“DEFINING PEACE” – Full Lecture | by Peter Joseph | Feb. 6th ’12 | The Zeitgeist Movement

“DEFINING PEACE” – Full Lecture | by Peter Joseph | Feb. 6th ’12 | The Zeitgeist Movement


Shalom! At times like this, I
really wish I spoke Hebrew. I have no idea what he just said, but
I’m going to make a quick introduction before I begin the formal speech in great gratitude to The
Zeitgeist Movement Israel that have made this possible. [Applause] My name is Peter Joseph. I work with an organization
called The Zeitgeist Movement. While most of my talks are about
inherent economic inefficiencies which are fueling the majority of
the civil unrest, ecological abuse and general deprivation that
we see in the world today coupled with highlighting existing,
yet unapplied scientific realizations that could solve such
problems in general not to mention creating
a new societal design originating out of
another form of thought that would virtually
guarantee environmental and social sustainability
if implemented the central focus of this talk
is a little bit more temporal. It’s different than any
other talk I’ve given. The title of this presentation
is ‘Defining Peace: Economics the State and War’. It’s divided into 4 sections. The first is entitled ‘The
History of Human Conflict and the Human Nature Debate’. As the evidence will show,
the stubborn concept that we humans are inherently and
inalterably aggressive and territorial
will be addressed. Finding that early
societies did not engage in mass warfare and
that most conflicts especially the large scale mobilization
we see in the modern world are actually the
result of conditions real or contrived that lure the human being into a
position of aggression. This will then lead us into the consideration
of our environmental condition and the structural and psychological
modes that encompass it leading to the understanding
that when it comes to war the condition as we know
it is set by the state generally speaking. Part 2: ‘The State
Character and Coercion’. We’ll consider the origin of the
modern state and its characteristics. It’s been found that there’s
an average set of qualities that pertain to these
concentrations of power. Moreover and more profoundly,
the influence of the state on the values of the
culture will be addressed especially regarding
loyalty, patriotism and how easy it has been for a very small number of
political and commercial interests to entice the public that their wars
are moral, right and beneficial. Then in Part 3:
‘The Culture of War Business, Ownership
and Competition’ a deeper look at the underlining
condition motivation which appears to have created
the state and its power and the war propensity
itself will be considered. Focusing on the roots
of our social system and how not only is war natural to the current economic
methods we use it is inevitable. It will be expressed that the structural
basis and resulting psychology that exists in the monetary
market system of economics that governs the world
today is the core driver of human conflict in
the world overall. In the final section,
Part 4: ‘Defining Peace a New Social Contract’ we will consider the causal logic
of what we have described prior and in a basic reductionist method,
deduce what societal characteristics support peace, and what do not and how we as a world
society can reset our societal condition to allow
for this newfound human balance before it’s too late. Before we begin, I need to
address a broader issue that I feel is understated
in the world. It seems to sit at the core of society
as historically lackluster inability to change (which I think
we all might notice) not only in the context
of global warfare which we see as almost natural in
the world today, unfortunately but also with respect to common
sense social changes for the better which are systematically rejected,
without legitimate logical defenses. Very simply, it appears
that traditional sentiment is constantly in conflict
with emergent knowledge. For example, once an ideological
institution is established usually with the basic consensus
of the population at large a time-armorial
distinction emerges which implies that this practice or belief
is now empirical to the human condition and will last forever. We see this characteristic in religious,
political and economic thought most pervasively, but no
intellectual discipline or social advent
seems to be immune. Even those who call
themselves scientists claiming to hold dear the vigorous ethic
demanded by the scientific method often fall victim to
traditional biases and erroneous loyalties,
skewing their findings. Those loyalties are
almost always born out of a traditional, customary
culture and its dominant institutions with which those
personalities are groomed. I think Dr.
Gabor Maté put this issue very well “It is simply a matter
of historical fact that the dominant intellectual
culture of any particular society reflects the interests of the
dominant group in that society. In a slave-owning society, the beliefs
about human beings and human rights will reflect the needs
of the slave owners. In a society which is based on
the power of certain people to control and profit from the lives
and work of millions of others the dominant intellectual culture will
reflect the needs of the dominant group. If you look across the board, the ideas
that pervade psychology, sociology history, political economy
and political science fundamentally reflect
certain elite interests. The academics who
question that too much tend to get shunted to the side or
to be seen as sort of ‘radicals’.” A cursory glance at ideas which
were once considered absurd impossible, subversive
or even dangerous which later evolved to
serving human progress shows a clear pattern of how wrong
we can be in our loyalties. It is axiomatic to say that many
ideas which will enable progress and benefit society in the
future will be hideously opposed and fought in the present-day. It seems the more broadly beneficial
the new idea, in hindsight the worse the initial reaction
is, by contemporary culture. A classic case and point is the
gruelingly slow recognition of the mechanistic nature of
scientific causality in the world an understanding and method
which has facilitated every single attribute of
human progress in history from the solutions of
disease resolution to the advent of
abundance-producing technology to our understanding of the
human condition itself and how the planet works. The scientific method,
which is really the materialization of
logic and application was not only met with the
most heretical condemnation by those institutions of political
and religious power historically it is, I’m sad to say,
still rejected today in many areas of thought
and application. Anti-science perspectives tend to reside with issues
of supposed morality argued in a vast wasteland
of subjective perspectives. A classic example is the highlighting
of technological advances that have been used for detrimental
purposes, such as weaponry which clearly has nothing
to do with technology but with the distortion of motivation
by the culture who’s using it. A more sophisticated claim is that the
scientific method is simply not objective. You will find this view held
by early Western philosophers like Thomas Hobbes
or Robert Boyle. Here I can actually
find some sympathy but only with respect
to a certain irony given the ongoing interference of
cultural victimization on the outcome of ostensibly scientific
conclusions, as noted before. So-called scientists are not to be
confused with the method of science. Very often the cultural
influence and deposits of value are simply too strong of a bias to
allow for the objectivity required. The more controversial the
new scientific finding the more dissonance usually occurs, and
that’s what the historical record shows. In a classic text by authors
Cohen and Nagel entitled ‘An Introduction to Logic and the
Scientific Method’ (a book I recommend) this point was very well stated
with respect to the process of empirical logical evaluation and its
independence from human psychology. It states “The logical distinction
between valid and invalid inference does not refer to the way we think (the
process going on in someone’s mind). The weight of evidence is
not itself a temporal event but a relation of implication between
certain classes or types of propositions. Of course, thought is necessary
to apprehend such implications however, that does not make
physics a branch of psychology. The realization that logic can not be
restricted to psychological phenomenon will help us to discriminate between
our science and our rhetoric conceiving the latter as the art
of persuasion or of arguing so as to reduce the
feeling of certainty. Our emotional dispositions make it
very difficult for us to accept certain propositions, no matter how
strong the evidence in their favor. Since all proof depends on the acceptance
of certain propositions as truth no proposition can
be proved true to one who is sufficiently
determined not to believe it.” What is it that comprises
that force that stops what we would call objective thought?
Cultural conditioning and its values. Seems very obvious, but unfortunately
we’re all victim to this. We humans have no spontaneous
thoughts or actions. We are causal organisms perpetuating
a chain of ideas and reactions always existing in an
‘intermediate tenure’. Coming back to the central context,
it is critical to point out that there is nothing more ingrained
in a culture sense of identity than the broad social
institutions we are born into and the values they perpetuated.
The older the tradition is the stronger the fight
to preserve it. The world, in many respects,
is now an accelerating clash between stubborn
traditional conceits upheld by institutions which continue
to gain from their exploitation and the emergent, scientific
reality and logical assessment that is proven to illuminate
the closest approximation to truth we have as a species. As I begin this assessment of
the nature of war and peace a controversial subject indeed, I’d
like everyone to listen to themselves monitor their own personal reactions
to the statements I make. When you encounter something you don’t
agree with, honestly ask yourself where is that dissonance
originating from? Is it coming from a
technical analysis where the variables are being taken
into account on their own merit absent the messenger? Or is that
disagreement coming from perspectives which just might be based on
cultural value comforts, which for better or worse, have defined
what you think is empirical normality regardless if it’s true or not. That noted, let’s get a few things
out of way regarding myself given the sensitive territory
I’m about to embark. I’m not here to speak with condemnation
of any country, political party religious claim or
institution at all. I’m not here to argue in favor of
war or against US imperialism. I’m not here to even inflame bias
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict nor am I here to pose judgment
on any party or power explicitly despite the endless notable
atrocities illuminated by history. Why? Because when it comes to
change, and I mean real change all currently received
angles of common debate and their postulated, inner-systems
solutions ‘in the box’ are invalid when the broad context
is understood regarding war. We need to think on a
different level now. Given that frame of reference, I cannot
logically be loyal to any country. I have no loyalty to any
person, guru or leader or any respect to submission.
I hold no loyalty to any race, religion political party or established
ideological creed and most importantly, I hold no
empirical faith of permanence in any assumption
of supposed fact historical, current or future,
beyond the understanding that all known human
conceptions will evolve change, refine, from here until
the end of our existence. The only constant is change. [Applause] The only constant is
obviously change. While that seems like a
self-canceling paradox the purpose of the historical record
itself is really for us to gain inference from everything we see in history
whatever the discipline may be and when we apply the scientific
method of evaluation to its patterns we can draw relevant
conclusions. That is basically what
we do with our minds. Science is our tool for creating a
better world for all human beings while preserving the
habitat and very simply (as this work will describe) it is
only when we change the structure of the predominant
global social system namely its economic premise, which
precedes all others in causality that what could be called
‘world peace’ is possible. Part One: The History of Human
Conflict and the Human Nature Debate. It appears that much of the
world’s cultures still possess largely superstitious
views of human conduct territoriality and supposed
inevitabilities of war both from the standpoint of
offensive provocation and defense. It has been argued historically that humans
have an innate tendency for violence implying at the extreme cases that
regardless of the nature of the circumstance violent, domineering
behavior will erupt almost randomly like a pressure
valve releasing steam. Therefore, as the logic goes, the
posture of war and protection is deemed a natural, inevitable
consequence for everyone. This idea has taken on various
metaphysical forms in history with likely the most notable being the
religious notion of evil and good: evil existing as a spiritual force
that simply cannot be stopped only protected against. As will be discussed more later, this
use of the good and evil duality along with many other truly
superstitious assumptions is still very much a part of the
motivating political rhetoric that works to entice public
support for the states’ wars. A powerful tool of propaganda
indeed, especially given the fact that the majority of humans
on this planet still assume such religious forms of causality,
hence the inherent credulity. However, if you were to ask most
moderately-educated individuals what they mean by
the term ‘evil’ the definition would probably
be relegated ostensibly to the scientific notion
of human instinct. Given the near contextual equivalent
of these notions in context I think Dr. James Gilligan of Harvard
University Center for Study of Violence in America had the most direct response.
He states “One reason the instinctual
argument for violent behavior is to support the status quo. If violence is innate and instinctual,
then clearly there is no point in trying to change our
social and economic system.” What does history and modern
science really show with respect to the human sociological condition
regarding patterns of violence with respect to the
human nature debate? Have they found the ‘war gene’
that enables this instinct for us to come in mass
and kill other people? Is there anything in the physical
sciences that they can express an empirical causality residing
in the evolutionary biology or even the
evolutionary psychology of the human organism to
express violence inevitably? The answer as modern sociobiological
research has shown is clearly ‘no’. It is found that the
entire basis of assumption that has drawn the conclusion
that humans are innately violent comes from a narrow
comparison of events with high levels of omission, with
respect to what circumstances or conditions brought
about those events. There is only one universal
factor that can be measured with respect to development
and execution of violence whether civilian or military,
and that is the environment. The only known trackable,
universal variable is the nature of the environment,
physical and sociological which the human being has been
raised into or exists in. At the very core of
our human definition is really the environment itself,
something I find quite interesting. As a species, our physical and
mental facilities were selected and left remaining by
biological evolution with respect to what best enables
our fitness and survival. We are literally manifest
of the physical environment and natural physical laws
that govern that environment. This is what evolution is: a
shaping process of the universe to slowly conform new emerging
entities to existing conditions so they work. This is why we exist on
Earth and have the components we do breathing air versus
existing on Venus. If we evolved there, we’d have
very different components to be able to survive there,
if we could survive at all. Even our gene expression, which
is assumed to be at the core of our supposedly fixed
human nature psychology is actually controlled by
environmental stimulus (something people don’t
talk about enough). For example, if you take a child at birth
and place him or her in a dark room for a certain period, the genetic
propensity to see will simply not develop. If you take an infant at birth
and feed it and house it yet never touch or give
affection to that young infant not only would that child not
grow, it will likely die because affection is intrinsic to
the infancy stage of development: environmental influence. In the end, what is found is that the
single greatest determining factor influencing the human organism
in the long and short term is the environment around us, with
our genes reacting to that stimulus within a certain range
of possibility. The more we learn about
his relationship the larger the range of possibility
seems to reveal itself, on many levels. The largest range of possibilities
enabled by environmental causality is on the level of culture. When we realize the magnitude of
cultural influence on human psychology and sociology, we are left
with the glaring realization that the most profound
imperative we have when it comes to
changing human behavior is to change the
circumstance we exist in both with regard to primal core survival,
such as access to the necessities of life and safety, to the subtle
educational and cultural influences that shape the way we view
the world and each other. That isn’t to say humans do not have
an evolutionarily derived nature. Our general instinct
to live, to procreate to even defend ourselves
if threatened most certainly we have these
tendencies; we are not blank slates. The consideration of our common auto
responses or so-called instincts are indeed still factors to
consider in general in the equation but the equation is
so greatly skewed what has been found is that we have
a predictable range of behavior based almost entirely upon
the conditions present and the difference between one
human being picking up a weapon and killing another in cold blood as the
institution of war formally demands and one who chooses not to, is
purely a cultural contrivance. What separates a serial killer who profiles a group of
people for systematic murder and a soldier who
does the same thing? Where does the moral line draw? To me, as controversial as
it may seem, it doesn’t draw for there really is
no moral line at all when the circumstances of
the person are considered. For each person is and can only be
a consequence of their environment whether biologically induced
or culturally programmed and the latter holds far
more weight than the former when it comes to human
behavior and choice. Sorry to drill it in. For those who might think
such a notion is dangerous and cold, no morality perhaps with the assumption that we humans
require some type of moral guidance for civility, such as the
traditional religious commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” I ask you from a more
pragmatic standpoint: Have these age-old
ideals done anything to stop the seemingly
endless global violence human abuse towards each other
and the anti-human exploitations that exist on a daily basis?
The answer is obviously ‘no’. Imposed philosophic morality
will not save the world. Only a calculated tangible plan to alter our circumstances so
that such actions pose no merit will stop what we consider
to be immoral behavior. With that out of the way, let’s
take a brief examination of history with its relationship
to conflict. I’m going to start in a place you might
not expect: our primate ancestors. Older anthropological studies that have
attempted to justify human violence would often compare humans to
our earlier stages of evolution for their pattern recognition.
It seems logical on the surface since we share about 95
– 99% of the DNA of chimpanzees and other primates in that spectrum.
Sounds impressive. It might also sound
impressive that fruit flies share about 60% of human genes but that connection to behavior is
dubious at best, I think we’d all admit. That’s because the sharing
of genes in this context has almost no
relevance whatsoever as counterintuitive
as that approach is. Regardless, there are indeed common
behaviors relating to violence we do see between human society
and non-human primate society such as social stratification,
even pure murder elements of organized
violence, revenge reactions trust and antitrust responses and a number of other reactions that we
certainly recognize in our own species. Like human culture, they also show
unique variations and exceptions to this behavior based on
experiences and conditions which make such notions
of trait universality difficult to diagnose
empirically. For example, an anthropologist and
neuroscientist at Stanford University who spent decades studying a
baboon troop in Africa was amazed to witness a social transformation
in this troop after the Alpha males of the group became poisoned
by accident and died leaving only the lower, less
aggressive classes in the troop. This removal of the Alphas
and their troop dominance apparently transformed this group into
one with much lower levels of violence and aggression than he
had ever seen before not only for that existing
generation, even a decade later due to this environmental
cultural shift in the troop they still maintain low
levels of aggression even when they acquire new males
that migrate from other troops who have those normal
aggressive tendencies. They are actually able to
condition those new members into equally lower patterns
of aggression on average hence the cultural conditioning. It’s a very unique finding.
Does that mean that baboons can be conditioned to wear business suits and
drive cars to peace rallies and sing John Lennon’s song ‘Imagine’?
Of course not. We’re dealing with a range of behavior.
Therefore the pertinent question becomes: What is the range
of the human being? It appears that the more simple
the organism is in biology (especially its cognitive development if
there is any) the less flexibility it has. The classic example would be ants, who
show steadfast predictable behaviors almost to the extent that they
are mere chemical machines unfolding in an automatic way but the more complex the organism,
generally speaking, the more versatile. If you examine what we understand
now about human brain evolution from its reptilian status
to early mammalians to the late mammal changes,
reasonable evidence suggests that the current state of our cerebral
cortex, especially the neo-cortex is what enables a very unique,
adaptive understanding and flexibility we take for granted in human
society, or even don’t recognize. This is also clearly evident in the
vast, varied cultural expressions we see and have seen in
the world historically. It’s a unique thing, where
on one side of the planet you can have pacifist communities
with little to no violence while the other side:
systematic daily slaughter. Given no evidence to support
true psychological differences in races, only the regional
conditions and culture can explain these
vast differences. This leads me to a general history
of human society and warfare. Likely the best place to start is
the vast period of human existence as hunter-gatherers before
the Neolithic Revolution and the advent of agriculture
and common tools which was roughly
12,000 years ago. We often forget that 99% of what
we define as Homo-Sapien (us) existed in largely non-stratified,
egalitarian social structures with low levels of violence, and the
pattern of mass-mobilization for warfare as we know it,
virtually nonexistent. The few hunter-gatherer
groups that still exist today in isolated pockets still show support
for this general, peaceful manner. It appears that after the
Neolithic Revolution with the advent of us being
able to control our environment hence production and
stockpiling of food the creation of tools, the
ordering of labor rules, etc. the seeds of our current
socioeconomic system were planted. It is easy to see how the
basic concept of value as derived from one’s labor manifested
a protectionist and reciprocal system of exchange of labor, even though
such value and market notions were not formally realized until
the 17th or 18th centuries. As this progression continued
from the Neolithic Revolution the passive often nomadic
lifestyles of the hunter-gatherer slowly became replaced with the
settled, protectionist tribes and then eventually localized
city-type societies. It is here where we begin to
see warfare as we know it including the technology
that enables this weaponry which is a conversation
in and of itself. In the words of Richard A.
Gabriel in a text called ‘A Short History of War’ “The invention and
spread of agriculture coupled with the domestication
of animals in the 5th century BC are acknowledged as the developments
that set the stage for the emergence of the first large-scale,
complex urban cities. These societies which appear almost
simultaneously around 4000 BC in Egypt and Mesopotamia
used stone tools but within 500 years stone tools
and weapons gave way to bronze. With bronze manufacture came
a revolution in warfare.” It is also the period that
the concept of the state and the permanence of the
armed force emerged. “These early civilizations produced the first
example of state- governing institutions initially as centralized chiefdoms
and later as monarchies. At the same time, centralization demanded
the creation of an administrative structure capable of directing social…
[Technical problem with microphone] The development of central state institutions
and a supporting administrative apparatus inevitably gave form and stability
to military structures. The result was the expansion
and stabilization of the formerly loose and
unstable warrior castes. By 2700 BC in Sumer there was a fully articulated
military structure and standing army organized
along modern lines. The standing army emerged as a
permanent part of the social structure and was endowed with strong
claims to social legitimacy and has been with
us ever since.” Since that time of those early
forms of modern civilization there have been
thousands of wars most of which have to do with the
acquisition of resources or territory where one group is either working to
expand its power and material wealth or working to protect itself from
others trying to conquer and absorb it. This is essentially still the
same state of affairs today. The question to be asked is: Why
the persistence of the tendency? Where’s the root origin?
What motivates an army to kill in a controlled cold manner for
the sake of the state’s benefit? As will be expanded upon
as we continue this talk the tendency for war is not a universal
human trait that demands expression but a very sensitive
vulnerability to one’s sense of social
identity, sense of acceptance fear and general personal concern
which if properly organized can be manipulated into the service
of one group over another. The human nature debate regarding
violence which shows no universals does reveal a highly
probable response tendency when certain environmental
stimulus is presented to the human to generate fear or offense. What has been set in motion since
the early period of modern warfare is not some anomaly
of human society nor does it appear to be an
unstoppable human tendency. Rather, it appears to be a
natural characteristic of: 1) The function of the state institution
and its inherent need for control along with the
core of its origin the foundational economic
assumptions of resource scarcity superstition and the
psychology it perpetuates. Part Two: The State,
Character and Coercion Since the very nature of modern warfare
is almost universally representative of a larger social entity and
governmental apparatus known as the state let’s consider its basic
characteristics in general. The first to note is its
basis in self-protection. Since the state was born
out of tribal sovereignty where independent authority is
claimed over a geographical area (a region which had been
stolen from some other group who will likely claim the
same thing at some point) the issue of protection is
inherent and consequential Not only protection
from external forces but from what can be rightfully called
in feudalistic terms ‘its subjects’. These subjects are also
historically held to hold a duty or responsibility to the state’s
institutional preservation. This medieval remnant is not only with
respect to “serving your country” such as joining the armed forces, but
also found in the notions of treason sedition and other
legal protections that work directly
against the citizenry if they were to get
out of line, too far. It is also worth pointing out that
these elements of internal protection have been updated by
more modern means such as with the fairly new
concept of ‘the terrorist’ and its inherently open,
ambiguous distinction which can be applied to both
foreign and domestic citizens enabling an even more flexible
form of internal protection due to its ambiguity. As far as the broad characteristics
and nature of interaction of states state entities (excuse
me) across the world it is generally safe to break them
up into categories of superpowers powers, sub-powers and in
feudalistic terms, vassal states. After the Cold War, the US is noted to have
emerged as the world’s first superpower as defined by its military
and economic might. The powers, many of which
are gaining traction today and could now be called
parallel superpowers are the other large economies such
as China, Britain, Russia, etc. each always with enormous
military power as well. The sub-powers could be
considered the more passive yet independent states,
which is the majority while the vassal states are the
ones that operate in subservience to the power states, often
providing economic advantage through subjugation, on
one level or another. With respect to subjugation,
this is a core characteristic of the predatory nature
of the state institution. It is worth pointing out that
the tactics of subjugation which is what in many ways
facilitates the states’ power status have changed over time in effect
becoming more covert in its warfare. Some of these methods are not
physically violent at all at least not on the surface. These include economic warfare
approaches which serve as complete acts of aggression
in and of themselves or a part of a
procedural prelude to traditional military action, which
comes in the form of trade tariffs sanctions, debt by coercion and many other lesser
known, covert methods which typically have to
do with a sense of debt with dealings of the
World Bank or the IMF or the United Nations in
the sense of sanctions. These globally sanctioned,
financial institutions have heavy vested business and
state interests behind them and have the power to impose debt
to bail out suffering countries at the expense of the quality
of life of its citizenry often taking charge of natural
resources or industries through select privatization or
other manners that could weaken a country’s ability to the effect
that it becomes reliant on others and their industries. This is simply a more
covert form of subjugation than we saw with the British Empire
during its imperial expansion and the East India Company,
the commercial force that took advantage of the newly
conquered regional resources and labor in Asia in
the 19th century. Some analysts will compare the
British Empire to the United States and examine how the fact that
the US gained its status through not just
military pressure but through the presence of this very
covert complex economic strategy which repositions other
countries into subjugation to US economic and
geo-economic interests. Why? Because as will be addressed
in more detail in Part Three despite the superstitious
rhetoric to the contrary the state is nothing more
than a manifestation and extension of the
economic paradigm. It is an economic entity
in its purest form and this is something many today
seem not to fully understand. The conduct of the state is based
on methods of resecuring itself by whatever means necessary.
Those who condemn the United States as a corporate,
commercial state empire as though such a disposition is an
anomaly of state power behavior are not taking into account
the very economic premise upon which it is based, as we
will discuss as we go along. Those basic issues aside let’s now hone more into the
coercive tendency of the state with respect to its war posture. Since behind the state (as with
any institution) are human beings and their values, the issue
of mass-conditioning to support the state’s integrity
is paramount to its survival As history has shown,
when it comes to war the public at large
rarely, if ever initiates the original
interest in conflict only the politicians and
their benefactors do. Then, they work to entice
their subjects for support. Patriotism, honor,
the moral crusade: The first thing to notice about
all state wars in preparation is that they never express
themselves as being offensive only defensive, the common
defense as it’s called. In the US, the Department of Defense is
the name of our war ministry, really. It sounds noble, while
also immediately implying the assumption of fear
from the external. While the general public sees this
fear in a traditional, invasive sense the more relevant fear
is on the state level. It is discrete, and the fear has to do
with the state power’s fear of loss: the loss of power. Perhaps the best expression of
this was exemplified in the work by former National Security
Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski ‘The Grand Chessboard’ was the name
of his work and this book details a series of extremely accurate
observations and predictions with respect to what it will
take for America to remain as the world’s major power, specifically
its necessity to control Eurasia and the Middle East. In this posture, the fear is generated
out of an unargued assumption that American global
leadership is the only way. The chess game to
preserve should always should be in our own
favor, or else, perhaps the world at large will
suffer as a result. It’s a classic imperialist
apologist view that we the Americans and our
allies must take over everything because we know better. Coupled with this fear-based
assumption is that if the US isn’t the empire power, then
another one will come along and hurt US interests which on the of social maturity
at this stage happens to be true (and this is what Brzezinski
argues) but at no point is there a viable reflection
on social balance. It’s simply not considered which is absolutely characteristic
of the state entity and its foundation, so we shouldn’t
blame Brzezinski for his view. He is simply expressing
what is sadly normality even though, as we’ll
describe, is wholly inhumane and extremely unsustainable. He states “America is now
the only global superpower and Eurasia is the
globe’s central arena. Hence what happens to the distribution
of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance
to America’s global primacy and to America’s
historical legacy. To put it into terminology
that harkens back to the more brutal age
of ancient empires the 3 grand imperatives
of imperial geo-strategy are to prevent collusion and maintain
security dependence among the vassals to keep tributaries
pliant and protected and to keep the barbarians
from coming together. Henceforth, the United
States may have determined how to cope with regional coalitions
that seek to push America out of Eurasia thereby threatening America’s
status as a global power.” If you read this work, which
was written about 15 years ago you will notice even
right now immediately that the American imperialist state
and its allies have been acting upon this specific
interest explicitly. However, you will not see the political
establishment or mainstream media expressing this view at all to the
public in its day-to-day affairs even though Brzezinski will argue
it as though it’s common sense. The media, corporations
and the state go back to age-old tactics
of psychological coercion which is based entirely upon a
metaphysical fantasy kind of rhetoric which utilizes ideas such
as faith and moral good patriotism and the idea of
honor, fear in common defense and other largely empty concepts which serve only to
mobilize the population to support the interests
of the waring party. Thorstein Veblen, a sociologist and
economist, who will be quoted quite a bit in this presentation, I
think put this best in 1917 “Any patriotism will serve as a ways
and means to warlike enterprise and the competent management,
even if the people are not habitually prone
to a bellicose temper. Rightly managed, ordinary
patriotic sentiment may readily be mobilized
for warlike adventure by any reasonably adroit and
single-minded body of statesmen of which there is
abundant illustration.” Abundant illustration indeed for at the core of all
social motivation for war rests a subset of such
intangible values which are in all reality
exceedingly xenophobic neurotic and irrational. Veblen continues “It is also
quite a safe generalization that when hostilities have
once been got fairly under way by the interested statesman, the
patriotic sentiment of the nation may confidently be counted
on to back the enterprise irrespective of the
merits of the quarrel.” I think this is best exemplified today
with the common American phrase which probably carries over to other
countries “I’m against the war but support the troops!” This is what could be called
‘classic Orwellian doublethink’ and has been very effective
in reducing public outcry which then plays into
the concept of honor and the very sacrificial nature of
the soldier entities themselves. Here is where the ceremony
and elaborate costumes medals, authority appearances
find their place. Honor is formalized through ceremonials,
medals and postures of respect events and other adornments
which impress the public as to the value of the
actions of the soldiers and hence the value of the
war that they represent. This also creates
a cultural taboo where to insult any element
of the war apparatus can be seen as showing
disrespect to the sacrifice of the Armed Forces and their honor,
hence reinforcing the broad illusion that the initiation of wars are
noble acts with noble participants. Paired with the notion of honor and
the effect of what it represents resides the ultimate tool
to crusade: morality. Veble continues “Any warlike enterprise
that is hopeful to be entered on must have the moral sanction of the
community or of an effective majority in the community.
It consequently becomes the first concern of the warlike statesman to
put his moral force in train for the adventure on
which he is bent. There are two main
lines of motivation: 1) The preservation
or furtherance of the community’s material
interest, real or fancied 2) Vindication of
the national honor. To these should perhaps
be added a third: the advancement and perpetuation
of the nature’s culture. This last point on the perpetuation
of the nature’s culture is best exemplified by the
Western imperial catchphrase of seeking to spread
‘Freedom and Democracy’ in a metaphysic/religious
notion, pure and simple. The actual meaning of this poetically
fanciful yet entirely empty phrase has more to do with the perseverance
of private interests and their freedom than some moral objection to another
country’s supposed inhumanity and the interest to ‘liberate
them’ or whatever. It is no different
than the infamous ideological crusades
during the Middle Ages which always had an underlying
material and territorial interest for the benefit of the
few behind-the-scenes despite the religious
overlay we hear in history. I can think of nothing
more powerful than the mobilization of
religious moral values in service of the few who actually
gain from the war enterprise. The notion of freedom and democracy
is equally as persuasive as the historical notion of one
religious group seeking to save another by invasion and subjugation. I hope that connection is made. That acknowledged, let’s consider the
general unfolding of the war venture. With the seed of patriotism and
ongoing reinforcement of sentiment in a given population whose political
constituents seek to motivate for war the first step is usually an event that
creates a direct imposition of fear that’s coupled with a violation
of the national honor metaphysic. Zbigniew Brzezinski understood this
well and he stated on the issue “The attitude of the American public
toward the external projection of American power has been
much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s
engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. As America becomes an increasingly
multicultural society it may find it more difficult to fashion
a consensus on foreign policy issues except in the circumstance
of a truly massive and widely perceived,
direct external threat.” This can be not only a threat in a real sense but
also a metaphysical one in the sense of intangible
moral, honor or outrage. If we go through history, say
the United States’ wars… (as an American this is the
history I’m most familiar with) if we go through the US’ wars, we
find that the point of provocation that leads to war is almost
always of a minor nature in proportion to what follows,
exacerbated entirely by the irrational moral outrage and honor neurosis that leads to seeking
retribution and revenge manipulating the public
to believe such things. From the Mexican-American
War for example of 1846 that began with a scuffle along
the Mexican domination of Texas the news reports proclaimed
‘off the cuff’ that “Mexicans are killing our boys in Texas!
” plastered all over the news. In this little war,
stealing land from Mexico cost 30,000 deaths in total
over the course of a few years. 30,000 deaths and
that’s a long time ago. The Vietnam-American War which was
provoked by a supposed torpedo attack that didn’t kill anybody, yet opened
the public support for an involvement that killed about
3.5 million humans! Nearly all of these imperial wars,
including the inclusion of the US in world wars, pose proportionally
nominal inflictions statistically yet grossly amplified by the
public’s jingoistic reactions. The basic sociological
understanding was formalized in a CIA created plan called
‘Operation Northwoods’ when the US was seeking an excuse
to invade Cuba in the 1960s. They planned to conduct a series
of terrorist attacks internally and then blame them on Cuba for the
sake of public perception and support hence exploiting their moral outrage and fear.
This is public record and dare I add the king of all modern
religious events one that provoked every
level of moral outrage honor and patriotic neurosis the events of September 11th,
2001 prove beyond any doubt that the causality of a given
provocation need not have any true bearing on the actions
that follow by the State given enough shock and
jingoistic fervor. Even if the US government’s
official narrative of this event was absolutely true, 100% truth the actions of the US government and
its allies that followed the event had nothing to do with anything
that relates to the event itself. Absolutely nothing, if
you paid attention. [Applause] It merely opened the floodgates
of patriotic retribution and allowed for a virtually open
palette of imperial mobilization. Back to the broader point of
state character beyond the US the acts of 9/11 also open the floodgates
for a broader redefinition of terms for almost every power
structure in the world because intrinsically, the power
structures of the world, the state entity are self-contained in
their very definition. They don’t really care about any other
country or about their population. It’s not a moral thing.
It’s the way that they’ve been constructed. From Turkey to Russia, to
Israel, to the UK, etc. the benefit of 9/11 was massive to
the State in hindering the public the external, engulfing and
exacerbating its power. For the record, there
is no war on terrorism. There can be… [Applause] There can be no such thing
as a war on an abstraction. It has no universally operational premise.
It has no location and even worse, it has no
universal notion of success not to mention all acts of so-called
‘terrorism’ are statistically invalid with respect to true
threats to human society and public health, but that’s
for another conversation. Trillions of dollars being spent on
an affair when we have people dying of so many other things that
money could take good use with but we all know what the
real intent actually is: The real war being waged is actually on
problem resolution and human harmony. The real war is on a balance
of power and social justice. The real war is on the institution
of economic equality. Unfortunately, social stability
is not a sought characteristic of large state enterprises
for it affords no advantage. The true tool of terrorism
is not as an act of violence by an incredibly small desperate
subculture that does exist but a tool of
excuse by the State for further power consolidation, foreign
and domestic. I won’t drill it in. As I complete this section of the
talk regarding societal manipulation by state powers for the purposes
of reinforcing state integrity at the ongoing expense of other states
and its subjects, I’m often asked: What defines social cohesion
now, and community trust? Isn’t patriotism and national pride
a positive force on some level? If you think about it, nearly
all notions of community have basically been overridden
by the ever-dividing premise of market competition and the
privatization of everything. There’s very little left
in the world that instills structurally social capital
and community trust anymore. Even the so-called egalitarian
states of the world: Norway, Sweden, etc. are showing large patterns of imbalanced
growth and income equality hence their loss of community.
It’s getting worse, in other words. For internal purposes, it could be
said that patriotism does serve a role since it’s the only thing left,
but only within the interests of the isolated community. However, I’m sorry to say,
this tribalism can easily be turned around against other
forces in the same logic. I’m sure there was great camaraderie
and interpersonal support occurring with the 10 million
strong Nazi army but that nationalist
cohesion also facilitated one of the largest examples
of social destruction and division in
the modern world. On a different level, on a
final note at this point our economies are of scale and they’re
inherently international by nature. They have to be.
Patriotic nationalism has no place in our technical, earthly reality on
any level, especially in this regard. The state as it exists is
really an incredible reducer of technical efficiency
when it comes to supporting the human population through
production and the like. The environmental respect
as a whole is also lost because of the boundaries
that are set up. It really slows down certain attributes
and responsibilities inherently having these walls up.
It’s not economically efficient. It doesn’t gravitate towards
actually being responsible towards your environment, and I think
we’re beginning to see those issues even more so today,
on multiple levels. Same premise: Even today the
idea of ‘made in America’ (I even saw a ‘made in
Israel’ while I was here) it’s a common mantra for
commerce advertising now. Yet, that intention is of an
immediate technical inefficiency for proper good production is inherently
a global affair on all levels including the usufruct
of world knowledge. Everyone is contributor to the knowledge;
there’s no isolated knowledge; it’s impossible to assume that only your
country could produce isolated things. It’s an organism of knowledge
that continues to evolve. In the truest sense of the word,
economy can not have boundaries and restrictions.
It’s simply too inefficient. You can operate that way,
but you’re not actually operating in the true sense
of earthly management which is what an economy is,
hence the reduction of waste. Patriotic nationalism is not only
dangerous, it’s technically inefficient. True social cohesion can
only truly be sustained on the human scale globally, with our
loyalties to each other, the habitat and the natural laws of nature, a
technical reality, not a poetic one. Otherwise, you will have nothing but
conflict, inefficiency and degradation which is exactly
what we have now. In the words of Albert Einstein
“Nationalism is an infantile disease: It is the measles of mankind.” [Applause] Part Three: A Culture of War,
Business Ownership and Competition In the prior section, we ran through some
core characteristics of the state entity. Now I would like to
express the obvious yet grossly overlooked foundational
premise of its existence which underscores the logic of all
of its characteristics denoted. When we reflect on the
core values of the state and its interest in self-protection,
coupled with the general propensity for territoriality and
commercial expansion hence the rotating empires
we’ve seen historically we find that the core of the
institution is really a culmination born out of certain assumptions namely those that
define the foundation of what we call modern
economics today or specifically market
economics today. I would like to first point out that
when attempting to speak empirically I see no merit in such terms as
capitalism or the free market or socialism or communism
or any other ‘ism’ notions which really serve
as limits of debate in the discussion of social operation,
as they represent a truncated frame of reference with respect to our
economy and what an economy means. The real foundational premise of all of those traditional institutions
goes back much farther in time than any traditional economic
theorist would admit. What we find is that the evolution
of the economic system we know today has been in lockstep with the ongoing
evolution of the state entity. If we want to diagnose what it is
that initiates war, subjugation and territorial disputes along with a
possible resolution for global peace we need to step back much farther
and examine the very fabric of where our life-support
and dominant personal and social values are derived. As noted earlier, the Neolithic
Revolution was a powerful turning point for the manner in which human
society organized itself. With the sudden, then hidden
understanding of scientific causality slowly emerging, our newfound
ability to control our environment and strategically produce more
than was available before brought about the advent
of a producer class and the active trade itself
eventually as labor specialization became a normal, fixed part
of the socioeconomic model. This new basis of social organization
then eventually advanced into the use of symbols to
represent the exchange value of a producer’s good, in the
act of trade, known as money which in effect was
the introduction of a new commodity in and
of itself, an abstraction. This inherent monetary value an abstract notion
of value of paper (even with the gold standard,
it was still abstract) led to the concept
of investment. Labor slowly became more
and more centralized as the corporation
or plant was owned and facilitated by the investor
class that dealt with the money in and of itself, that
could buy the producer. Then, as the natural advancement
in science and technology slowly reduced the need for humans
as a producer (mechanization) of all the new novel concepts
of service and production for the sake of maintaining the
now established labor system a transformation has occurred where
that original role of the person has deviated from being a
producer harnessing direct trade for personal interest, to a vehicle
of servitude, to the interests of the investment and
ownership class. Today, as a consequence, the most
rewarded form of social participation which actually has zero bearing
on the life-support processes of the original, economic
premise itself, is investment. As will be reiterated in a moment,
this consequential ownership class is what currently runs the
world, colloquially speaking. Sociologist Thorstein Veblen
summarizes this issue from a slightly different angle,
but in a very acute way: “The standard theories of economic science
have assumed the rights of property and contract as axiomatic premises
and ultimate terms of analysis and their theories are
commonly drawn in such a form as would fit the circumstances of the
handicraft industry and petty trade.” What he means by that are the
simplistic notions of the producer early on before
modern technology. “These theories appear tenable
on the whole when taken to apply to the economic situation
of that earlier time in virtually all that they have to
say on questions of wages, capital savings, the economy and the efficiency
of management and production by the methods of private enterprise
resting on these rights of ownership and contract and governed by
the pursuit of private gain. It is when these standard theories are
sought to be applied to the later situation which has outgrown the
conditions of handicraft that they appear nugatory
and meretricious. The competitive system, which
these standard theories assume as necessary conditions
of their own validity and about which they are designed
to form a defensive hedge would, under those earlier
conditions of small-scale enterprise and personal contract, appear to have
both a passively valid assumption as a premise and a
passably expedient scheme of economic relations and traffic.
” He continues “Under that order of
handicraft and petty trade that led to the standardization
of these rights of ownership in the accentuated form which belong
to them in the modern law and custom the common man had a practicable
chance of free initiative and self-direction in his choice in
pursuit of an occupation and livelihood in so far as rights of the
ownership bore in his case. The complexion of things as
touches the effectual bearing of the institutional property in the
ancient customary rights of ownership has changed substantially. The competitive system has in
great measure ceased to operate as a routine of natural liberty, in
fact; particularly insofar as touches the fortunes of the common man,
the impecunious mass of people.” He then goes on to elaborate why.
This is the most critical point “At least in the popular conception and
presumably in some degree also in fact the right of property so served as
a guarantee of personal liberty and a basis of equality
and so its apologists still look on the institution. In a very appreciable degree,
this complexion of things and of popular conceptions
has changed since then. Although, as would be expected,
the change in popular conceptions has not kept pace with the
changing circumstances. On the transition to machine technology,
the plant became a unit of operation and control has clearly come to be
not the individual or isolated plant but rather an articulated group
of such plants working together as a balanced system (a.
k.a. corporation) under a collective business
management and coincidentally the individual workmen has been falling
into the position of an auxiliary factor nearly into that of
an article of supply to be charged up as an
item of operating expense so that at this point the right
of ownership has ceased to be in fact, a guarantee of personal
liberty to the common man and has come to be, or is coming
to be, a guarantee of dependence.” He wrote that in 1917 to avoid a seeming divergence on the broad flaws of the monetary
market economy in general keeping in pace with a specific
focus of war, the state and as evolution from this
core economic foundation. This point by Veblen is
critical to understand as it underscores
what is the growth of an abstract economic
premise of ownership with a shift of power from the
general worker/producer class to the investment and
ownership business class which are in effect a
detrimental perversion of the producer concept, the very
basis of the original theory as these people literally
contribute nothing to the technical artistic and
scientific basis of common industry; yet, they are now the
focal point of interest. Amazingly enough, due to
the power now yielded by this ownership
investment class we have a state entity
which not only operates as a manifestation of those values
of competition and ownership but pulls the majority of
its governance constituents from the very same wealth,
business and operation pool. Surprise, surprise! These values also create and
perpetuate a legal system which works to benefit not only the
interests of the ownership class but also the interest
of its expansion which is a trademark of the
capital business venture which manifests into the
monopolistic, imperialist tendency that defines a pivotal
characteristic of the large state. Like business monopoly
in the commercial world the larger in size
the establishment the more it tends to want
to increase its size. It’s a basic business acumen. On this issue of ownership and
hence its inevitable morphing into the governance
class, Veblen states “The responsible officials and their
chief administrative officers so much as may at all reasonably be called
the government or the administration are invariably and characteristically
drawn from these beneficiary classes: nobles, gentleman or businessmen which all come to the same
thing for the purpose in hand; the point of it all being that
the common man does not come within these precincts and does
not share in these councils that are assumed to guide the
destiny of the nations.” He adds with respect to the
legislative legal orientation to which these beneficiary classes defined
by the ownership investment values are in control of “It may confidently be counted
on that all the apparatus of law and all the coercive agencies of law and
order will be brought in requisition to uphold the ancient
rights of ownership whenever any more is made toward
their disallowance or restriction. There is a strong and
stubborn interest bound up with the maintenance of pecuniary
faith (that means money) and the class in whom this material
interest vests are also in effect invested with the coercive
powers of the law” which means you’re
double screwed. Put another way, those factors that
enable the upper and ownership class which have been codified by
the near religious acceptance of the rights of property,
trade and exploitation as the practice of
social governance are reinforced by the direct legal
governance via the very same constituency that benefits the most by the economic
system itself and all its inefficiency. When it comes to the
state initiation of war it does not take a lot of ingenuity to
understand the multilevel commercial and financial interests that are
really behind it, especially now. It’s bad enough that
the basic nature of the culmination of the
state institution is economic self-preserving and
exploitative in general but when the event-to-event
wars are taken into account and the specifics of those who gained
and those who’ve lost are figured a whole new level of
predatorialism emerges an entirely new level
of disgust emerges. In the past, the basic stealing of
land and its inherent resources were more or less the central
benefit of state wars. Today, we can extend
these economic benefits to the massive
military expenditures that have huge impacts
on GDP and trade the reconstruction of war-torn
areas by the conquering state commercial subsidiaries the slow prodding of a country’s
integrity through trade tariffs debilitating sanctions
and debt impositions for the sake of
population subjugation for the benefit of
transnational industries and many other modern
conventions which universally benefit mostly a very
small number of people and again, the ownership
and investment classes. This point was most
likely best expressed by one of America’s most decorated
Army officers of the 20th century Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler.
He wrote a book after World War I called ‘War Is a Racket’. He had this to say about
the industry of war “War is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope.
It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned
in dollars and the losses in lives. I spent 33 years and 4 months
in active military service and during that period I spent most
of my time as a high-class muscle man for big business: for Wall
Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer,
a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and
Cuba a decent place for the national city bank
boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a
dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house
of Brown Brothers in 1902 to 1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic
for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the
American fruit companies in 1903. In China, in 1927 I helped
see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back at it, I might have
given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three districts; I operated on three continents.” It’s amazing! [Applause] I’d like to conclude this
section by pointing out that this analysis is
taking a very broad view for the sake of the global
audience that this lecture hits and the relevance as it is
in its broadest scheme. War, while its core historic
drive is indeed economic can also have the direct
force of ideology, crusade and moral right as a
central motivator not only with respect to public
sanction as noted before but also as an active component of
the motivation on the state level. However, this is the
exception, not the rule. Even with the ostensibly
driven, religious foundation of the state of Israel, and the
assumed divine right it has as a backdrop for its claim of
ownership against Palestine the deciding factors
are still to be found as economic in operation
at the core level. As will be noted in the next section,
peace will likely not come from the interaction
of any state or any level of governance by the
ownership class, the beneficiary class. It will come from the
people, its subjects… [Applause] who will work to transcend the
power of the statehood entirely realizing that the
human level of loyalty is the only possible
perspective. [Applause] Part Four: Defining Peace
– A New Social Contract As we all know peace today is not
defined by an amiable reconciliation of differences in larger
efforts for collaboration. No, peace today is defined
by competitive armament and the general premise of
‘mutually assured destruction’ as was coined with
respect to the Cold War. Peace today is now only a
mere pause between conflicts on the stage of
global civilization. There is a war going on somewhere
virtually all the time. When there isn’t, the major
powers are busy scuffling moving their little tanks in the
sand, building more advanced weapons selling off old ones to
some other allied country who are basically
posturing in the same way all under the name of not only
protection, but good business as well. Military establishments today
have at their disposal the most advanced proprietary
forms of technology employing some of the best
scientists on the planet in this venture for
orchestrated death. When we consider the exponential
increase of information technology occuring in the world, which
facilitates greater and greater levels of material/technical advancement
and the advancement of weaponry the realization is that the
incalculable levels of possible human and planetary destruction
possibly awaits us. In the words of Albert Einstein as he witnessed the
expression of the atomic bomb “Our technology has
exceeded our humanity.” The question to be asked is are
we as a society mature enough to handle the incredible
possibilities for our new technological
advancement? Technology, which could also
benefit the world in profound ways or will our divisive, xenophobic,
tribal state premises and economic
selfishness prevail? At least in the past, social immaturity,
the prevalence of territorialism and dominance had a limited cost,
but we have nanotech weapons that will eventually make the atomic
bomb look like a Roman catapult a new level of social awareness and
responsibility needs to arise, and quickly for this is no longer an
issue of national security. It is an issue of
world security. To paraphrase one of my heroes
Carl Sagan, an American astronomer and avid proponent of scientific
thought and its application to society “It’s almost as though there is
a God and he gives us a choice. We can use our emerging technological abilities
to improve the lives of the human species and create an abundance where no
one needs to starve or be deprived or we can create a greater
means to destroy ourselves. It’s our choice.” Our global economic system is
based on a social Darwinism which assumes that if everyone looks
out only for their self-interest often at the expense of others who are basically seeking
the same thing in theory a larger order, social balance
will magically occur. This is the foundational
meta-magic philosophy of figures such as the father
of the free-market Adam Smith and his notion of
‘the invisible hand’ but things have changed. We’ve reached the point where
our personal self-interest now desperately needs to
become social interest if we expect to survive the
many trials ahead of us. Our evolutionary fitness is now
becoming a social imperative not a personal,
self-interested one. Our self-interest must become social
interest if we expect to survive because they are
actually one of the same if you really follow the logic. Either we become a globally
conscious, singular society with respectable core values on the
fundamental level, or we perish. Either we change or we die. Today the US, Israel and
other extensions of empire are prodding the states of Iran and
Syria growing more and more close to a provocation over
energy resources other acts of commerce,
geopolitical, geoeconomic control of coveted Eurasia as Brzezinski
pointed out 15 years prior. The recent withdrawal of US troops from
Iraq has now freed up some resources and given that most
presidential campaigns tend to persevere in re-election
of the incumbent president it would not surprise me at
all if we see conflict emerge before the 2012 US elections. However, Iran is not Iraq. It is in tight
economic balance with Russia and China the two other superpowers, with
enormous military capacity. It is not out of the question to
foreshadow that any invasion of Iran will quickly generate a global
destabilization of power to which something of a
world war could commence. If you examine the military
expenditure of the large powers you will see an upward curve, accelerating
in most cases over the past decade. Military trade agreement of these
powers, such as the recent selling of $30 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia,
revealing a growing intent. On the other side Russia
continues to sell arms to Syria another state in the
crosshairs of the US empire. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
stated in mid-January of this year during his annual televised
press conference that Russia would use its veto
at the UN Security Council to block any resolution calling for
military force to be used against Syria also saying that Russia
is ‘seriously worried’ that military action against Iran
would be under consideration and vow that Moscow would do
all it could to prevent it. “The consequences will be
extremely grave” he said. “It will trigger a chain reaction and
I don’t know where it will stop.” Likewise in late 2011, a Chinese Maj.
Gen. commented “China will not hesitate to protect
Iran even with a third world war” according to NDTV, a
Chinese news station. These reactions make sense since
Iran is a key energy component and deeply engrained in the geo-economic
interests of those powers in the region. In the end, who will suffer from
the interests of these state… these state interventions,
the imperialism and even the fighting of it
and lack of reconciliation (because it’s imperialism on all
sides if you think about it. The motivations are equally the same.
)? The people will. Possibly on a tragic
scale, especially given the growing automation
of military adventures where less people are now needed
with such drone aircrafts that can be remotely controlled
from thousands of miles away engaging in combat without direct
military loss on their end. I won’t even go into the
direct loss of empathy which implies that further cold
violence is on the horizon because people are detaching
themselves from the act of murder through automated means. I think Dr.
James Gilligan put it best “In the past, throughout
nearly all of human history the main threat to human survival is nature.
Today, it’s culture.” Therefore, not only does direct,
traditional protest need to persist in the limited capacity it has but it’s time for the people of the
world begin to form a new alliance that challenges not only the
drug-addict behavior-like sickness of the state establishment and its endless
juvenile, competitive war incentive but also get down to the
root of its causal nature which is the monetary
market system of economics and its metaphysic notions
of wealth, property power, trade, ownership
and competition. In the words of Thorstein
Veblen from 1970 “It has appeared in the
course of the argument that the preservation of the
present pecuniary law and order with all its incident of
ownership and investment is incompatible with an unwarlike
state of peace and security. This current scheme of investment,
business and (industrial) sabotage should have an appreciably better
chance of survival in the long run if the present conditions
of warlike preparation and national ‘insecurity’
were maintained or if the projected peace were left
in a somewhat problematic state sufficiently precarious to keep
national animosities alert and thereby to the neglect
of domestic interests particularly of such interests
as touch the public well-being. So, if the projectors of this
peace-at-large are in any degree inclined to seek concessive terms on what the
peace might hopefully be made enduring it should evidently be part of
their endeavors from the outset to put effects in train for the present abatement (stopping)
and eventual abrogation (ending) of the rights of ownership
and of the price system to which these
rights take effect.” To restate, peace is
not characteristic of the current model of economic practice.
The question then becomes: What form of economic model
(if there even is one) would inherently reward a state of
peace by its very construct? As the scientific method of reasoning
has made its way into everyday life with the slow dissipation of
superstition across the world (at least with respect
to social organization) a powerful new train of
thought is emerging. This train of thought
places the basis of economy on the principles of
natural physical law and not the inventive whims of prior,
primitive assumptions of human behavior and other false dualities and things
that are baggage from our evolution. It is in this work that The Zeitgeist
Movement finds its calling. The revolution of our economic premise
from superstitious to scientific will not only transcend
the grand failure of war the state power neurosis as well while overcoming the grand inefficiencies
associated. It will enable and reinforce a world of human betterment
beyond anything we’ve ever seen. Environmental and social respect
(which is desperately needed) and a material abundance that
our technology could create if we decided to allow it to something that the
world has never seen. Just as we had a great social paradigm
shift after the Neolithic Revolution we are on the edge of an equally
strong shift of consciousness as we inch into an age of post-scarcity
and global collaboration. Today there is no technical reason
for any human being to starve to be without housing or clothes,
to not have advanced education and high public-health,
both physical and mental. If we can transcend this dark
period which we currently reside future civilizations will
surely look back in horror at the enormous insanity of our
actions, fears and arrogance. Perhaps a new term will be coined to
describe the age that we live in. I would suggest ‘The
Age of Ignorance’. In conclusion, I’ll make one
final point with respect to the overcoming of
this war machine. It will not come from the state or as
they say ‘speaking truth to power’ nor will it come via the ownership
investment classes that control it that have engineered the function
of society as we see it. World peace will come from a
global rise in public solidarity on the human civilian level
and it will come from a mass rejection of
the distorted values and manipulation tactics coming from
the state and its commercial values. It will come from a worldwide
movement, absent borders racial notions or political
or religious parties to be based rather on the immutable
common ground we all share as a species which simply says “No, we are not
going to play this game anymore.” As the world is falling apart around
us with the growing unemployment the resource depletion, the
boundless debt expansion and collapse pressure, all
of which could further fuel the motivation for international
warfare, as history has shown there is likely no greater
time in modern history than to stand up and begin to do
something in a very active way. 1% of the world stand in control of over 99% of the population,
in the broadest concept. I really personally can’t wait
to see the look on their faces when the 99% realize how
much power they really have. [Applause] In conclusion, in the
immortal words of Carl Sagan “The old appeals to racial,
sexual, religious chauvinism to rabid nationalist fervor
are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which
sees the Earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism
at war with itself is doomed.” We are one planet. Thank you. [Applause] www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

100 thoughts on ““DEFINING PEACE” – Full Lecture | by Peter Joseph | Feb. 6th ’12 | The Zeitgeist Movement

  1. With every respect to Peter and that he keeps doing this.. I think he should simplify his language a bit, I mean, I'm from Sweden and english is not my native language, but I think I handle english almost as good as any american, but when he uses words like "colloquially" I just stop and have to go translate it. I can't say I believe that everyday common people understands everything he says.

  2. You write well. I have the same problem with my second language. I lose much because I miss a couple of big words not in common usage. Hang in there.

  3. LOVE how he said that we don't control our thoughts … basically saying he's a determinist without actually stating it… I wish he could tell me something I don't know though haha…

  4. I am 13 minutes in, and while his message is valid, his continues effort to wow us with his command of the English language is distracting and self defeating. This is much to important for Mr. Joseph to be making this about him, and it saddens me.

  5. Sorry but I think he needs to get over himself. I don't find him difficult to understand, I just think his presentation considering the message, is self defeating. He is suppose to be appealing to the masses. Not trying to wow us with his command of the English language. This is not his idea, and clearly he was guided by way of editing for the movie, thank god. Or I am sure he would have made that about him as well.

  6. You need to get passed your ego sir and genuinely attempt to absorb the content of this lecture – rather than resorting to the baseless tactic of 'attacking the individual'. Did you ever stop to consider for a second that maybe he presents his lectures the same way he communicates in everyday life?

  7. He's speaking to the intelligent audience because he knows there's a much better chance that they'll understand logic as opposed to risking the use of preschool English for the willfully ignorant audience who may or may not receive his message objectively.

  8. In other words, WAY TOO RISKY collaring his use of the language for the painfully uneducated, which unfortunately numbers far too many. With respect to people having English as a 2nd language – an objectification is worthy of course. However, there is a dedicated team of multi-linguals within the movement who commit a lot of time to transcribing and translating all the english lectures and videos associated with the movement. Or at the very least work diligently at embedding subtitles.

  9. If we lived in a resource-based economy, we'd already be implementing technological mediums that cater for these sorts of linguistic barriers because it is only the profit mechanism that impedes such technologies from reaching the fore. But no, people like you would prefer to blindly/naively defend and remain emotionally attached to a system that is systematically designed to destroy the planet and condemns a third of the world's children to malnutrition. Messenger bashing will not save ya buddy

  10. LOL that is funny. Hardly! He is reading from a script, or didn't you notice. He wrote the script the way he did, because he can't help himself. But maybe your right, maybe he reads from scripts in his everyday life too. Do you think maybe he uses a teleprompter when chewing the fat with his friends? If so, my guess is his friendships would be rather short lived. Anyway you enjoy, I have heard enough. I like his message though 🙂 by the way it's about his ego not mine.

  11. And so his job is to make it as difficult as possible? Glad your so impressed. The uneducated would be. I think the movement has gone to his head. Clearly he is seeking all this publicity on his own. I am very impressed with the movement, and I believe it will become a reality in the next era, with or without Mr. Joseph. But realize, ego is something we all need to continuously make an honest effort to suppress. There is nothing attractive about a swollen ego. Cheers

  12. just because he has strong command of the language doesn't automatically make him egocentric. It's only your speculative, judgemental opinion at best. Trying to belittle someone because you can't understand him or because he's OVER-articulate is, in fact, ego…sir….

  13. What is wrong with you? I could care less about his command of our language. I am saying the way he uses it is not helping this cause. I can't help the fact that you are blind to this possibility. The cause deserves better. But as long as your impressed, I guess that's all that matters. I am moving on to more important things, like Jacque Fresco, you wouldn't like him, he's more interested in getting his message across, then wowing others with his intellect. Good day.

  14. I guess what's wrong with me is my brain gets stimulated when well-versed people have an intelligent grasp of a language, which is required by the way to cover the complex material discussed in this lecture. If English is your first language and you don't understand the content it's not his fault. Fresco expresses brilliant insight too and has his own direct method of delivering such material. They're both awesome. You can't ridicule someone for being too intellectual. It doesn't make sense lol

  15. You REALLY DO need to go back to school! lmfao idle is spelled 'Idol'. The spelling 'Idle' has a completely different meaning. You can't even spell a basic word properly. And he's not my idle you loser. He's simply someone i greatly respect and admire for raising the awareness surrounding vast amounts of subject matter. Please enjoy staying stupid. I'm sure it's fun =)

  16. Why? I have you to school me now! besides my two doctorates are enough for now I think. Plus I am to busy responding to your silly messages. Would it not be better if you sent me future messages via my channel, as to not clutter up this video with such ridiculous banter? Not to say I'm not enjoying it, it has been much more entertaining then Peter Joseph.

  17. I guess you missed my double message in the word "Idle" meaning he is going nowhere, since his split with his mentor, whom spent his whole life working on what Peter hopes to gain his fame from. Rather then admit it, he goes on the attach, EGO This is fun don't you think?

  18. I guess you've pasionately found your new hobby – Trolling. I'm usually good at picking the trolls early in these sorts of exchanges, but i guess it takes me a while sometimes to be sure. better late than never as they say…

  19. So i heard, you think the guy spend his time learning his language to the core, using words which can make people understand things the way they are supposed to be understood is attempting to WOW people? Seriously? A man who travels the world spreading news about how we could be and how possible it is? Couldn't be more awe strucked by your stupidity. You sir, deserve it! /clap

  20. Another fan I see. The message is wonderful. It happens to be Jacque Fresco message for the last forty some years, but who cares about that, right? All said is, he appears to me, to be full of himself, and making this about him. Which is precisely what caused the spit between him and his mentor, Jacque Fresco.

  21. Um, were you present in the TeamSpeak meeting during the split? I was, and I hate to break it to you, but you couldn't be more wrong about Peter. I'm all about TVP and would be the first one to say if what you just wrote was accurate, but unfortunately it's not, which is why I didn't follow them. On the contrary, it was Jacque's ego and naivety that caused the split. It's been over a year and I still can't fathom how they treated PJ and TZM despite everyone's hard work and selfless dedication.

  22. I have never criticized TZM's work, I love what they have done. I simply see Joseph's ego as problem. Sure Jacque has an ego as well and that is a shame, but there is nothing selfless about Joseph, at least not in his presentation.

  23. (1/2) He speaks with conviction and his vocabulary is significantly above average, and I think people sometimes misread that as "egoism." I've been following his work for a very long time and have worked w/him enough to know the difference. From the beginning, one of the reasons I started following him, and continue to respect and admire him so much is bc his character is the precise opposite of what you describe. (Early on, he can be seen here (watch?v=xZMadMa_sh8) pouring his heart out >>

  24. (2/2)pleading that people simply drop the names (esp. his own, lol) and spread the message itself, and that's been his goal all along.) The Movement has since grown, and he's been trying to step down for some time now, share the load, spread the attention, delegate responsibilities, and esp. get a lecture team out there so he doesn't have to, but things (the split being one of them) keep popping up and requiring his attention and/or action. He stopped hosting the Radio Show for a while and let>>

  25. (3) Chapter Coords. take over, but it lost listeners. He came back to give it a push. Despite his fatigue, he continues to rise to the occasion and do what is needed, showing up where he's needed. He pays for and runs our web and chat servers out of pocket and doesn't solicit or accept donations, w/the exception of buying a T-shirt. However, he is only human, and thus, admittedly, what you are probably sensing is his frustration at having to explain what is now (at least to him and many members)

  26. (4) a relatively simple concept – and frankly an ultimatum for humanity – over, and over again, in response to the same bullsh*t. To put it bluntly, the man is tired. LOL. Feel free to listen to the recording (41.50-45.03 says it all): soundcloud*com/george2pacheco/tzm-tvp-meeting-april-19th
    I didn't want to take it there, but the irony that there's nothing "selfless" about a man who skips meals & sleep to keep the wheels of this Movement turning and still releases every single one of his films>

  27. (5) 100% free of charge, was a bit too much to bear in silence. 😉 But… I will leave it at that. You are entitled to your own opinion. That is the way I feel, and the way I see it, but I can't expect everyone to share my feelings. I can only hope that people would make the effort to know him personally before passing judgements, but I do realize that that can be a lot to ask when someone is in the "spotlight" as much as he is.

  28. Bear in mind that for this to work, selfishness is not really a problem, as long as that selfishness also benefits others. Besides, selfishness of a poor man is probably beneficial to others, whereas selfishness of a rich man benefits only himself. Both have egos and both are selfish, but both need to work together to get the cogs turning. If only there were open to the advantages of others. Fresco is not as open to criticism as he claims, and Joseph has his fingers in too many pies.

  29. I believe that the key is to convince others that this can be a reality, not just a dream. Therefore one must focus on the message and reaching as many as possible.

  30. Then it seems such a shame that the two "main men" in the situation appear to be striving to be able to take credit for the entire idea, rather than opening up to everybody and welcoming criticisms and amendments. TVP's ideas have not changed since the 70s because Fresco is convinced that they are perfect. They most certainly aren't there yet. I'm not quite sure what Joseph is doing now apart from the occasional lecture. How can the idea be spread further than it has already?

  31. YOUTUBE my friend Youtube. I did a video about it myself, check it out, I would be interested in your thoughts.
    watch?v=nvYyfsw0CI4

  32. Just watched it… still the same information as everywhere else though. Surely it would be sensible to simply direct people to the videos that already exist? The problem lies in the fact that many millions of people use YouTube every day, but the majority don't use it to find methods to change the world. Indeed, the methods that can be found are still abstract or unrealistic. Spreading a message by word-of-mouth to 7 billion people is going to be incredibly time-consuming.

  33. Can people stop arguing about the idea. It wasn't Jacques, it wasn't Peter's and it isn't our own. The idea does not belong to anyone, it is instead merely and individuals recognition of external workings. The fact that Jacque predates Peter is arbitrary, as is the messenger overall; what matters is the ideological concept. So please restrain yourself from this petty squabling as who did what is COMEPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Now please enjoy the lecture.

  34. ''which means ur double screwed'' haha 😛
    We should all take examble of how Peter does his research but never loses relevance nor action to achieve a certain goal, in this case to survive in the most sustainable healthy way possible.

  35. "DEFINING PEACE" (word saving information) … 59197 views and 1652 likes

    "GANGNAM STYLE" (Korean music video) … 710294710 views and 5050656 likes

    There are groups which create thousands of YouTube accounts in order to cheat music videos on to YouTube's top 100 list, because they know that, once a video is on the list, a self-perpetuation process takes place which tends to keep it there.

    Why aren't we doing the same thing with the Zeitgeist Movement videos?
    We need to stop being so passive.

  36. The problem is that we live in a system that demands and incentives that agression. And that's something we got to change.

  37. Hi this sounds interesting, so, you mean if i "rip" a music video and upload it in another channel it will start to get views from the "ripped" video???

  38. Not really. All human caused problems come form selfishness, which occurs due to fear, which produces hate and anger and then actions which do not show care, that do not share, and that are greedy and destructive…most peoples minds, and those in positions of power and control, are confused and lost in greed. If our consciousness changes, then we do not fear, but have peace, happiness and bliss, and naturally share, care, cooperate and live in peace.

  39. He is the exact same person as Mystery the "Pickup Artist". Incredibly charismatic smooth talker, yet full of shit.

  40. Reading the comments makes me go into face palm mode. He quotes Thorstein Veblen, a brilliant thinker. He follows the same logical pathways as Albert Einstein and Buckminster Fuller. If you've read their essays and books. Saying Peter is full of shit is equivalent to not understanding and calling other thinkers full of shit. Idiots.

  41. Are you still a supporter of the Venus Project? I remember that you use to make a ton of videos awhile back. I've just noticed a lack of videos being place on YouTube about the movement. Which i personal believe is key to making people aware. Has he movement changed to another social outlet ?

  42. That movie is 1 of the greatest annalyses of our current moder culture and the human condition. Im gonna paraphrase here, "Only when you hit bottom, and let go of all your worldly possesions – only then can you be absolutely free." Thats so prophetic, he makes a shit ton of sence. I majored in History and Poly Sci and minored in Religion an damnit Peter seems to be the only 1 I know of that isnt a civil lib wacko, who wants to abandone capitalism which is a must in order for us to evolve

  43. I hate how the "powers that be" have co-opted the term "social darwinism" to meet their goals. For one, it is a mis-reading of Darwinisn evolution…and, it makes evolution by natural selection seem…heartless. That is a wrong understanding of natural selection. Species do not survive merely due to competition for competition's sake. Cooperation can ALSO benefit survival, and therefor genetic fitness. The meme "cooperation" can in fact out-COMPETE the meme "competition." THAT is evolution.

  44. Revolution: the only problems in the world today are manmade! The only hell we go thru is because of made – up rules, so let's change them. Watch “ManKINDer” on youtube for a simple rule tweak on inheritance that changes our purpose, and the acts we reward!

  45. I wish he could have made a more of a solid point when it came to soldiers and morality. I'll do it for him. A huge number of soldiers who went to war and witnessed the trauma of losing a friend or a colleague on the battleground, often come back to their homes and face severe depressions and at times commit suicide. This is because many are not psychopaths but good people and their mentalities tell them that killing is wrong. They cannot live with the unconscious self contradiction and guilt.

  46. I'm sorry Steven but you need to read more books. The free market model at its core say it makes more apps elite

  47. Wow voice recognition text sux.what I meant to say is that the core driver of the free market model is competition self sustainability not social sustainability against the needs of its people. Now that's not to say I hasn't created a certain amount of wealth and prosperity. But to say it makes war obsolete is the most close minded view I could think of. Our country alone does not practice economic equality hence the biggest financial gap of any country and the most abundant prison system!

  48. Just created this fairy tale so people of today could still believe in happily ever after. enjoy the fantasy! /wJaPCWTJgsE

  49. Free market for corporations. The rest turned to wage slaves, soldiers or roaming the streets. Take away the food stamps and you will have the 1930's soup lines. Less than 1% in control of most markets, military, industry.

  50. So the world problems that were created were created by left brained thinking mentality? H'm-mm very insta- re – stink

  51. This is true (too left,) he is literally living in the future instead of recognizing that it is a process that is required to get there. He is wrong to think the snap of a finger can solve the problems but he is right to detect where the stress is in the system.

  52. I was reminded of this excellent talk by the "Breaking The Set" [278] episode and the wonderful music and message that was shared by the musical collective 'Heartbeat' from Israel.

  53. Wow, I watched and absorbed the whole thing.  At the last 2 minutes Mr. Joseph offers the new way—the solution—and I can't wait to finally hear it.  Here it is: World Peace will come from a worldwide movement based "on the immutable common ground we all share as a species which simply says 'No, we are not going to play this game any more'".  Peter Joseph is an EXCELLENT social critic.  The problem is, he has already rejected ownership rights as a rational and  just prescription for individual security.  The poorest people of the world do not defend and promote ownership rights, and that is precisely what they need to do to resolve the massive levels of violation and suffering worldwide.  Having rejected this key analysis, he is left with "just say no" without any "say yes to…".

  54. Respectfully I believe you're understanding of the initiation of property might be somewhat skewed.there's more than just the philosophy of john Locke to review and digest to truly understand this necessary but still imposed detrimental assumption to benefit a growing yet self serving elitist zeitgeist.People who are praising private ownership are praising the very philosophy that oppresses them. This is very difficult to see but give it enough study and research also very critical mind set and boom!!!

  55. Un real, given the chance, PETER will change the world, I’m for ones a follower, of what it sounds to me like something so familiar that I knew all this time and just came to life……I can’t wait for the awakening of my generation.  

  56. 2 years later and less than 90K views…Look at Gaza right now. These issues need to be addressed. We can not solve the problem of violence until we understand the root causes.

  57. It'll take a lot more than words and guns, a whole lot more than riches and muscle – the hands of the many must join as one, and together, we'll cross the river.

  58. Masterfully articulated assessment of current social and economic corruptions and incompetencies, Peter Joseph gives an unfaltering voice of reason and objective truth to the discontented and oppressed who may not have otherwise found the words and direction inwhich to express their angst.

  59.  I like many of the statements and ideas of a perfect world that the Zeitgeist speak of however I also believe in a God and Creator and His Son Jesus Christ. Actually I have also had an experience with His Holy Spirit, so I know of His existence. To say all of this I also believe in the Holy Bible and what it says. If you read in Revelation it talks about in the last days there will rise up a anti-Christ and fool the world that he has all the answers. So I'm a little cautious of the Zeitgeist and maybe Peter Joseph, because the bible says they can fool even the very elect. I also believe that the world will continue on a collision course and come to a very bad ending for many. But I believe that my savior Jesus Christ will come and stop the world as we know it and will rule and defeat Satan and all of his followers. Read Matthew 24th chapter and believe the truth. 

  60. The one thing I take point with, i soldiers are doing something they are taught is noble, and I think when they enter in war, they learn how horrific it is.  I never been in a war o I can not ever really grasp what they go threw. I also will agree war is the dumbest thing we do as humans.  But I also will say, these young people are typically very poor, the service allows them a way to move up, etc..  They are doing something in their minds are noble, because they are offering their life up to their comunity..  I will not disagree we need to focus on the world as one and all.  We are all humans, and this us and them view is stupid.  But you take some naive kid typically under 21, and I was dumb at that age too.. 

    But its the people using war for gain that are the ones to focus on, not the Vets and Soldiers..  Not everyone who is a soldier is perfect or good there are bad indivuals in all area, but the mass of these people are good, are noble, they are just sent in for stupid reason..  Wars in the long run always seem pointless, but we do not care for these vets as a society, 22 kill themselves every day, the mass of new homeless people are vets.  These people have not only the actual trama of being in that war, that effects their mind but may also be injured, dealing with crazy pain due to injuries.  I think you should not look down on these people, they are the poor, and those young people who wish to give back..  They are duked into doing things, in this world for business intersts.. 

    Its like looking at slavery and blaming the slaves, for allow themselves to be used as such, is the same as having really any blame on soldiers or vets.  I think even though you only slightly talked about vets, they do deserve resect as a whole for the trama and pain they gone threw, because they though it was to protect us in this country no matter what the actual reason are.

  61. This is not just for america, this is for the world. We are citizens of our planet and we need to THINK and EXECUTE the VENUS PROJECT developed by JAQUE FRESCO. To keep our world together and stop the racial and religious conflict. Follow a man called PETER JOSEPH father of the ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT and please make the world hear your voice we can hope for a better way to live than this one. thanks

  62. I like much of the RBE concept but not all. I think Peter leaned to much on Jacques concept. In example I think monetary reform could be a critical step towards a more Resource Based Economy.This is a real weakness in Peters argument he completely leaves out monetary reform! For example: money treated as a public utility, spent into existence ( not lent), creating much of the money supply as a Basic Income or Citizens Dividend. Look up Werner Onkens essay on Silvio Gesell. Look up TED talks on Basic Income. Also check out Positive Money. Peace

  63. The most important thing a human can do is to deprogram yourself from the concepts that form our social structures.

    Reexamine your ideas of money, crime, politics, government, religion or spiritual belief, and your employment. You just might find that your whole life was contrived moments from the bullshit of capitalism. Regrettably, this also applies to most scientists and artists.

    We all have these fake identities specifically designed to function for capitalism.

    Example: A Banker loves his family and then quickly turns to foreclose on another family. The general of his human nature is not dysfunctional because he loves his family. But the system he works for is fully dysfunctional.

    For more than a million years, hunter-gatherers did not possess minds confused by money and technology, so they pulled from the heart and worked together. This embedded a deep root of compassion as our nature. We cannot unwind this biological evolution but if embraced, we can correct the only problem we have – our mental immaturity to science.

    The childish age of suffering from a god is closing. Indisputably, we now suffer the technical systems we have constructed with the new age of science. This new age requires us to be a “systems thinker” if we are to properly manage technology. Therefore, learn to apply your scientific mind. It is merely slouching dormant under all the bullshit that capitalism has taught you.

    Once you stand up with this new evolution of scientific thought, you will never blame a human again. You can only scrutinize the systems that formatted a human away from their nature. – Karl Gary

  64. When someone is reading a story of somebody's ideology is kind of reading instruction for the first time . one of the reason people read instructions is because they are ignorant. Experienced is living, common sense can only be awaking by keeping your own senses with out being a follower. Most Followers are lost and probably willnever have an effective selfresonin

  65. For all of the highly intellectual, armchair critics in the comment section, you'd think that an applied scientific process regarding our planets natural systems and resources (RBE) would be an easy enough concept to digest. But I'm sure people believe they "own" their brilliant ideas as well as their worldly possessions. You poor indoctrinated fools.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *