He's brilliant, and it's a shame that his vision will probably never be embraced by civilization at large.

I made a visit to the Venus Project and met him a few months ago, and he's a wonderful man. When you're in his presence you'd never guess that he was 92. He's so full of energy and enthusiasm.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Man, I was going to send you a link to the Venus Project in my last reply! I have seen no better vision for a harmonious civilisation that this, removing the monetary system wipes out so many problems. The need to make a profit is driving the entire planet to destruction. When I started reading Jacques Fresco's stuff, it was like somebody just switched the lights on.

It opened my eyes to the stuff we're being fed via the news about resources running out, food running out blah blah blah - there are enough resources, enough skill and enough talent to make this vision work right now, it is the rich and powerful who stand in the way.

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
There's a gentleman here in Florida that I've grown to thoroughly admire. He's a futurist by the name Jacques Fresco and he's designed a future free of much of the bullshit that we deal with today, a global community with a cybernated resource based society. In his world money doesn't exist, the government is run by computer constructs administered by the best and brightest(not the power hungry), and industry has been automated to allow people the freedom to work on the betterment of mankind. You might enjoy checking him out. www.thevenusproject.com

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
You assume correctly Bob - born, bred, still living and working in Ireland

I was having this exact discussion with a friend tonight, he is of the opinion that as soon as you kill one single person you are just as bad as the oppressor. There's no arguing against that of course - you *are* just as bad. But it's a reaction against oppression that with hindsight is seen to be inevitable, all the way back through historical conflict.

Government by its very nature can never have a utopian worldview. All forms of hierarchical control will not achieve this, whether they be democracy, socialism or communism. They are all different flavours of the monkey-brain male dominator culture.

That leaves us with anarchy, which to me means every individual pursuing their own desires with no outside control, restraint or boundary. This is in fact how we lived for many hundreds of thousands of years, this is our paradise lost, our ancient utopia that can be unearthed and discovered through many ancient and sacred texts...



In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I'll agree with you that oppression leads to revolution, and Kennedy's quote fits the situation in Ireland quite well. The British refused to deal with Irish independence diplomatically and fairly, so they brought the ensuing violence upon themselves. Oppression isn't a necessity of life though. Nations can get along just fine without needing to oppress/occupy other nations.

I'm assuming you're country would be Ireland? It's terrible what the British government did there. It was needless, and really just a complete waste of life.

I keep hoping the leaders of this world will grow up and get a more utopian world view. If nations did more to better the world as a whole than just protecting their own interests the world would be a much better place.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
That's exactly how I used to think, until I started studying the history of my own country.

Oppression leads to revolution, always has done and always will. The monster is he who does nothing...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.

There's a gentleman here in Florida that I've grown to thoroughly admire. He's a futurist by the name Jacques Fresco and he's designed a future free of much of the bullshit that we deal with today, a global community with a cybernated resource based society. In his world money doesn't exist, the government is run by computer constructs administered by the best and brightest(not the power hungry), and industry has been automated to allow people the freedom to work on the betterment of mankind. You might enjoy checking him out. www.thevenusproject.com

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
You assume correctly Bob - born, bred, still living and working in Ireland

I was having this exact discussion with a friend tonight, he is of the opinion that as soon as you kill one single person you are just as bad as the oppressor. There's no arguing against that of course - you *are* just as bad. But it's a reaction against oppression that with hindsight is seen to be inevitable, all the way back through historical conflict.

Government by its very nature can never have a utopian worldview. All forms of hierarchical control will not achieve this, whether they be democracy, socialism or communism. They are all different flavours of the monkey-brain male dominator culture.

That leaves us with anarchy, which to me means every individual pursuing their own desires with no outside control, restraint or boundary. This is in fact how we lived for many hundreds of thousands of years, this is our paradise lost, our ancient utopia that can be unearthed and discovered through many ancient and sacred texts...



In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I'll agree with you that oppression leads to revolution, and Kennedy's quote fits the situation in Ireland quite well. The British refused to deal with Irish independence diplomatically and fairly, so they brought the ensuing violence upon themselves. Oppression isn't a necessity of life though. Nations can get along just fine without needing to oppress/occupy other nations.

I'm assuming you're country would be Ireland? It's terrible what the British government did there. It was needless, and really just a complete waste of life.

I keep hoping the leaders of this world will grow up and get a more utopian world view. If nations did more to better the world as a whole than just protecting their own interests the world would be a much better place.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
That's exactly how I used to think, until I started studying the history of my own country.

Oppression leads to revolution, always has done and always will. The monster is he who does nothing...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.

I'll agree with you that oppression leads to revolution, and Kennedy's quote fits the situation in Ireland quite well. The British refused to deal with Irish independence diplomatically and fairly, so they brought the ensuing violence upon themselves. Oppression isn't a necessity of life though. Nations can get along just fine without needing to oppress/occupy other nations.

I'm assuming you're country would be Ireland? It's terrible what the British government did there. It was needless, and really just a complete waste of life.

I keep hoping the leaders of this world will grow up and get a more utopian world view. If nations did more to better the world as a whole than just protecting their own interests the world would be a much better place.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
That's exactly how I used to think, until I started studying the history of my own country.

Oppression leads to revolution, always has done and always will. The monster is he who does nothing...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.

I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.

Read your title.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I didn't say it was the ultimate gaming rig.



In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
No, this is most certainly not the ultimate gaming right. It's the ultimate personal light simulator gaming rig.

Your sift http://www.videosift.com/video/Ultimate-Gaming-Rig-Nerdgasm-warning is marked NSFW but is definitely SFW. I don't think there is a command to change it besides your going into the properties so you probably should.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 26 stars, earning you status of Silver Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Australian schools are starting to teach philosophy whilst American schools are starting to teach creationism...

Starting ?
I was taught the scientific meaning of "theory" back in the early 90's, and im quite certain I wasnt among the first.

edit: damnit I hit profile reply instead of quote

Hitler was an atheist, Stalin was an atheist. Martin Luther King was a Christian. The problem isn't religion, the problem is man (imo). In other words, if god isn't real, then there is only man. And then that makes religion a man made institute. Thus, its man that is the problem, not religion. Depends on what you mean by religion as well. If you are saying that following Christ's rule of the golden rule, do onto others as you would have them do onto you is a bad thing that causes evil I would have to say what is good then? If you are saying that men corrupt the heart of what that religious body stands for and then uses his power to distort all that he has influence over, then yes, I would agree that is a problem. But the problem still lays with man at that point, not religion.

I don't mean to be adversarial or anything, just trying to stress a point.

But on the topic of the video, I don't agree with his sentements that the only good trooper is a Christian one, lots of people of different faiths and non-faiths have died for this country.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Religion is one of the most powerful recruting tools available to the US military.


Why else could it be that they so badly want to have creationism taught in schools?
Why else could it be that Commander in Chief must be a christian?
Why else is it that the illegal invasion of Iraq is seeping with religious overtones?

9/11 was a huge message to the world that the problem of religion really must be addressed.

huh?

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
^
"US predictions"
LOL.

We can disagree about Al Jazeera. They've improved in the last year or two, but they lost my trust a while ago and will have to do a lot to regain it.

I certainly agree that big Corporations (international and domestic) need to be hacked up a bit. They have far to much power and influence. I do NOT however buy that they control whether the US goes to war or not. I do NOT believe Iraq was about oil. We haven't seen a drop of it and it has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, a tremendous amount of lives, and more popularity and international influence. Anti-war activists and leftists love to say oil oil oil as much as they can to make those that supported the war look like evil corporate sell-outs. It's a very common political partisan warfare technique VERY often utilized by the left. (The right has its own devious techniques, but the left has mastered this particular one.) Anyway, arguing Iraq is a dead stalemate every time, so it's pointless to go on about it. Bottom line, corps have too much power, but not all the power, AND not all corporations are run by demons bent on greed at all costs. You need a certain breed of board members for that sort of heartlessness.

"Ordinary People" don't want war. That is true. But they do want certain things to be and others not to be and they don't want to be the ones responsible for what it takes to make those things be or not be. For example. The west (primarily America at this point) sees the sudden rise and dominance of staunch Islamic culture in western Europe and does not like what it sees. America is all for religious freedom--heck, we were founded on the concept--but America also values secular governing as well as some level of assimilation of immigrants. In other words, come to America, but if you don't want to be an American, if you want to be a somewhere-else-ian living in America trying to impose somewhere-else-ia's laws, please stay in somewhere-else-ia. Makes sense. America has a set of values, laws, and traditions it holds dear. Seeing sections of western European nations suddenly under a pseudo-official Sharia Law makes most Americans cringe and worry about their rights and their culture. Americans say, "we don't want that in our nation" but they don't want to be responsible for preventing it (or other things). People love to protest things while reaping their benefits. Sad state of affairs. (I'm not saying that example was a war-related one, but it fits otherwise.) One of the major functions of governments and leaders is to make unpopular decisions that are necessary. They lose popularity and even become demonized by some, but the job is done and the public can benefit and still feel innocent about it.

As for the US and S Ossentia? 1%. That is the amount of western oil that comes through that pipeline. We don't need it. We wouldn't START a fight over it, but we would defend it against an aggressor as it is in fact of western interest. We didn't need to fight over it as it was in no danger and we were in no way in danger of losing it. America has no vested interest in S Ossentia. A 1% loss in supply is barely a hick-up, especially as oil demand is now decreasing here at a record pace.

As for America moving ships closer to Iran? GOOD!! Iran has repeated threatened to shut down a HUGE tanker route. Since Israel is scared to death (and rightly so) that they might get nuked in the next couple years, which fits with Ahmadinejad's 12th Imam religious views, they might wind up attacking Iran's uranium enrichment plants. It will CERTAINLY happen if Iran tests a nuclear weapon as N.Korea recently did. If that happens, we still need that route open. If Iran shuts it down, that's a major problem for us here, even if we don't drop a single bomb in that country. This is an almost inevitable confrontation. The USA MUST not fire any first shots though. Not this time. Not ever again. However, did we start this devastating war in Georgia to move our ships? No. That idea REQUIRES that you believe that all those with power in the US are truly evil mass-murders, plain and simple, purely literally. It is fine to think that we may have taken advantage of the situation to make a tactical move, but starting it for that end is a little off the charts. Having forces in an allied nation is not surprising. That does NOT by any means mean we started it or encouraged it in any way shape or form. That leap is loaded with fallacies.

I am far too long winded.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Al Jazeera is an excellent source of news, many BBC journalists work with them and two British journos I know speak very highly to their integrity.

I do indeed distrust the US government as much as I distrust the British government, and I have lived through a 30 year conflict with the British that has opened my eyes to the propaganda regarding international affairs in British news, including the BBC.

It's not a case of me buying into any particular news story. The US has a military presence there to protect oil interests - that's a plain fact. That's what rings the alarm bells for me when suddenly there's a conflict.

It's not about assigning blame, I'm not interested in trying to show where blame lies. That's a childish game and a distraction. Bush is not the emperor at all, I do not believe for a second that Bush is in control of anything whatsoever, the idea that the man is a statesman running a country is plainly ridiculous. He is as much a puppet of corporate America as the Shah in Iran was before the people rose up and put him out of power.

It's all about perception - *why* do you think it is that the same people who think that America blew up the towers to start a war are the people who believe America is behind this conflict? What is at the heart of that perception? It's because the official version of events doesn't ring true to people who have lived through propaganda in their own country.

What is happening in Russia is part of the wider global conflict involving the superpowers, and it's all over resources and investments on a scale that ordinary people can barely comprehend. Russia, China and America/UK are slowly hardening their military and strategic positions around the world.

I don't know the reason why, it could be the beginning of the merging of the 4 big monetary unions into a global economy and central bank/government, it could be that each of them wants greater regional control of the planet, it could be that they are all working together toward a single goal, it could be that they are preparing to go up against each other.

Ordinary people do not want war, the only people who benefit are the super rich and the powerful. Russia rolled mini battlefield nukes into S Ossetia last night, and while the masses of the planet including you and me debate about what is really going on and who is at fault, people are getting slaughtered.

Maybe it's time we put our time and efforts into really trying to get people to talk about peace. Enough really is enough.

Thanks for your message




In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Taking the last part first, I disagree. That aside, I get news from quite a few sources. I am painfully aware of the bias on both sides of these sources. However, based on study, I trust some more than others. For example, Al Jazeera... black listed, "opinion journalists"... suspect, Al Franken and Sean Hanity... grudge match? That's entertainment. My statement that a need for loathing was required to buy this new story 3 days after the war suddenly and almost inexplicably begain was not meant to offend but merely to exaggerate the point that people who tend to distrust the US tend to blame everything in the world on them, even when the coals aren't even ready for burgers. These are the same people who think we detonated our own buildings to start a war over oil, when neither of those clauses is true.

News on this current struggle is so mired in propaganda and selective publication right now, it is hard to make heads or tails of who is at fault, but blaming the US and namely the Bush Admin. is so predictable a cop-out it's cliche anymore. Bush is not the Emperor Palpatine and America is not the Galactic Empire. heh.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It seems they are outing America anyway, Osettians are claiming that the 'west' is behind the Georgian attacks - being reported now on BBC and international news. Of course there is no way for you or I to know one way or the other.

Why do I have to assume a hatred and loathing of America? I'm not claiming anything, and I'm not narrow minded or naive enough to only post news clips which I happen to believe or which happen to fit my own personal ideaology. No need to be defensive. It's not people like us who are making these things happen, we are mere bystanders.

I'm trying to get all the news I can as it rolls in, watching it unfold on the news in different countries gives you a much wider picture rather than sticking to one single news source. The *way* it's being reported in different countries is *as* interesting, if not *more* interesting than the content of the reports.

You aren't convinced by this because you have a preconceived notion that it is 'ludicrous'. That's your culture talking, not you.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I'm not convinced. It still appears to me to be conspiracy theory hogwash. In my eyes, it would require a SERIOUS loathing of America to assume such a thing is true on a whim. America did not "orchestrate" any Georgian action. That's just ludicrous. They would out us since they're being obliterated at the moment, since we're not helping. You have to assume that America is EVIL in order to assume these things. If a naval move is made at the same time, than it is because America is taking the opportunity that has been laid before them. Prime time for easy action.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It sounds like it, but it isn't...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=warships%20gulf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
>> ^Memorare:
read an article today suggesting the aggressive move by Georgia was orchestrated by the US as a strategic diversion to keep Russia busy during a naval blockade of Iran. shrug


Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me. Propaganda.

Thanks for the reply. I've replied at the original thread.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
That's fine to sift propaganda, but let us know in the description that it's not real news.

I agree. I look forward to CNN and FOX broadcasts about Iraq, Iran, Israel and Palestine being labelled as such.

Taking the last part first, I disagree. That aside, I get news from quite a few sources. I am painfully aware of the bias on both sides of these sources. However, based on study, I trust some more than others. For example, Al Jazeera... black listed, "opinion journalists"... suspect, Al Franken and Sean Hanity... grudge match? That's entertainment. My statement that a need for loathing was required to buy this new story 3 days after the war suddenly and almost inexplicably begain was not meant to offend but merely to exaggerate the point that people who tend to distrust the US tend to blame everything in the world on them, even when the coals aren't even ready for burgers. These are the same people who think we detonated our own buildings to start a war over oil, when neither of those clauses is true.

News on this current struggle is so mired in propaganda and selective publication right now, it is hard to make heads or tails of who is at fault, but blaming the US and namely the Bush Admin. is so predictable a cop-out it's cliche anymore. Bush is not the Emperor Palpatine and America is not the Galactic Empire. heh.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It seems they are outing America anyway, Osettians are claiming that the 'west' is behind the Georgian attacks - being reported now on BBC and international news. Of course there is no way for you or I to know one way or the other.

Why do I have to assume a hatred and loathing of America? I'm not claiming anything, and I'm not narrow minded or naive enough to only post news clips which I happen to believe or which happen to fit my own personal ideaology. No need to be defensive. It's not people like us who are making these things happen, we are mere bystanders.

I'm trying to get all the news I can as it rolls in, watching it unfold on the news in different countries gives you a much wider picture rather than sticking to one single news source. The *way* it's being reported in different countries is *as* interesting, if not *more* interesting than the content of the reports.

You aren't convinced by this because you have a preconceived notion that it is 'ludicrous'. That's your culture talking, not you.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I'm not convinced. It still appears to me to be conspiracy theory hogwash. In my eyes, it would require a SERIOUS loathing of America to assume such a thing is true on a whim. America did not "orchestrate" any Georgian action. That's just ludicrous. They would out us since they're being obliterated at the moment, since we're not helping. You have to assume that America is EVIL in order to assume these things. If a naval move is made at the same time, than it is because America is taking the opportunity that has been laid before them. Prime time for easy action.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It sounds like it, but it isn't...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=warships%20gulf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
>> ^Memorare:
read an article today suggesting the aggressive move by Georgia was orchestrated by the US as a strategic diversion to keep Russia busy during a naval blockade of Iran. shrug


Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me. Propaganda.