Official Response to Egypt and the Wikileaks Fallout

February 5, 2011 Leave a comment

February 4th 2011, (, PDF Download)

Poised at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, we continue to find the geopolitical landscape in upheaval.  Wars, economic crises and ever encroaching consolidated national and corporate power structures are reshaping the world as we know it.  In reaction to the newest set of documents now made public, a contentious debate rages within capitals and cafes worldwide, most prominently in the Middle East as of January 30th 2011, the time this statement was written. WikiLeaks’ controversial release of previously classified documents reveal one undeniable fact: the current methods of global business and public policy are on trial.

This wave of awareness in response to our current geopolitical and economic system is becoming apparent for the greater public as we are witnessing the increasingly vocal response by citizens of Tunisia, Egypt and the Greater Middle East.  With the release of diplomatic cables related to growing despotism and economic inequality a new wave of individuals are standing up to demand their right to exist within a free and open society.  Not as Muslims or Christians, Atheists or Jews, but as independent human beings requesting in greater numbers, their human rights to a free and independent life.  The numbers of citizens standing up for their inalienable rights are rapidly increasing as the world is taking notice. We have seen the dire predicament the citizens of Iran suffered through in 2009 as an example, and this is happening now at a higher frequency as the global economic and political paradigm becomes more inadequate day by day.

This response in North Africa indicates that people, when given access to knowledge as to how their system truly operates, are given a choice; they can either perpetuate a morally bankrupt and economically broken world; or demand a more equitable alternative.  In a world where information is digitized and ubiquitous, it is of significance to point out that it has now been confirmed that the entire Internet for Egypt has been temporarily shut down, along with high bandwidth (3G) wireless networks.  If nations fundamentally operate for the benefit of the people as a primary motivating factor for public policy, what then would need to be suppressed?  Civil unrest can and will continue, as despots are replaced by slightly more benevolent or malevolent despots depending on the collective whims of the body public. The time has come to reappraise our current paradigm.

As previously stated, the disturbing concept of an “internet kill switch” is not far from becoming a reality in North America or Western Europe. Senator Lieberman, former U.S Vice Presidential candidate has proposed such legislation and it is in the U.S congress at the time this statement has been written. This is what happens when inefficient and irresponsible political entities no longer operate for the benefit of their constituents but instead operate to perpetuate the status quo regardless of who inevitably gets trampled underfoot. Like a wounded animal, it will do all that it can to guarantee it’s survival no matter how sick it becomes.

WikiLeaks’ supporters and detractors, in both public and private, operate with the knowledge that information is being suppressed to justify the status quo of the current geopolitical and economic climate.  Both parties further assert that deception is being utilized to manufacture the consent of the world’s citizens.  The reports suggest that the United States has committed acts contrary to their stated political positions and has also blatantly disregarded international law.  The United States however, is not alone in that arena.  It is now confirmed that other countries including Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and various states within the European Union and the Greater Middle East are involved in similar contradictions of character.  Three important questions The Zeitgeist Movement would like to ask the reader to consider: Does any government, representing the people and acting on their behalf, have a right to operate clandestinely, and in many cases, illegally?  If such actions are condemned by the majority, what role does the press play to keep the power structure in check?  Most importantly; isn’t this conduct and behavior an indication of the fundamental problems within the system itself?

Global citizens of The Zeitgeist Movement realize that the tactics a nation chooses in order to undermine another nation, and their own people’s will, stems from economic competition and the constant battle for finite resources within the modern economic system, as well as their own systemic perpetuation.  Such systems are now proven to be flawed, outdated and fundamentally corrupt.  The documents released thus far have proven to define the current state of geopolitics in that regard.  When interpreted in the light of modern science and technology and the enormous benefits they attribute to society, the word “geopolitical”, provides no relevance in regards to quality of life.  Science and technology have been solely responsible for all improvements to the standard of living in our modern world.  Understanding that important fact, The Zeitgeist Movement advocates a systems approach utilizing science and technology for the intelligent management of the Earth’s resources and the social welfare of it’s population.  This concept in practice is known as a Resource Based Economy.

While neither supporting nor condemning the legality of publicizing confidential information, The Zeitgeist Movement seeks to address the issues brought to light via the numerous, previously classified media released through the WikiLeaks organization.  These documents accurately define the inner workings of our system as it exists today.  We, The Zeitgeist Movement, are entering this public conversation, in order to discuss the relevance of these published documents in relation to the global monetary system and the Egyptian uprising.

The undermining of a rival nation’s well being was the status quo of the last century when governments of the world had made it their top priority to maintain centralized power structures through the use of intimidation, violence and economic warfare.  The data suggests that such systems are being extrapolated into our present era.  The Zeitgeist Movement advocates the position that such actions are now obsolete and increasingly dangerous. The global population is realizing that what happens to one will impact all.  We recognize that the current cultural climate has offered the people limited access to relevant knowledge and produces negative results. Attributes of governance such as these, undermine mature and informed decision making.  Suppression of dissent, as well as the distortion of objective truth, can only have negative consequences, and thus, relevant conclusions can never be achieved.  One must ask their representatives: How can undermining freedoms produce a sense of security?  Can we really expect to create different outcomes utilizing the unsuccessful approaches of the past?  Why is this planet, in one form or another, in a state of perpetual war?  For a just and reasoned society to flourish, open access to knowledge and it’s expression thereof is essential as it exists as the cornerstone of freedom.

The “Cablegate” controversy has offered the public an unprecedented glimpse into the inner workings of government, military and intelligence agencies.  These groups have not met the expectations of a civil and reasoned society by promoting leverage of the corporate and banking structure underlying the global economic and political system. Those aforementioned groups are producing fear and distrust among many segments of the population.  These agencies are currently operating within a paradigm they were created to oppose.  We understand that countries acting in their self interest will go to great lengths to protect themselves from each other and any “perceived” threats, as we have seen through the documents that have been released.  The obsession for security is proving to be more detrimental to society than the potential risk any leak or act of terrorism can cause.  Is the risk of losing one’s liberty a worthwhile price, and if so, what way of life is then worth defending?

The Zeitgeist Movement realizes that we the people, as one collective voice, actively seek a mature and rational environment for public and global discourse.  The sole purpose of doing so allows those directly affected by the outcome, a means to arrive at reasoned and valid conclusions to solve serious issues that face the world today.

New governing mechanisms with a foundation grounded in reason, social equality and justice, rather than consolidation of government and cooperate interests, must be implemented as our current system is reaching the end of its serviceable life.  The documents that have been released so far have shown us, in regards to meetings among diplomats, that there is a general fear and mistrust amongst competing national economic systems which are being undermined by the very institutions that put them into place.  Such policies ferment instability and chaos with a small population reaping the benefits of a dangerous world.  The problems we collectively face are the direct result of a system that relies on fierce nationalism and protection of the status quo to survive.

The only way for a free and open society to thrive, is by implementing a transparent governing mechanism.  These new governing mechanisms can outgrow the dangerous and irrational world we currently live in.  Without a reliable system to counteract aberrant behaviors on all levels, the well being of a nation’s constituent population will diminish.  In the United States, legislation outside of and within the first amendment of the U.S Constitution, guarantees freedom of the press as well as whistle blower protection, was put into place in order to keep government fully accountable to the people for any actions it chose to engage in.

We have addressed in this public statement that the latest scandal, “Cablegate” gives credence to the old axiom “The Emperor Wears No Clothes.”  In other words, we all collectively understand the fundamental flaws that exist within our governing mechanism. This current system is not equipped to handle an ever increasingly complex and technologically advanced world.  As we are discovering, the needs of the global population are radically different than they were centuries ago, at the birth of the economic paradigm we live in today.

The current value system, influenced by our current socioeconomic climate, has produced systemic corruption as well as a trend towards a diminishing of personal freedoms.  In this current system, governments and their corporate partners are undermining both the public and themselves.  It is essential that accurate information and transparency within representative governments becomes commonplace to advance the most essential aspects of freedom.

The current failures for reasonable governance speak for itself. Throughout history, policy has been dictated by unverifiable and subjective opinions.  We are moving forward with the concept that to arrive at decisions which produce the most accurate and objective results possible, for the betterment of all humanity, includes absolute transparency.   You will come to understand, we hold no interest in supporting or opposing entities which seek to undermine and destroy our present world, but transcend it.  The problems we have defined do not have to define us.  We invite you to look past the headlines and understand that the crimes which WikiLeaks allegedly uncovered are merely symptoms of an underlying problem endemic across the spectrum.  We cannot legislate these problems away because every nation will legislate to the benefit of the corporation, the financial institutions and themselves, rather than the individual citizen. Finally, legislation cannot effect relevant change due to the inherent cultural behavior patterns integral to the current socio-economic paradigm, for, the current system cannot function without said behaviors.  It is time we redefine the world around us, understand how it operates, and construct a better alternative, using the highest levels of transparency and technical ability.

-The Zeitgeist Movement Communications Team

The Zeitgeist Movement, which currently has roughly 500,000 members worldwide, was founded in 2008 by film director Peter Joseph. The film Zeitgeist Addendum and the recently released film “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward” exists as a direct response to the documented errors prevalent in modern society which advocates the realization that the current system exists as continuation of historical baggage. The activist arm of The Venus Project, which was founded in Venus Florida by Industrial Designer and Social Engineer Jacque Fresco, The Zeitgeist Movement seeks to align modern understanding of science and technology with social design to implement what is termed “A Resource Based Economy”. An R.B.E relies on the concept that abundance for all people is a much more relevant motivator than monetary incentive; with the end result being a healthy and technologically advanced society.

More information can be found at and

Categories: Uncategorized

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

January 28, 2011 Leave a comment

This is the Official Online (Youtube) Release of “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward” by Peter Joseph. [30 subtitles ADDED!]

On Jan. 15th, 2011, “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward” was released theatrically to sold out crowds in 60 countries; 31 languages; 295 cities and 341 Venues. It has been noted as the largest non-profit independent film release in history.

This is a non-commercial work and is available online for free viewing and no restrictions apply to uploading/download/posting/linking – as long as no money is exchanged.

A Free DVD Torrent of the full 2 hr and 42 min film in 30 languages is also made available through the main website [below], with instructions on how one can download and burn the movie to DVD themselves. His other films are also freely available in this format.


Release Map:

$5 DVD:


Why aren’t there more black people in your movie?

January 21, 2011 2 comments

I want to make a comment about a certain angle of critique I have come in contact with and expand this rather trivial issue into a more important cultural point which many out there seem not to get – even in this day and age.

During the premiere of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward in LA on Jan 15th, a very kind women politely asked me why there “were not more woman in my film”. I responded to the effect that “well – I have to go where the data is.” She, of course, related and I feel her question wasn’t as much that she was offended by there not being “more women” in the film, but more to effect that others might feel some sort of bias by the fact. Fair enough, given the culture today.

So, I jump on a plane and go to New York City for the screenings there at Tribeca Cinemas. After the film ended on Jan 17th I was asked a similar question:

“What aren’t there more black people in your movie?”

At first, I thought he was joking. In fact, I spent a good couple of minutes making fun of the question…only to find he was, indeed, not joking. He really felt the need to understand why, in his view, there were not “more black people” in the film. So, of course, I explained that race is an arbitrary factor on all levels and that I simply do not recognize race anymore and the idea of “politically correct media” isn’t a notion I care about for it is a contrivance which perpetuates a false need to be superficially “equal”… as though I should say to myself: “Hmmm – the film is good – but I think I need more woman, black people, native americans, middle easterners, jews, amish and handicapped people etc.”

That stated, I want to point out something: Data is data and the people who present it are arbitrary.

I’ll state that again:

Data is data and the people who present it are arbitrary.

It doesn’t matter who Peter Joseph is – what race he is or what his background is – what comes out of his mouth is DATA and each person must compute that data based on the merit of the data itself- not the machine (person) relaying it. The messenger is and will always be irrelevant. Humans are merely vehicles for information relay. They learn – they repeat / adjust based on the novel-ness of their life experience/frame of reference/understanding. Those who are biased against data because they don’t “like” the prima facie identity of the person or entity communicating the data are engaging in what I call “INTELLECTUAL BIGOTRY”.

For example, Let’s assume I do a movie on renewable energy and the featured person in the work who is discussing various mediums of renewables happens to be a Nazi… or a Scientologist or a Christian … whatever. Does that mean the info they state is now suspect or biased? Is a film which has a Nazi in it suddenly a “Nazi film” regardless of the context?

Sadly, this is how many people comprehend in this culture. They don’t want to think so they seek to isolate the person’s assumed character (race/background/job/whatever) and attack that… rather than listen to what they say. And yes, I know, I’m Peter Joseph, the “arrogant” , “satanist”, “communist”, “new world order”, “asshole” “megalomaniac”, “cult leader”, “conspiracy theorist.”… but hey – guess what: even if all those labels were true: IT CHANGES NOTHING.

Data is data and if there is anything the public needs to snap out of, it’s the belligerent bias of the “projected identity” notion that blinds people to actually listening/considering new information.

Now, with respect to the need for more “woman or black people” in my film I want to make a critical point: It is nothing but a racist/sexist disposition to demand that the vehicles of data transfer in a film or whatever are of a certain origin; in a “politically correct” context. Again – Data is data.
I call this “reverse racism/reverse bigotry”

Frankly, it is nothing but biased and racist for there to be “puerto rican day parades” or “Italian American day” It is nothing but biased and racist for there to be “black awareness month” It is nothing but biased and sexist for the idea of the “feminist” to exist in the arrogance it often does today. Aren’t we interested in equality? If so- it means that you do not promote your “institution” of gender/race/ideology above others- it means you recognize the historical bias against you and work for it to be “neutralized” – not elevated in a vindictive/ego sense.

I remember reading about Martin Luther King Jr.’s apprehension to the idea of “Black Power”. He knew. He understood that to try to make your race/sex or the like “outstanding” is equality as biased as the oppressive forces that started the sad trend of inequality we see today.

Is there a dire need to generate more equality across race, gender and class lines? Yes. But that doesn’t mean your race/gender/class happens to be “special”. We are human. Period.

– Peter Joseph, Director, ‘Zeitgeist: Moving Forward’

Public statement from Peter Joseph regarding the Mainstream Media association created between “Zeitgeist” and the Tucson murders

January 14, 2011 Leave a comment

It has come to my attention that various mainstream news organizations are beginning to run an association between my 2007 performance piece/film, “Zeitgeist: The Movie” and the tragic murders conducted by an extremely troubled young man in Tucson, Arizona. They are also slowly beginning to bleed the obvious line between my 2007 documentary work, my film series as a whole and The Zeitgeist Movement, which I am the founder. Frankly, I find this isolating, growing association tremendously irresponsible on the part of ABC, NBC and their affiliates – further reflecting the disingenuous nature of the America Media Establishment today.

It appears to have begun with a comment on NBC news referencing my film along with other “influential” films as well, such as Richard Kelly’s film “Donnie Darko” and then spreading to ABC News where it singled out Zeitgeist: The Movie and the Series itself, stating: “Osler pointed to an online documentary series called “Zeitgeist” as a possible influence on the man.

The series rails on currency-based economics.

“I really think that this ‘Zeitgeist’ documentary had a profound impact on Jared’s mindset and how he viewed that world that he lives in,” Osler said.

When we reflect on the history of seeming random violence or other forms of highly offensive, irrational, aberrant behavior, we see a common pattern of reaction from the public and media in their attempt to explain such extreme acts. Rather than deeply examining the Bio-Psycho-Social nature of human social development and the vast spectrum of influences that create and morph each of us in unique and sometime detrimental ways, they take the easy way out. The first thing do it simply ignore all modern scientific social understandings of what generates human motivation in both positive and negative regard, for to do so can only call into question the social system itself and hence the “zeitgeist” (meaning: spirit/intellectual climate of the time/culture) at large.

Generally speaking, it is historically accurate to say that the Mainstream Media simply isn’t in the business of challenging the Status Quo. The limits of debate are firmly set. Virtually all ideas, persons or groups who have succeeded in changing the world for the better, later to be hailed as heros in the public mind, started out being condemn by those in the Mainstream Media who latch on to the dominant world view of the time. Even Martin Luther King Jr., a peaceful, loving, wonder of a man who contributed more to our social progress than likely any humanitarian in the US history, was followed by the CIA and publicly humiliated as a “Communist” which he even had to defend in front of a Congressional Committee. In fact, you can rest assured that if King was alive in the current paradigm today and seeking an equal form of justice- he would be given the name: “Terrorist”.

So, again, rather than taking the scientific view, the Mainstream Media often seeks out or implies one point of blame and runs with it. After all, it is much easier, presentable and more simplistic for the public to think that the troubling reality of seemingly random acts of mass murder is the result of a “singular influence” and hence the logic goes that if that one influence is removed, then the world will be back in balance. This gives the public a false resolve and position of focus in an otherwise ambiguous, complex world of social and biologic influences. And as far as the scapegoat itself, very often any group, media or dataset that is counter-culture or even hints at wishing to challenge the status quo, is a magnet for such blame.

For example, musical groups of a counter-culture nature have been a favorite scapegoat for acts of murder/violence historically. In 1990, the rock band Judas Priest was actually taken to court for their “role” in the self-inflicted gunshot wounds in 1985 of 20-year old James Vance and 18-year old Raymond Belknap in Reno, Nevada. In 2008, the band Slipknot was publicly tied/blamed to a high-school murder in South Africa. Even the Beatles song “Helter-skelter” was associated to the murders incited by Charles Manson. It goes on and on… and, frankly, it’s simply pathetic – avoiding the true nature of the problem- which is the Socio-Economic Environment itself.

Make no mistake: The Social System is to blame for the rampage of Jared Loughner – not some famous online documentary which is known as the most viewed documentary of all time in internet history. Are the other 200 million people who have seen the film also preparing for murder sprees? I think not.

In my new film: Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, I feature a prominent Harvard Criminal Psychologist by the name of Dr. James Gilligan who headed the Centre for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School for many years. In his life work of personally engaging with the most dangerous, violent offenders the US system produces, he found some basic trends. The most common is the social issue of “shame”. Our socio-economic system inherently breeds social division and there is a natural demeaning of others generated as a result. It is a scientific fact that mass murderers and those who many just dismiss as “evil” today, are the product of years of being shamed, humiliated and demeaned. Their acts of violence is a reaction from these highly oppressive feelings and the real resolve to such acts can only come from removing the real source of such emotional hurt. You will notice that most other countries don’t come close to the level of violence we see in the United States. The US is the capital of violence with 30-300 times more acts of violence than any other country. Why? We have produced more serial killers in America than all other countries combined. You will notice the Mainstream never asks this question.

If anyone would like to understand why more and more people in the modern world end up like Jared Loughner and why these patterns are only going to get worse as time goes in this system, I suggest the book “Violence” by Harvard Criminal Psychologist Dr. Gilligan.

In conclusion, let it be stated that the Zeitgeist Film Series is about critical thought regarding various social issues which challenge many erroneous notions held as fact in the modern culture. It also explicitly promotes non-violence, human unity and prosperous human development based on truth and science.

Anyone who wishes to really understand the works can view them for free online at and my new film, which will detail how a new, humane social system can work, will be 315 theaters in 60 countries and 30 language starting Jan 15th 2011.

-Peter Joseph

Using the political system as a soapbox

December 18, 2010 4 comments

My name is Neil Kiernan. Some of you may know me as VTV on the forums. I am the host of the internet talk-radio show called “V-RADIO“.
First, let me start by giving a little background about myself and how I came to be a member of the Zeitgeist Movement.

Some time ago, during Ron Paul’s campaign for President, something broke me out of my apathy. It was a politician who actually spoke the truth. The topic in debate was the motivation for the attacks on September 11th. One of his opponents, Rudy Guiliani (who was riding his fame as Mayor of New York City during that tragedy), had made the statement that the attacks were motivated by hatred of the freedoms we enjoy in the United States. No matter what you believe the cause or motivation for these attacks was, anyone who knows anything about the opinion of the United States in the world (particularly in the middle east), knows it has next to nothing to do with our freedoms. And Congressmen Paul of Texas laid it out. It was our foreign policy that is the reason people in these countries dislike the United States. This is a foreign policy that includes bombing and deadly sanctions against those countries.

I remember the day I heard Congressmen Paul talk about this very well. And the reason it was important to me, and is still important, was that I had never in my entire life seen a politician speak the truth, regardless of what consequences it would have for his career. And he did see consequences! The press tried to paint him as a 911 conspiracy theorist. It was not in the best interest of the establishment that the American people actually take an honest look at why people in other countries dislike the United States.

I joined the “Ron Paul Revolution” and the independent media that had started on the internet. I participated by joining an internet radio station called “Ron Paul Radio”; and so began my career of internet journalism. After watching the film “V for Vendetta”, I was inspired by the scene where the character V takes over the television feed. In the bottom right hand corner, he created a little “VTV” icon. That is where my internet persona came from.

I learned a lot during my time involved in that campaign. Eventually, it became clear that Ron Paul was not going to run third party, and was not going to get the Republican nomination. I had befriended Senator Mike Gravel, whom some of you may remember as the fiery old man with glasses who put Hillary Clinton in her place before corporate interests had him removed from the Democratic debates. Senator Gravel and I decided to join the Libertarian party and I decided to help him with his bid for the nomination in that party. I was a delegate to the convention and learned even more about third party politics. In light of my contribution to debates on the party’s platform, I was asked by the Michigan Libertarian Party to run for Congress as a Libertarian in Michigan’s 10th district.

What I learned, of course, is that nobody ever runs for office on a third party ticket expecting to win. However, you do get invited onto mainstream television, radio and newspapers to talk about your ideas, simply for being a candidate. A friend of mine from the Socialist party named Bryan Moore (who ran for president) pointed out that his party never gets anyone elected. But because of their presence on the election scene, the Democratic party has been forced to absorb some of their views or lose votes to them. This is another positive effect that third party politics brings to the table.

In any case, thanks to Ron Paul’s campaign to expose the Federal Reserve, a fellow activist suggested the film Zeitgeist to me, due to Peter Joseph’s exposure of the Federal Reserve scam. Another powerful thing that his campaign accomplished is that now, the issue of the Federal Reserve and the problems it causes has become a mainstream issue. This never would of happened if Ron Paul had not run for President. And most of us would still have no idea what the Federal Reserve is or what it does. My appreciation for the information in the first film lead me to watching the sequel Zeitgeist Addendum when it came out later. In other words, if it were not for my involvement in the political system there would be no VTV, and no V-RADIO. And that brings me to how the political system can be a powerful tool to help us spread awareness of the solutions presented in Jacque Fresco’s proposals for the Resource-Based Economy. It is in third party politics that we will find the kind of people who actually care enough about the world to even be willing to hear our ideas. The “low hanging fruit”, so to speak, is very numerous in organizations like the Green Party, the Libertarian party, etc.. These are the people who care. The Michigan Zeitgeist chapter has several members of the Green Party, and their insight into activism has been a great help to us.

We should reject the political system. In it’s current form, the notion that we will get anything done directly in a system that allows corporations to buy any political position they want is silly. However, many people still believe the solutions are there. As I did, before I watched Zeitgeist Addendum. And I would not have ever even heard of the film if it were not for someone in the third party political activist community bringing it to my attention.

Remember Jacque talking about his childhood during the depression, where there were all these men up on soapboxes (literally up on soapboxes, this is where the term came from) talking about their various solutions to mankind’s troubles?

The “soapbox”, in that sense, has been replaced by the internet, the radio, and the television. There are people who are not satisfied with things the way they are, who are looking for people on these soapboxes to give them suggestions as to a better direction. We can get on that soapbox in the form of caucuses within the political system who’s sole purpose is to offer a non-political solution.

And that is why I formed the Resource-Based Economy Caucus. I went to Jacque and Roxanne and asked their permission to form this caucus. I showed them the platform and they approved it.

What is a caucus? A caucus is a group within a political party who support certain views and sometimes have an agenda for the party in question. An example would be the Republican Liberty caucus. That caucus is basically a Libertarian caucus within the Republican party. It’s purpose is to spread Libertarian ideals in the Republican party and support candidates in that party who hold similar ideals.

This is the platform of the Resource-Based Economy Caucus:

The Resource-Based economy caucus is a caucus that seeks to bring about awareness of the advantages of implementing a Resource-Based economy. And to work towards that implementation. The definition of a Resource-Based economy, as defined by Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project, is as follows:

“A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatsoever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world’s population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case! It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology, when intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system (lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, stockbrokers, etc.), a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for those scarce resources. Money is a social convention; an agreement, if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.”
Key points of the caucus:

  1. We intend to offer alternatives to the current outdated solutions that are simply not working.
  2. We will work to expose the dangers of a profit motivated monetary system, and spread awareness of the various ways this system is corrupted.
  3. We will work to spread awareness of the technology that could liberate mankind from the monetary system and the profit motive.
  4. We will offer dialogue as to the flaws of Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism and why none of these solutions will solve the problems of mankind. And offer the research of the Venus Project as data of an alternative to any of these outdated failed systems.
  5. We do not advocate the use of force or coercion, but seek to demonstrate our ideas to bring understanding of why we feel this is the best direction for mankind.

A lot of that platform will look familiar to you. That is because almost all of it is taken directly from Jacque Fresco’s writings, with his permission.

The first party I took this caucus to is the Boston Tea Party. This is not the tea party you have seen on the news with people like Sarah Palin involved. This party was started quite a while ago by former members of the Libertarian party who disliked the neo-conservative direction some of the membership of the Libertarian party was taking. The platform is incredibly simple:

“The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”

I proposed the Resource Based Economy as an alternate means to achieve the stated platform. As you can imagine, this was rather controversial. But it got us attention. And resistance. There were a few reasons I chose this party to start off with.

  1. It costs nothing to join, and is easy to join on the internet. Go to and click “join” on the right side of the silver bar at the top of their website. After you sign up, your in. It’s that simple.
  2. Although their membership was mostly mainstream Free-Market Libertarian, nothing in their platform says anything about the Free-Market. It simply states that the party wishes to reduce the size and scope of government. As such, our caucus is completely in line with their ideals.
  3. I was already a member of the national committee from my time as a Libertarian. I was asked to join after the 2008 Libertarian national convention.

At the recent convention, which took place on the internet where all of the activity in this party takes place, we ran three candidates for the national committee of the party. Members of the national committee of a political party vote on issues such as changes to the platform, the bylaws, resolutions in support of or in condemnation of acts by politicians or corporations, or endorsement of political candidates. The three candidates were Mathew Wagner (the administrator for the Ohio Chapter of the Zeitgeist movement), Rion Ametu (another member) and myself.

The resistance to our caucus took the form of attempts at voter fraud. A member named Jim Davidson made more then one account to vote against me and a couple of Zeitgeist Movement members. He was caught and his votes invalidated. Then came a controversial move on the part of the party’s chairman at the time, Douglass Gaking. He decided to invoke an unwritten rule that membership to the party should be closed off during conventions. He invalidated the votes we had from new members who joined from the Zeitgeist Movement. This lead to all three of our candidates losing. However, before this was done, we had far more votes then any other candidate. It was very obvious we would have won by a landslide.

Because of these actions, the majority of the membership of the Boston Tea Party’s national committee is made up of mainstream Libertarians. And to ensure that no one from our caucus gains a seat, they are simply refusing to have an election for the seat that was left available at the end of the convention. Thankfully, one of the party’s founders, Thomas Knapp, has started a petition to overturn this decision. He already has the five members he needs to support this petition and the matter will be put to a vote of the actual membership.

If you would like to help with this, all it requires is that you go to and join the party. You must be a U.S. Citizen to join and with a few mouse clicks, we can turn that situation around.

That being said, it is my intention to continue to use the political system as a soapbox. And for those of you inside and outside of the United States, I suggest you do the same. When doing this, try and find political parties that have a logical progression within their platform that could be compatible with the Resource-Based Economy solution. Incarnations of the Green Party can be found in many countries. Some of the Socialist parties would also be open to our message. Consider running for local offices, solely with the intention of spreading awareness of the Resource-Based Economy solution. We know politics is not the solution. But it is a solution to getting a real solution into the minds of the people of the world.

Neil Kiernan

The profit problem

December 18, 2010 1 comment

In the modern day, there is a great deal of public criticism in regard to “abuse” within the financial system. Toxic derivatives, CEO Bonuses, Madoff pyramid schemes, Goldman Sachs fraud, etc.. These near-constant occurrences are traditionally considered “anomalies” within the current order, tossed on to the front pages of our papers as though we should be surprised by these realities. What you don’t see on the cover of newspapers in regard to such “corruption” are those actions which are, in principle, equally as corrupt – but have been accepted as “normal” under the guises of “marketing strategy” and the “competitive nature” of the marketplace. These include various forms of dishonestly, such as the deliberate withholding of efficiency of a given good for the sake of reducing it’s “cost basis”, to the protectionist tendency of any company to preserve itself, regardless of social function or the advent of innovations which might inhibit a currently profitable practice.

It is important to point out that the motivations, and hence actions, of any human being within a society can only be a consequence of that society’s influence. Stealing, for example, is not a “genetic” trait. It is the product of a culture. Human motivation is complex and the study of human behavior should be at the forefront of criminology, with all relevant attributes of the social system considered as a possible cause. It is no revelation of human psychology, and hence sociology, that if a certain act does not offer a proper reward, then naturally there will be little motivation to carry out such an action. Likewise, if personal gain/reward can be attained through what society even condemns as an “unlawful action”, that distinction truly changes nothing if there is a level of desperation within a given person to require whatever that action may be.

Now, historically, the public assumes that certain actions are “moral” and others are not. Lying, for example, is considered “amoral”, both by common religious and legal codes. But what exactly are they referring to? What level of lying is “real”? The fact is, every single act of monetary gain is based on a form of dishonesty, only this dishonestly is simply re-termed as “competitive”. In the marketing world, everything is driven by “advantage”. The “competitive edge” is nothing more than a passive corruption where competing companies seek to “out do” each other in whatever way they can for the sake of market share. The very act of seeking differential advantage is to be engaged in the abuse of another person or group. Regardless, our social system at large chooses to collar this understanding and instead imposes punitive reactions to what the system defines as “socially offensive behavior” (or crime) while, in fact, ignoring the root causes of most of these so-called “criminal” actions – along with overlooking the other “accepted” forms of dishonesty present.

As an aside, the resolution of “offensive” human behavior can only come from an adjustment of the social system. There is no such thing as a “criminal”, as we are all products, and hence the victims, of the culture in which we are born into.

Now, before we begin, there is one more thing I would like to hesitantly point out. Criticism of the current financial order, and hence the profit problem, does not automatically mean the person presenting such a challenge is a “Marxist” or a “Communist”. Yes, the preceding statement is likely comical to those who are accustomed to thinking critically, but sadly, I need to point this out, for we can rest assured that a great number of people reading this article will simply try to find a way to reduce it to “Marxist Nonsense” – a thoughtless, capitalist catchphrase I have grown quite bored with. One of the greatest forms of imposed inhibition comes from creating associations that have been traditionally defined as “disproven”, “discredited” or the like. This is an age-old propaganda tactic to create uncomfortable, inconvenient and controversial associations in order to derail critical thought about specific “taboo” issues. Like a religion, the monetary system and the “theology” of the “free market”, is no exception. The high priests of our current economic model naturally come in the form of “monetary economists” which work in a field that is provably decoupled from any type of natural scientific order in regard to what actually sustains human life on this planet – which are natural resources and the scientific method. The only viable economic model that can possibly exist in any civilization must be explicitly based on resource management and preservation. The market system that currently exists in the world today is an utter failure in this regard and, in fact, works in a reverse capacity – perpetuating exploitation, pollution, and psychological neuroses.

Here are six problematic attributes of the market system:

1. A “Corruption Generating” Incentive System. It is often said that the competitive marketplace creates the incentive to act for the sake of social progress. While this is partially true, it also generates an equal if not more pronounced amount of corruption in the form of planned obsolescence, common crime, wars, large scale financial fraud, slave labor and many other issues. Well over 90% of the people in prisons are there because of monetary-related crime or non-violent drug offenses. The majority of legislation exists in the context of monetary-based crimes. Also, if one is to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others, it is found that they did not find their motivation in the prospect of monetary gain. The interest to make money must not be confused with the interest to create socially beneficial products. In a sustainable society, human motivation would be driven by contributions to society, and hence ‘themselves’ – not abstractly “making money”. The system would be designed to best facilitate the needs of the population directly. Yes, this is that dangerous phenomenon we hear so much about, with the image of blood engulfing the planet Earth, denoted as “socialistic”. God forbid society might actually be ‘designed’ to benefit the people which live inside of it. The fact of the matter is, the profit motive incentive, and hence our competition oriented system, is entirely “anti-society”. It is a pure corruption. The entire point of a social organization is to facilitate and perpetuate the well-being of its citizenry. In society today, the exact opposite is true. People are told they must “earn a living”, which perpetuates a form of superstition that only certain people deserve the “right of life” and others do not.

2. The need for infinite growth. Infinite economic growth is not only mathematically unsustainable, but it is ecologically detrimental. While people can debate the theoretical nature of “capitalism” and how it is “supposed” to function, one thing is historically clear. It perpetuates/requires constant growth and consumption. The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet, but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and “economic growth”. In order to keep people employed, people must constantly buy and consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility and basic necessity. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources. In a sustainable society, a “steady-state” economy would be in order. This would mean that there is no pressure to consume, as labor is not linked into the feedback loop. While it is very difficult for most people today to imagine a world which does not impose the need for “labor for income”, it needs to be pointed out that the constant requirement for labor is nothing but detrimental in the modern day, especially in light of the growing efficiency of mechanization of labor across developed nations.

3. A disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe, than to produce locally. We import bananas from Ecuador to the US, bottled water from Fuji, Japan, while western companies will go to the 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc.. Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs. This is extreme inefficiency and only justifiable within the market system for the sake of “saving money”.

In a sustainable society, the focus would be maximum efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor when compared to methods today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the *best possible goods. (*see more below) In other words, the system is planned to maximize efficiently and minimize waste.

4. A propensity for “Establishments”. Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition, if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit and hence power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self-perpetuation. If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created whereas anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well-being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a “competition” mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level – which is the competition against new advents which would make them outright obsolete. The best way to expand on this point is to simply give an example, such as the US Government and ‘Big Oil’ collusion to limit the expansion of the fully Electric Car (EV) in the US. This issue was well presented and sourced in the documentary called “Who Killed the Electric Car?”. The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well-being of those on the payroll, leads to an inherent tendency to stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to adsorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations ( i.e. the perpetuation of “Hybrid” cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance.) There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced drugs which would void existing/profitable ones.

In a sustainable society, there is nothing to hold back developmental/implementation of anything, once it has been tested thoroughly. There could be no “Established Institutions”. New methods would immediately be implemented into society, with no monetary institution to thwart the change due to their self-preserving nature.

5. An inherent obsolescence which creates inferior products immediately due to the need to stay “competitive”. This little recognized attribute of production is another example of the waste which is created in the market system. It is bad enough that multiple companies constantly duplicate each others items in an attempt to make their variations more interesting for the sake of public consumption, but a more wasteful reality is that due to the competitive basis of the system, it is a mathematical certainty that every good produced is immediately inferior the moment it is created, due the need to cut the initial cost basis of production, and hence stay “competitive” against another company which is doing the same thing for the same reason. The old free market adage where producers “create the best possible goods at the lowest possible prices” is a needlessly wasteful reality and detrimentally misleading. It is impossible for a company to use the most efficient material or processes in the productions of anything, for it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis. They very simply cannot make the “strategically best”, physically – it is mathematically impossible. If they did, no one would buy it, for it would be unaffordable due the values inherent in the higher quality materials and methods. Remember: People buy what they can afford. Every person on this planet has a built in limit of affordability in the monetary system, so it generates a feedback loop of constant waste via inferior production, to meet inferior demand.

In a sustainable society, goods are created to last, with the expansion and updating of certain goods built directly into the design and recycling strategically accessed as well, limiting waste. You will notice the term “strategic best” was used in a statement above. This qualification means that goods are created with respect to state of affairs of the planetary resources and with the quality of materials used based on an equation taking into account all relevant attributes, rates of depletion, negative retro-actions and the like. In other words, we would not use TITANIUM for every single computer enclosure made, just because it might be the empirically “strongest” materials for the job. That practice could lead to depletion. Rather, there would be a gradient of material quality which would be assessed through analysis of, again, relevant attributes such as comparable resources, rates of natural obsolescence for a given item, statical usage in the community, etc. These properties and relationships could be assessed through programming, with the most strategically viable solution computed and output in real time.

6. The market system is driven, in part, by scarcity. The less there is of something, the more money that can be generated in the short term. This sets up a propensity for corporations to limit availability and hence deny production abundance. It is simply against the very nature of what drives demand to create abundance. The Kimberly Diamond Mines in Africa have been documented in the past to burn diamonds in order to keep prices high. Diamonds are rare resources which take billions of years to be created. This is nothing but problematic. The world we live in should be based on the interest to generate an abundance for the world’s people, along with strategic preservation and streamlined methods to enable that abundance. This is a central reason why, as of 2010, there are over a billion people starving on the planet. It has nothing to do with an inability to produce food, and everything having to do with an inherent need to create/preserve scarcity for the sake of short term profits. Abundance, Efficiency and Sustainability are, very simply, the enemies of profit. This also applies to the quality of goods. The idea of creating something that could last, say, a lifetime with little repair, is anathema to the market system, for it reduces consumption rates, which slows growth and creates systemic repercussions (like a loss of jobs, etc.). The scarcity attribute of the market system is nothing but detrimental for these reasons, not to mention that it doesn’t even serve the role of efficient resource preservation, which is often claimed. While supply and demand dictates that the less there is of something, the more it will be valued (and hence the increased value will limit consumption, reducing the possibility of “running out”), the incentive to create scarcity, coupled with the inherent short term reward which results from scarcity-driven-based prices, nullifies the idea that this enables strategic preservation. We will likely never “run out” of oil, in the current market system. Rather, the prices will become so high that no one can afford it, while those corporation who own the remaining oil, will make a great deal of money off of the scarcity, regardless of the long term social ramifications. In other words, remaining scare resources, existing in such high economic value that it limits their consumption, is not to be confused with preservation that is functional and strategic. True preservation, which must be strategic, can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient applications of the resource in industry itself; not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation.

Peter Joseph

The Aerospace Perspective

December 18, 2010 1 comment

As a Systems Engineer working in the space industry, specifically with the United States Space Shuttle Program, I approach the Venus Project from a unique perspective. I have decided to use this first article as a chance to introduce myself to you, so that when I post articles in the future, you have an idea about the man behind the writing. I’ll also include information on a technical project I’m personally working on that you might be interested in.

For all intents and purposes, I am a technology, space and astrophysics geek, formally educated in Aerospace Engineering Technology and soon to be pursuing an advanced degree in either astrophysics or systems engineering, depending on what happens for me after the Space Shuttle Program ends.

I recently published a book about how vital space exploration and development is to mankind, called Turning Point, where the book is my funding source to travel and do public speaking on the topic (and also the Venus Project where possible). If the subject interests you, my book can be found here and can be internationally shipped.

I’ve been on WebTV (Fox News), various web and standard radio shows, and have given several speeches on the subject to various groups. Additionally, I manage a blog where I discuss space advocacy, recent space news articles of importance, and my thoughts about how the Venus Project can positively affect not just the world, but our travels beyond it.

Some of you may be aware of the video I made called “Awakening”. If not, it can be found here on my Youtube Channel:

I have also made a few other videos, like “Population to Convince” and my lecture to the Houston Humanist group. “Our Technical Reality” is more in tune with showcasing the science and technology standpoint.

As you can see, I am passionate about the success of the Venus Project, and my scientific and technical background allows me to bring more data, facts and science to the table, which in combination with my ability to do public speaking will hopefully allow me to address and spread the vision of the Venus Project to many people. And while many of us in the movement run on emotion and passion, I do to, that does not always work for convincing people of the necessity of our vision. So I hope that with my technical background, I can help bring others to the point where they see this new direction as possible, real and vital.

It is my passion for space and what it can provide humanity that causes me to embrace the Venus Project as I do, for in my eyes it is the RBE that will catapult us from a species that mainly tinkers on the edge of our atmosphere into a serious space faring civilization, where the benefits can and do directly affect the people living on this glorious blue marble. The visions of the Venus Project would not be possible were it not for the advances in technology that are directly or indirectly attributable to space exploration, manned or robotic. It is the challenges of space that afford us the opportunity to think outside the box, or more specifically, off the Earth. Many of the challenges of space simply cannot be duplicated on Earth, and it is those challenges that drive innovation, like advanced recycling and reusability technologies, far more than any ludicrous notion that profit and money are the motivators.

For example, one of the biggest things we discuss is sustainability, not just of our energy systems, but of every product we make. Planned obsolesence, or at least the basic notion that products are made on the cheap so they fetch the most profit, is something that cannot go on, else our natural resources will be obliterated in just a few generations and humanity will suffer as a result. But let’s focus on something I am personally working on, an automated hydroponic farm facility.

This is a pretty straight forward concept and completely realistic in every manner. The sad part is that it’s just not being done. Instead of aid relief non-profits gathering money to buy food, thereby fattening the wallets of the food industry, they should be building sustainable food production systems for impoverished people so that we never have to worry about their food supply again! Alas, our current system doesn’t exactly want that, but we (The Venus Project) do, so this is something we should be trying to work on a global level. World hunger, solved by The Venus Project. I like the sound of that, not for selfish reasons, but because it’s the right thing to do, so why shouldn’t we be the ones doing it? So what would this system be made of?

  1. Solar/Wind hybrid powered facility with substantial battery systems such that any climate condition throughout the year would not reduce the energy level of the facility below tolerance operating conditions.
  2. Hermetically sealed building, with an atmosphere pressure and concentrations of Nitrogen and Oxygen set to the Paleozoic era, when plants thrived on the Earth as never before. It requires one to pass through a “clean room” before even being able to enter the growth facility, including wearing a “bunny suit” the likes of which is required for those who work in space industry clean rooms for satellites and space hardware.
  3. Use the Omega Garden system, which I’ve already researched to be the best system that takes up the smallest footprint, but also delivers the most robust and strongest yields without using one drop of “plant altering” chemicals or pesticides. It’s kind of difficult to have pests in a hermetically sealed building.
  4. Robotic planting and harvesting arms strategically placed in the facility.
  5. Delivery system: Basically a “Farmers Market” waist level train that brings the harvest to an adjacent building where the public can get the food right off the train carts. After a few days, whatever isn’t taken is returned and converted into mulch that can be used for outdoor facilities. Nothing is wasted.
  6. Externally facing monitors in the building showing the interior of the facility, because the facility itself has no windows. Cameras in the facility can show the public what’s going on inside, to satisfy curiousity more than anything else, but also good for public awareness. Also, monitors would show the harvest cycle, what’s coming up next and when.
  7. Each facility would grow 12 of the most healthy and popular vegetables, enough to feed 1,000 people per crop. After plenty of research, there is a good consensus on what those are: Spinach, Green Peas, Red Leaf Lettuce, Garlic, Onions, Carrots, Brocolli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, Tomatoes, Red Peppers and Green Peppers.

Currently I am researching cost and systems, as well as designing the informal blueprint of the facility in an Engineering CAD program. All of my information will be released as an official report for all chapters to access freely. You might have different companies, different prices for materials, and need a different design layout based on that, but the report will give you a great starting point.

I am not a know-it-all, but I do a vast amount of self study and research on the topics of science (including social sciences), space and technology (viable technology, not the latest video game or phone widget). I look forward to bringing this knowledge to the movement and to the project. Remember, you personally don’t have to convince the world. We are all working together, neighbor by neighbor, community by community. Those of us with the option of a larger platform should most definitely utilize it, but don’t let us detract you from the most vital aspect of any movement…your community is part of the world, get out in it and start talking!

Douglas Mallette
Space Shuttle Systems Engineer, Space Advocacy Speaker, Author: Turning Point
Houston, TX