Zeitgeist
Addendum
Page By Category
Zeitgeist: Addendum - Part Three - Page 3
This is the third page of part three in my series of articles on Zeitgeist: Addendum. Please refer to the introduction if you were lead to this page.
[Jacque Fresco]
And feeling that, they don't know who to elect. They think in terms of a democracy, which is not possible in a monetary based economy.
If you have more money to advertise your position, the position you desire in government, that isn't a democracy. It serves those in positions of differential advantage, so it is always a dictatorship of the elitists, the financially wealthy.
The United States was actually setup that way on purpose. Contrary to what most Americans believe the United States was not established as a democracy but rather a republic with representatives of the people. Even so, the representatives elected could only be white males until the 20th century and the entire system basically guaranteed the elite would rule, not the average person[12]. In fact, most importantly most Founding Fathers viewed democracy as "rule by the rabble." That's why today when people say "democracy" they really mean "free markets and republicanism."
It's one of the reasons I can't stand it when people say, "What the founding fathers believed is ..." and similar things.
"We can either have democracy in this
country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we
can't have both."
Louis Brandeis
Supreme Court Justice
This quote is real, except slightly mistyped. The original quote is: "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both"[13].
[Narration]
It is an interesting observation to note how seemingly unknown personalities magically appear on the scene as presidential candidates. Then, before you know it, somehow you are left to choose from a small group of extremely wealthy people, who suspiciously have the same broad social view.
This statement seams to originate from the idea that individuals like Barack Obama were completely unknown prior to the election, even though that's not true at all. You can learn more about that in my article on The Obama Deception.
Obviously, it's a joke.
The people placed on the ballot are done so because they have been pre-decided to be acceptable by the established financial powers who actually run the show.
Well, not directly. The situation more or less is: "Our party must select someone who can avoid offending our primary sponsors and not upset the status quo too much."
Yet, many who understand this illusion of democracy, often think: if only we could just get our honest, ethical politicians in power, then we would be okay. Well, while this idea of course seems reasonable in our established oriented worldview, it is, unfortunately, another fallacy. For, when it really comes down to what is actually important, the institution of politics, and thus politicians themselves have absolutely no true relevance as to what makes our world and society function.
I think the institution itself is the problem, it doesn't matter who you elect to office. If you want to guarantee everyone has food to eat, then you have the problem of, "Does that mean people can just steal if they're hungry?" and, "Wouldn't the state hurt free enterprise then?" and so on.
[Jacque Fresco]
It's not politicians that can solve problems. They have no technical capabilities. They don't know how to solve problems. Even if they were sincere, they don't know how to solve problems. It's the technicians that produce the desalinization plants. It's the technicians that give you electricity, that give you motor vehicles, that heat your house and cool it in the summertime. It's technology that solves problems, not politics. Politics cannot solve problems, because they are not trained to do so.
Typically, no, politicians aren't capable of much of anything other than politics, however, they do have the ability to put technical people in important positions, but often that doesn't happen.
[Narration]
Very few people today stop and consider what it is that actually improves their lives. Is it money? Obviously
not, one cannot eat money or stuff money into their car to get it to run.
I understand where the movie is coming from, but this argument is asinine. Money does improve one's life if one lives in a monetary society. If one has purchasing power they can use the money to buy food and gasoline.
Is it politics? All politicians can do is create laws, establish budgets and declare war.
Pretty much.
Is it religion? Of course not, religion creates nothing except intangible emotional solace for those who require it.
There's no better way to have people hate your movement than to be openly against religion. I personally do not favor faith-based institutions, however if you want to avoid problems with converting people to your belief system don't tell them they're basically stupid or sheep for believing in their gods.
The true gift that we have as human beings have, which has been solely responsible for everything that has improved our lives is technology.
I absolutely agree.