group known as Al Qaeda so they can create the ongoing need for US presence there. He said the US has killed many of their own soldiers just to make people think we must stay there. He said all of these things and more are being done by the US government as a front to allow private companies to be able to make trillions in profits. The guy hosting this show, who claimed to be conservative, was someone I had never heard before. I don't know if any of this is true, just thought I would pass on what I heard. To be continued... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts