In memory of Aaron Swartz

Must watch: Four Horsemen

"23 leading thinkers – frustrated at the failure of their respective disciplines – break their silence to explain how the world really works." ~ www.fourhorsemenfilm.com



Watch the full movie here:

The bank for financial activists

If you're pissed of at the current corrupt and opaque banking system, why not vote with your wallet and  move your spare money to an ethical bank? Triodos is one of them (the only one I'm aware of) which is completely transparent and invests only in ethical businesses.

Become a financial activist and sleep better at night with the assurance that you're not indirectly supporting corrupt regimes, polluting technologies, greedy banks and corporations or even war.

Surveillance equals censorship

"The right to communicate without government surveillance is important, because surveillance is another form of censorship. When people are frightened that what they are saying may be overheard by a power that has the ability to lock people up, then they adjust what they're saying. They start to self-censor."

~ Julian Assange

Read more: www.rollingstone.com

RAP NEWS X - #Occupy2012

Rap News strikes the Zeitgeist once more, this time with the endorsement of Noam Chomsky and Anonymous.

Capitalism humour by Calvin & Hoobes

This 20 year old Calvin and Hobbes comic, made by Bill Watterson, explains in simple terms the roots of the current economic crisis and the injustices concerning the ever growing Occupy movement. Click the image for larger version.

Calvin & Hobbes

Voices of the occupations

A compilation of a few voices from the various occupations dotted across the world.

New York City

Toronto

London

Occupy demands and solutions

We are the 99%

As the occupy movement gathers momentum more and more aware people start believing in the strength of their voices (specially if in unison with others) as we create a human microphone that is drawing the image of the future as we speak.

However, despite the movement's relative awareness and clear dissatisfaction with today's systemic problems, as a whole, it appears to still not have a very practical list of demands. As we grow, it's important that we draft a set of solutions that will not just try to remedy the superficial symptom temporarily. In order to do this we must find the very root of the rot and inoculate the system against the greed and corruption viruses, for good.

Following are a bunch of suggestions (by a well seasoned researcher), which I feel would serve us very well indeed from the moment they're implemented. If you agree with them, please help bring the focus of the occupy movement to these demands by spreading them far and wide. Thank you for caring.

1. An end to creating money out of thin air on computer screens and charging interest on it (fractional reserve lending).
2. An end to governments borrowing fresh-air money called ‘credit’ from private banks and the people paying interest on this ‘money’ that has never, does not and will never exist. Governments (and that concept must change radically) can create their own currency – interest free.
3. An end to private banks issuing non-existent money called ‘credit’ at all and thus creating ‘money’ as a debt from the very start.
4. An end to casinos like Wall Street and the City of London betting mercilessly on the financial and commodity markets with the lives of billions around the world.
5. An end to all professional lobby groups that earn their living and their clients’ living from corrupting the professionally corruptible – vast numbers of world politicians and the overwhelming majority on Capitol Hill.
6. An end to no-contract government in which mendacious politicians can promise the people they will do this and that to win their support and then do the very opposite after they have lied themselves into office (see Obama).
7. An end to the centralisation of power in all areas of our lives and a start to diversifying power to communities to decide their own lives and thus ensure there are too many points of decision making for any cabal to centrally control.

99% too big to fail

Inspired by this years' Arab spring revolutions and sparked by the Occupy Wall Street protest, which started over a month ago, last Saturday 15th of October were launched synchronised protests in over 1500 locations worldwide! Many of which turned into full-time, long-term camps or occupations. There are currently over 100 cities in the United States alone and many other locations elsewhere.

The languages are many but the voice is the same. The 99% (referring to wealth inequality as owned by the 1% richest) is shouting; enough economic corruption and corporate greed! Following are a few pictures, of the Occupy London crowd, expressing the general sentiment permeating the global movement.

Occupy Wall Street Heroes

2nd time I've fought for my country. 1st time I've known my enemy.

The 99% are growing louder and larger everyday.

Scientists under attack

Scientists Under Attack is an investigation into the scientists researching the health impacts of Genetically Modified Food. This film is recommended for all those who love nature, and for everyone who eats. View the trailer here and buy the film here.

"When scientist Arpad Pusztai reported that genetically modified (GM) foods caused serious health problems in rats, he was a hero at his prestigious UK institute — for two days. But after two phone calls (apparently) from the Prime Minister’s office, he was fired, gagged, and mercilessly attacked.

When UC Berkely professor Ignacio Chapela discovered GM corn contamination in Mexico, he too faced a firestorm of distortion and denial that left him struggling to salvage his career. Find out how the biotech industry “engineers” the truth and what they are trying to hide from you."

How the world changed after 9/11

Ten years after 9/11, the main stream media is finally catching on. Hats off to the 9/11 researchers, writers, activists, for relentlessly waving the flag for so long... the flag of the false flag. Following is an excerpt of a refreshing article about 9/11, written by Charlie Skelton and published on The Guardian newspaper website.

September 11, he argues, was a coup carried out by a rogue network within the US military and government. A cabal of fascists, working with (and for) a banking oligarchy, "the old boys of Wall Street".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/sep/12/9-11-symposium-charlie-skelton

The unheard voice of the riots

When politicians claim there's something wrong with society, are they referring to the symptomatic riots or the real underlying problem?

While the political class chooses to worship the bankers and the elite and ignore the voices of those that are hurting and feel they have nowhere to turn to, the problem will not be solved. Here, an indignant Londoner speaks his mind and heart out, and gives his first hand view on the underlying problems that triggered the riots.

Regardless of time and age, history appears to keep repeating itself as if patiently trying to teach us a basic lesson; the bigger the inequality, the bigger the unrest... maybe one day we'll get it.

Another ingenius WikiLeaks move

Carta á Camara Municipal de Penafiel

(Enviado a 19 Fevereiro 2011)

Cara(o) Sr(a),

Camara Municipal de Penafiel

Venho por este meio comunicar-lhe uma proposta simples e grátis para o melhoramento ambiental, de saúde e social do conselho de Penafiel.

Descobri recentemente que a Camara de Penafiel está a promover a agricultura biológica e a disponibilizar alguns apoios para novos aderentes deste tipo de agricultura ainda em fase emergente em Portugal. Gostaria antes de mais de aplaudir os responsáveis pela introdução desta visão progressiva e importante em múltiplas vertentes, com vantagens incalculáveis para o concelho, país e planeta.

Contudo, sinto que seja o meu dever alertar o governo local que para esta iniciativa suceder é crucial salvaguardarmos a certificação dos nossos agricultores biológicos, para que estes não sejam contaminados por transgénicos ou organismos geneticamente modificados (OGMs). Os perigos destes foram á muito documentados(1) mas Portugal ainda é dos países Europeus menos informado acerca de OGMs, como se pode verificar nesta sondagem recente: http://stopogm.net/content/nova-sondagem-sobre-preferencias

Venho portanto propor que a Camara Municipal de Penafiel declare o conselho como Zona Livre de OGMs e se junte á lista Europeia de países, concelhos e localidades conscientes dos perigos dos trangénicos, listados neste mapa: http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions/maps.html

Esta simples acção enviaria uma mensagem forte, não só de suporte pela agricultura biológica atraindo assim mais investimento nesta área, mas especialmente uma mensagem séria, do presente governo da Camara, de preocupação pelo bem estar de saúde, ambiental e social de cada cidadão deste concelho. Espero que considerem esta proposta com a seriedade que merece, pois cada vez mais o nosso futuro depende dela.

Aguardo atentamente uma resposta.

Com os melhores cumprimentos,
António C. F. Luís
(BI XXXXXXXX)
Boelhe, Penafiel

P.S. - Caso esta mensagem tenha chegado ao recipiente “errado”, por favor re-envie-a para o recipiente relevante.

(1) O documentário “O Futuro da Alimentação” relata de forma concisa e acessível, a tecnologia por detrás da manipulação genética, fazendo perceber assim os seus óbvios perigos. O documentário está disponível livremente nesta página: http://stopogm.net/?q=node/572

---

(Recebido a 22 Fevereiro 2011)

Ex.mo Sr. António Luís,

Incumbe a Ex.ma Vereadora responsável pelo Pelouro do Desenvolvimento Rural, Dr.ª Susana Oliveira, de acusar a recepção do V/e-mail e informar que o mesmo mereceu a sua melhor atenção.

Assim, agradece-se o contacto e a mensagem, bem como o conselho deixado.

Mais se informa que, estamos a avaliar a situação e a fazer os contactos e as diligências necessárias para conhecer exactamente o âmbito do proposto.

Sem mais de momento, subscrevo-me ao dispor de V/Exa. para qualquer outro assunto,

Ana Margarida Mota Fernandes
Gabinete de apoio à Sr.ª Vereadora Dr.ª Susana Oliveira
Tel: 255710700 | Fax: 255711066

French environmental poster campaign stirs up controversy

The environmental organization, France Nature Environnement (FNE) made up of over 3000 environmental associations, is running a poster campaign in the underground of Paris, putting the spotlight on the problems of intensive farming. Pesticides and genetically modified organisms are the main targets. Needless to say that big agri-business are furious.

Le Figaro has an article regarding this campaign and a video interview with FNE's Benoît Hartmann, if your French is up to scratch.

IT'S RISK FREE
"On genetically modified organisms, has yet to drop..."

BIG LIAR
"The law does not require special labelling for animals fed genetically modified food."

KILL BEES
"Certain pesticides carry a mortal risk for bees and it's not the cinema."

THE END OF BUZZZZZ
"Certain pesticides carry a mortal risk for bees."

HAVE A NICE VACATION
"Intensive industrial hog farms and fertilizers promote the growth of green algae."
"Their decomposition emits a gas which is lethal for man."

STOP YOUR SALADS
"Intensive industrial hog farms and fertilizers promote the growth of green algae."
"Their decomposition emits a gas which is lethal for man."

Zeitgeist Movement: doubts and reservations

In January 2011, the movie Zeitgeist III: Moving Forward was released online, for free and for anyone willing to invest two hours and forty minutes of viewing time. The movie is divided in two distinct parts. The first half analyses the current economic and social condition of humanity as a whole, while the second part presents and proposes a possible solution, known as The Venus Project.

Whether people like the movie or not, one thing is sure, it makes them question themselves and things they take for granted, as well as sparking debate on what is possible. Regardless of whether The Venus Project is the future or not, seeking alternatives to an obviously unsustainable and corrupt system nearing a collapse is, in my view, not only a healthy exercise but an ever more urgent one, if we care about the future.

From what I understood (please correct me if I'm wrong), The Venus Project core, is the idea of a Resource Based Economy. Since we live in a finite planet, all of the world's resources become heritage of everyone on the planet and are then allocated on a per need basis. There are no politicians, as there are no decisions to be made, instead all decisions are arrived at through scientific methods. There's no money in this system as people have always free access to what they need.

After watching the movie, most people seem to agree that the first part is an accurate analysis of our current conditioning and relative problems. However, when it comes to the proposed solution, the consensus is not as prevalent and so the aim of this post is to present the reservations I have regarding The Venus Project also known as The Zeitgeist Movement. These are probably common questions that the Zeitgeist Movement supporters hear on a regular basis, so hopefully someone will be able to jump in and clarify them with ease.

In a resource based economy:

1. What happens to people who don't agree with it and therefore don't want to be a part of it? We all know we can't please everyone all of the time, so how does it deal with dissent? Or for example, what happens to people who don't want to live in a city, who want to be self-sufficient, growing their own food, generating their own power, etc?
2. I keep hearing that nobody makes decisions in a resource based economy, that decisions are arrived at. But someone would have to define the education curriculum for example, no? And who would allocate jobs for example? A central computer would? Based on people's qualifications and skill sets? How about skills that can't be accurately measured, say due to their subjectivity? Right now I'm thinking of creativity as an example but I'm sure there are many more.
3. Who defines and how is it defined, how much is enough? For example, lets say I want or need a second computer? Would I be allowed one? What if someone wants a much bigger house and a swimming pool than everybody else, using therefore more energy and water? Who's going to tell him/her that and they can't have it?



Cybernated Government

4. Whoever has access to the central resource management computer, has incredible power, be them programmers, engineers, etc. How is corruption prevented in this centralized system?
5. What happens when there are bugs, errors, breakdowns of the system and what would it be its global impact? Same question goes for an entire society living of the grid, what happens if/when the grid fails? How is resilience achieved in a grid system?
6. Something that concerns me deeply is Genetically Modified food and I know many who avoid it at all cost. Even if the technology was safe, I would rather not eat GM food for ethical reasons. What if scientists found that this was the only logical way to grow food, despite there being other options? What choice does the individual have? I mean, how do ethics meet logic in a world where scientific progress rules all?
7. (This is an organic list so expect updates. Update 1 starts here.)
8. Great, so everyone can choose to be or not to be in the RBE. So this would allow parallel systems to coexist or compete with the RBE? Does the RBE then account for the resources used outside of itself? Would it still be sustainable this way?
9. The decision making process is still unclear to me. I like all of the examples I read but they don't answer my question specifically. Even if just for the transition period or the duration of construction of the first city, won't someone have to call the shots? I can't see how the project will get off the ground without some sort of leadership and decision making. This is a question that I have seen Jacque 'dodging' before, which seems out of character for him.
10. It sounds like a lifetime holiday, nobody being coerced to do anything they don't want to do, everyone working and spending their time as they wish, great! In this case, what are the chances that what people want to work on will match the RBE's needs? And what happens when there's a gap in the human skills resource? Yes, because humans are also a resource in the RBE, right?
11. A few friends told me that if they could live this way they'd love to have large families and just enjoy the time with them. They seem to believe that this is what everyone would naturally do. What's preventing a sharp rise of population? And what happens when/if the population grows beyond the carrying capacity of the Earth?
12. I understand that a lot of these questions are coming from a mindset of the current system and that in the future people will not want the things we think we want now. However if the RBE is to ever materialise it must account for the transition period where all that people are equipped with is their experience so far. This is why I ask how is calculated the amount of resources each citizen is allowed to use and how is that enforced? I gave the example of a second laptop or a bigger house but it could be anything, at some point someone will want something ridiculous. How do you deal with that?
13. I'm happy with the open source and transparency approach to the Resource Management System as well as all technology. It seems that alone would have an incredible positive impact in today's world, but how many of you still use windows? (There's no need to answer this, the Ubuntu folks paid me to plug Linux ; ) My point is, there are a lot of personal choices available to us today and I wonder how many in the movement are aware of these.
14. I was relieved to read that people in the movement are aware of the dangers of Genetically Modified food. Even if the technology ever becomes 'safe' and stable, does anyone care to discuss the ethical implications of taking a gene, lets say, from an animal and inserting it in a plant and then releasing this into nature allowing it to cross pollinate with the local species and eventually extinct what took millions of years to evolve? Fact: 97% of all varieties of food crops in the US have already gone extinct since the industrial revolution. Over 95% of corn grown in the US is already GM, and new GM crops are approved frequently. Isn't the mechanistic approach to nature not just a side effect of the current society but the core of science in general? 
15.  I see the current human problems as a symptom of human consciousness, or rather the lack of it. However, it's from within the current Zeitgeist that we must try to abstract ourselves from, if we're not to transfer our current inhumanities to the new one. And although I can see the possibility of this happening in small steps, isn't the Venus Project hundreds of years ahead of its time?
16. (This is an organic list so expect updates.)

The way I understand it, any system is only as morally ethical as the people running that system. Sure, some systems may promote more moral corruption than others, however is a science driven society by definition free from corruption? Isn't science only as accurate and as ethical as the human mind (or ego) of the time allows? My opinion (which in a RBE would have no value) is that decentralization of power, regardless of the system, is the only way to prevent corruption on a massive scale. The Internet is the best example of this today.

Yes, the Zeitgeist Movement is incredibly ambitious but making people wonder about what kind of world they'd like to live on, instead of merely point out the problems, can't be a bad thing. Critics are everywhere (including myself) but I don't hear them coming with better solutions. Even if it never comes to be, the Venus Project is promoting a discussion and a mental exercise long overdue, to dream of a humanity in harmony with the planet and itself. What's the harm in that?

A Venus Project city

Anonymous can has humour?

Continues at anonnews.org

Zeitgeist III: Moving Forward

The original Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007) is said to be the most watched online documentary ever. With over an estimated 200 million views, it joins the dots between religion, the 9/11 "attacks" and the economic system in a way unexpected to many and still unacceptable by some. This controversial documentary inspired The Zeitgeist Movement, a grass-roots social movement of activists. 

In 2008 Peter Joseph released the sequel, Zeitgeist: Addendum, which focuses in more depth on the intrinsic flaws of the monetary system and introduces The Venus Project, the birth child of Jaques Fresco, an engineer and self-educated inventor in many fields. At the end, The Zeitgeist Movement is formally introduced.

Today is an epic day for many as Peter Joseph steps up the tempo again. The third movie of the controversial Zeitgeist series has just released. Zeitgeist III: Moving Forward can be download or watched online for free. The full 2 hours and 41 minutes documentary film is available below. Are you ready?

Bertrand Russell: In praise of idleness

Bertrand Russell [1872 – 1970]

Ever had the feeling that work is overrated? That you live for the weekends, which never seem long enough and that Monday mornings are like torture? Have you ever wondered how wonderful it would be to have more time for yourself and all the things you would do with that valuable spare time? If you have had the fortune, or misfortune, of having a full-time job long enough, chances are, that these questions have crossed your mind. Or possibly not, since we have been taught to accept that the present lifestyle of over working is fair and even necessary for one's survival.

Back in 1937, Bertrand Russell had a different opinion and in his essay 'In praise of idleness' he points out the advantages, not just to the individual but to the society as a whole, of a four hour work day. Although, a bit aged in its vocabulary and the current affairs of the time, his core thought remains just as valid (if not more) today. The following is a compilation of what I see as the most relevant bits, of which you can read in full here.

I think that there is far too much work done in the world, that immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous, and that what needs to be preached in modern industrial countries is quite different from what always has been preached.

I want to say, in all seriousness, that a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work.

First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two organized bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising.

To this day, 99 per cent of British wage-earners would be genuinely shocked if it were proposed that the King should not have a larger income than a working man. The conception of duty, speaking historically, has been a means used by the holders of power to induce others to live for the interests of their masters rather than for their own. Of course the holders of power conceal this fact from themselves by managing to believe that their interests are identical with the larger interests of humanity.

The war showed conclusively that, by the scientific organization of production, it is possible to keep modern populations in fair comfort on a small part of the working capacity of the modern world. If, at the end of the war, the scientific organization, which had been created in order to liberate men for fighting and munition work, had been preserved, and the hours of the week had been cut down to four, all would have been well. Instead of that the old chaos was restored, those whose work was demanded were made to work long hours, and the rest were left to starve as unemployed.

The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich. In England, in the early nineteenth century, fifteen hours was the ordinary day's work for a man; children sometimes did as much, and very commonly did twelve hours a day. When meddlesome busybodies suggested that perhaps these hours were rather long, they were told that work kept adults from drink and children from mischief. When I was a child, shortly after urban working men had acquired the vote, certain public holidays were established by law, to the great indignation of the upper classes. I remember hearing an old Duchess say: 'What do the poor want with holidays? They ought to work.' People nowadays are less frank, but the sentiment persists, and is the source of much of our economic confusion.

If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be enough for everybody and no unemployment -- assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organization. This idea shocks the well-to-do, because they are convinced that the poor would not know how to use so much leisure.

The wise use of leisure, it must be conceded, is a product of civilization and education. A man who has worked long hours all his life will become bored if he becomes suddenly idle. But without a considerable amount of leisure a man is cut off from many of the best things. There is no longer any reason why the bulk of the population should suffer this deprivation; only a foolish asceticism, usually vicarious, makes us continue to insist on work in excessive quantities now that the need no longer exists.

For ages, the rich and their sycophants have written in praise of 'honest toil', have praised the simple life, have professed a religion which teaches that the poor are much more likely to go to heaven than the rich, and in general have tried to make manual workers believe that there is some special nobility about altering the position of matter in space, just as men tried to make women believe that they derived some special nobility from their sexual enslavement.

Manual work is the ideal which is held before the young, and is the basis of all ethical teaching.

In the West, we have various ways of dealing with this problem. We have no attempt at economic justice, so that a large proportion of the total produce goes to a small minority of the population, many of whom do no work at all. Owing to the absence of any central control over production, we produce hosts of things that are not wanted. We keep a large percentage of the working population idle, because we can dispense with their labor by making the others overwork. When all these methods prove inadequate, we have a war: we cause a number of people to manufacture high explosives, and a number of others to explode them, as if we were children who had just discovered fireworks. By a combination of all these devices we manage, though with difficulty, to keep alive the notion that a great deal of severe manual work must be the lot of the average man.

to the actual worker. If you ask him what he thinks the best part of his life, he is not likely to say: 'I enjoy manual work because it makes me feel that I am fulfilling man's noblest task, and because I like to think how much man can transform his planet. It is true that my body demands periods of rest, which I have to fill in as best I may, but I am never so happy as when the morning comes and I can return to the toil from which my contentment springs.' I have never heard working men say this sort of thing.

It will be said that, while a little leisure is pleasant, men would not know how to fill their days if they had only four hours of work out of the twenty-four. In so far as this is true in the modern world, it is a condemnation of our civilization; it would not have been true at any earlier period. There was formerly a capacity for light-heartedness and play which has been to some extent inhibited by the cult of efficiency.

The notion that the desirable activities are those that bring a profit has made everything topsy-turvy.

The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in which they took an active part.

University life is so different from life in the world at large that men who live in academic milieu tend to be unaware of the preoccupations and problems of ordinary men and women; moreover their ways of expressing themselves are usually such as to rob their opinions of the influence that they ought to have upon the general public. Another disadvantage is that in universities studies are organized, and the man who thinks of some original line of research is likely to be discouraged. Academic institutions, therefore, useful as they are, are not adequate guardians of the interests of civilization in a world where everyone outside their walls is too busy for unutilitarian pursuits.

In a world where no one is compelled to work more than four hours a day, every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without starving, however excellent his pictures may be. Young writers will not be obliged to draw attention to themselves by sensational pot-boilers, with a view to acquiring the economic independence needed for monumental works, for which, when the time at last comes, they will have lost the taste and capacity. Men who, in their professional work, have become interested in some phase of economics or government, will be able to develop their ideas without the academic detachment that makes the work of university economists often seem lacking in reality. Medical men will have the time to learn about the progress of medicine, teachers will not be exasperatedly struggling to teach by routine methods things which they learnt in their youth, which may, in the interval, have been proved to be untrue.

Above all, there will be happiness and joy of life, instead of frayed nerves, weariness, and dyspepsia. The work exacted will be enough to make leisure delightful, but not enough to produce exhaustion. Since men will not be tired in their spare time, they will not demand only such amusements as are passive and vapid. At least one per cent will probably devote the time not spent in professional work to pursuits of some public importance, and, since they will not depend upon these pursuits for their livelihood, their originality will be unhampered, and there will be no need to conform to the standards set by elderly pundits. But it is not only in these exceptional cases that the advantages of leisure will appear. Ordinary men and women, having the opportunity of a happy life, will become more kindly and less persecuting and less inclined to view others with suspicion. The taste for war will die out, partly for this reason, and partly because it will involve long and severe work for all. Good nature is, of all moral qualities, the one that the world needs most, and good nature is the result of ease and security, not of a life of arduous struggle. Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and security for all; we have chosen, instead, to have overwork for some and starvation for others. Hitherto we have continued to be as energetic as we were before there were machines; in this we have been foolish, but there is no reason to go on being foolish forever.