Good morning
What are the reasons for the split between your movement zeitgeist and the Venus project advocated by Jacque Fresco?
THANKS
Good day
In 2011, the third film in the Zeitgeist film series was released, called Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. Fresco and Joseph subsequently had a falling out over whether or not to raise money for a new documentary for Fresco. Joseph wanted to see a plan of action before starting to collect money on behalf of the movement. Fresco was also critical of the lack of understanding of his ideas among the Zeitgeisters.
This is the full version:
1 Like
What can you do. It is interesting to observe the deterioration of a concept I once considered a panacea, due mostly to what looks like the political and organisational ineptitude of their vision. Perhaps the structures and processes that they were seeking to advance their vision through, like the not for profit status of the organisation and the NOVUS summit presentation worked against them in a political way, essentially attempting to pitch their vision to investors or philanthropy, “hoping” for the money to come to them based on Jacques established record and conceptual problem-solving capabilities instead of taking the steadfast and deliberate action required to fulfil their vision from the toil of their own hands. The unfolding of these events required me, personally, to take a step back in healthy detachment to realise that as an organisation, their blueprint is no longer relevant as it fails to competently encourage participation, which I really believe is one of the most critical aspects of a meaningful and creative grassroots movement. Jacque presented a blueprint that in a more rational world would have been implemented if the existing structures were not so insurmountable, but they are, and the model as they present it, is stagnant beyond relevance, entrenched in a direction with no inertia. Roxanne, bless her, is not cut out to carry the vision forward, and i assume the same for whoever else composes that team. The first step toward a post scarcity society that makes logical sense to me is the provision of housing as an inalienable right. The ripple effects of housing as a given would rapidly give way to cascading social advancement, as the very next chain reaction is the negation of forced labour for income. Captivating participatory engagement should be key in the pursuit for post scarcity outcomes. Perhaps The Venus Project also inadvertently alienates willing participants with over reliance and emphasis on the scientific method at the core of their methodology, making individuals feels as though they have nothing to offer the organisation as to do so would require extensive training and education, for no real effect, merely to incorporate into their thesis or existing model, without ever owning the capacity to bring the model to fruition.
2 Likes
11 posts were merged into an existing topic: Humanist Socialist Thought