Jacque and Roxanne can't be waiters

Earth 2.0 conflict begins

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Venus Rising

Blogs are apparently supposed to be short and sweet. This is impossible for Earth 2.0 as the subject matter cannot be treated briefly. So think of this ongoing series as the Earth 2.0 Mega Blog With Added Extra Goodness...

Time: January 2010
Place: somewhere in deepest wild sub-tropical Florida.
Players: visionary elder extraordinaire Jacque Fresco; Mr Fresco’s superwoman pilot, builder and wholly dedicated partner in love Roxanne Meadows; beaming-faced director Frank Da Silva; surf dude ace cinematographer Mark Drifting Waters; executive producer love bomb actress Princess D-Day (also known as Princess Unobtanium due to her consistent state of being busy); and yours truly (gaffer, runner, key grip, etc).

So, here I am in Jacque Fresco’s main living pod at his remote sub-tropical residency in Venus Florida. Mr Fresco is, of course, the director of The Venus Project whose championing of a resource based economy (according to which money is vanquished, all of the Earth’s resources are shared, and we cease struggling to secure advantage over one another) is to be featured in Earth 2.0. I am pretty much supine and well relaxed on a comfy orange lounger chair – which is sort of 1970’s retro futuristic. My small netbook is on my lap and I can type as I observe the proceedings. Earth 2.0 cinematographer Mark Drifting Waters is setting up his gear and is about to film Mr Fresco giving a demonstration of architectural stability. This footage might be used as supplementary Earth 2.0 material. The real good stuff was filmed earlier in the day around the scenic grounds of Fresco’s place. It was all storyboarded in advance. Fresco, once he has donned his trademark Indiana Jones hat, is a terrific actor (whippersnapper Harrison Ford has nothing on him). The resulting footage is top-notch – as are Mr Fresco’s discourses. Cinema audiences in 2012 will be bowled over both visually and conceptually. This is guaranteed.

No surprise then that 93 year-old Mr Fresco is best described as an utterly amazing force of Nature. He comes across as impressive in the Zeitgeist Addendum movie and on various YouTube clips, but he is even better in the flesh. Although he is small and fragile, strength lies deep within him and he is always eager to unleash this. Give him the slightest chance and he will vocally launch himself and wax majestic on all manner of paradigm shifting social observations. Although we have been filming him all day, he still has enough energy to insist that we do this extra bit of film inside his main living pod. I suspect he runs on geothermally charged Duracell batteries from the future he is so fond of, or maybe he eats some kind of special Florida spinach. In any case, a little earlier we were all rather knackered and were thinking of packing up. But Mr Fresco wouldn’t let us leave. He has loads more to say, more tales of technology to tell, more practical wisdom to impart. I know that he also has a gun (there are big alligators in the area) so we all decide to comply with his wish to be filmed again and let him do his piece on architectural stability.

Mr Fresco suddenly notices my T-Shirt which features a somewhat flippant picture of Yoda from Star Wars (Yoda is wearing sunglasses and has hi-fi headphones hanging loosely around his neck). Mr Fresco recognises Yoda (well, they are two of a kind). That seems apt as the pod we are in (built by bare hand by Jacque and his partner Roxanne Meadows many decades ago) is akin to the pods in the original Star Wars movie – sort of white and round, a bit like an igloo. Like the chair I am in, the style of the pod is retro-futuristic. Anyhow, Mr Fresco wants to talk about strong building structures. For this purpose we have him sat at a table which has a cylinder of paper on it. A sheet of paper lacks structural strength. But if you roll it up into a cylinder, it can carry a remarkably large load. This will be demonstrated by getting Roxanne to place a stack of heavy books on top of the paper cylinder. In this way, Mr Fresco can readily convey notions of efficient construction and design.

While props and lighting equipment are being set up, Jacque is dismissing various metaphysical notions and ideas. The Venus Project has no time for metaphysical thinking. Airy fairy New Agers will not find obvious solace in Fresco’s vision and work. Intelligently applied science and technology for the good of all humanity is what The Venus Project is about. At a stretch one can view this as a sort of mathematically engineered love, or a practically engineered spirituality. But still, surely Mr Fresco must acknowledge a certain interesting something about the nature of reality, a certain astonishment that Nature can birth life and consciousness? And yet Fresco dismisses Einstein’s notion of an intelligent harmony to the Universe (he once met Einstein when he was very young). He talks of violent supernovae. How can they be harmonious? I reply that these stellar events make the crucial heavier elements of which life is made. We debate a bit more and conclude that everything depends upon how one defines harmony. With an objective definition (pertaining, let’s say, to the lawful interconnectedness of all things), the Universe can indeed, as Einstein suggested, be considered an exquisitely harmonious and smartly operating system. Come to think of it, the very real existence of Jacque Fresco here on planet Earth at this crucial period of time is testimony to such an assertion. For me at least, the fact that the whole system of Nature has both constructed and primed Mr Fresco is ample evidence that life is far smarter than we may imagine.

Later that night, just as were making our final departure, Mark Drifting Waters and I spoke of our sadness to be leaving. Then we realised in no uncertain terms that we loved Mr Fresco! So I ran back to the pod and told him. He said he loved us too. That’s cool with me. May we all meet again in similarly extraordinary circumstances. Heap big Pachamama make it so.

By Simon Powell - EARTH 2.0™ Scriptwriter

Why the Zeitgeist Movement was called a religion

Would like to join the Zeitgeist movement if it wouldn't be so religious-cult-like

— Jari Järvenpää (@JariJarvenpaa) May 15, 2009

The RBE trademark was denied

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 1/11/2010

The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:

NO CONFLICTING REGISTRATIONS

The Office records have been searched and no similar registered or pending mark has been found that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02

THE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES IS UNACCEPTABLE

The wording of the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it fails to give proper notice as to the specific services for which applicant seeks its service mark. See TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name for the services. If there is no common commercial or generic name for the services, then applicant must describe the nature of the services as well as their main purpose, channels of trade, and the intended consumer(s).

Furthermore, “Association services, namely promoting the interests of…”is meant to refer to people, groups of people, professional groups or categories, e.g., bird lovers, gynecologists, librarians, economists, social climbers, endangered novelists, Presbyterian ministers, isolationists, and the like. An “alternative social sustainability and design” would not appear to have any human physiology, anatomy or autonomous mobility, and is most likely not a human being but rather an economic model of some sort.

Applicant must amend the services description to perhaps furthering the interest of the believers, followers, or adherents who favor a resource based socio-economic design or model.

Identifications of services can be amended only to clarify or limit the services; adding to or broadening the scope of the services is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07. Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include services that are not within the scope of the services set forth in the present identification.

For assistance with identifying and classifying services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html. See TMEP §1402.04.

THE MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified services. TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Descriptiveness Determined in Relation to Services

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified services, not in the abstract. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would be understood to refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software, not “doctor” as shown in dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). “Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

Not Necessary to Describe All Attributes of the Services

“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s services.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b). It is enough if the term describes only one significant function, attribute or property. In re Oppedahl, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371; TMEP §1209.01(b).

First or Only User of Descriptive Term

The fact that an applicant may be one of the first users of a merely descriptive designation is not dispositive on the issue of descriptiveness where, as here, the evidence shows that the word or term is merely descriptive. See In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 (TTAB 2001); In re Acuson, 225 USPQ 790, 792 (TTAB 1985); TMEP §1209.03(c).

Why Applicant’s Mark is Deemed Merely Descriptive for Applicant’s Services

Applicant seeks to register on the Principal Register the designation, “RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY” for services incorrectly set forth as “Association services, namely, promoting the interests of alternative social sustainability and design.” However, it appears that the proposed mark “RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY” is a pre-existing phrase in the socio-economic literature discussing economic models, a pre-existing phrase with a fairly widely known meaning.

What is the plain-language meaning of the phrase? “RESOURCE” is defined in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, excerpt attached hereto, as follows: “a natural source of wealth or revenue” or “a natural feature or phenomenon that enhances the quality of human life.” “BASE[D]” is defined in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, excerpt attached hereto, as follows: “to serve as a base for” or “find a basis for.” “ECONOMY” is defined in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, excerpt attached hereto, as follows: “the structure or conditions of economic life in a country, area or period; also an economic system.”

Thus it would appear, without going beyond the plain-language definitions of the words in the mark that a plausible meaning might be paraphrase as “An economic system based upon natural wealth phenomena that serves to enhance the quality of human life.”

Reading applicant’s specimen of use, entitled “RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY” it further appears that the resources contemplated as a basis for a stellar economy are any and all resources but money, credits, barter “or any other system of debt or servitude.” So the medium of exchange is removed from the economics of human and societal life, thereby setting the stage for existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants etc. With our access to technology, and an attitude of willingness to share and work, everyone might be able to enjoy a very high standard of living with “all of the amenities of a high technological society.”

A “RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY” is presented as an alternative to a money-based economy.

It describes what may be a socio-economic “movement” or “cause”, as applicant describes it in the services description, an “alternative social sustainability and design.” As such, it appears to be the content of the economic theory, or design or model or system that relies on “resources” other than and rather than money.

Applicant will note the attached evidence that “RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY” is a phrase that’s been utilized to describe applicant’s alternative moneyless economy by others; a phrase whose meaning is so widely known that there are passionate arguments for and against it all over the Internet. Further there are learned International scholarly papers on the subject, see Ruger Ahrend’s “How to Sustain Growth in a Resource Based Economy?” The Main Concepts and their Application to the Russian Case. United Nations Discussion Paper Series No. 2005.3, October 2005. Attached also are a sampling from ten pages of Google “hits” for the phrase “RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY.” The phrase was original to the applicant from about 1969. It was descriptive for his economic model and remains descriptive of it.

Two major reasons for not protecting descriptive marks are (1) to prevent the owner of a descriptive mark from inhibiting competition in the marketplace and (2) to avoid the possibility of costly infringement suits brought by the service mark owner. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209. Businesses and competitors should be free to use descriptive language when describing their own services to the public in advertising and marketing materials. See In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1523, 1527 (TTAB 2001).

THE MARK IDENTIFIES A SYSTEM

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used on the specimen of record, merely identifies a process or system; it does not function as a service mark to identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and to indicate the source of applicant’s services. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127; see In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d 653, 655-56, 177 USPQ 456, 457 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (holding the wording PACOL and PENEX, as used on the specimens, are the names of a direct catalytic dehydrogenation process and a continuous catalytic isomerization process, and do not identify “research, development, evaluation, market and economic studies, consultation, design, engineering, and technical services” performed in connection with the identified processes); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1301.02(e).

A process or system is a way of doing something, and is not generally a service. Thus the name of a process or system does not function as a service mark unless it is also used to indicate the source of the services in the application. In re Hughes Aircraft Co., 222 USPQ 263, 264 (TTAB 1984); TMEP §1301.02(e).

Determining whether matter functions solely as the name of a process or system and also as a service mark is based on the manner in which the applied-for mark is used on the specimen and any other information of record pertaining to use of the mark. In re Hughes Aircraft, 222 USPQ at 264; TMEP §1301.02(e). In this case, the specimen shows the applied-for mark used solely to identify a process or system because the specimen so states, 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 the inhabitants, just a select few. The premise on which this system is based in that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.”

Clearly the author, who is the applicant, considers the “RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY” a system, having so written in defining it.

INFORMAL COMMUNICATIONS

The most expeditious way to solve disclaimer or goods or services description issues is by informal E-mail or voicemail. The following personal contact information is for applicant’s convenience, for trial runs, discussions or solutions involving examiner’s amendments.

PWA replies back to Roxanne Meadows

Trademarking Common Heritage

By RBE | Published: JANUARY 9, 2010

Trademarking Common Heritage

Open Letter Response to Venus Project “Why The Venus Project has the term RBE trademarked”

To all vested interests,

The first and foremost claim in Venus Projects official statement regarding Trademarking is that the Resource Based Economy idea is something Fresco has been working on his entire life. Well quite frankly we beg to differ since firstly its commonly known that Jacque Fresco started off as a Technocrat and before that he took part in several participatory studies of human behavior regarding specifically social divisiveness. Further it should be obvious that Fresco did not simply invent Resource Based Economy out of thin air. What he did is simply re coin idea’s that were already in development under the name Natural Resource Economics. Jacque Fresco simply coined a term and re branded several economic theories under the term Resource Based Economy. This isn’t even the creation of a new ideology since ideologies are made up of more then one single component.

“an integrated system to provide for humanity holistically”

We’ve always found it interesting how the specific wording of certain concepts tends to have broad appeal. Even when the basis of the ideas themselves are actually diametrically opposed to whatever groups they might be appealing to. For instance the word holistic is used here as a supporting phrase for The Venus Projects interpretation of a Resource Based Economy. Yet the wording is so broad that to depending on whose reading it the wording could imply several things to the sub-conscious. For one it could imply to any person who holds a non-materialist view of ultimate reality that what is being called for is society that balances mind, body, and spirit. Of course in examining Venus Projects ideas closely enough and especially closely examining Zeitgeist Movements so called “Understanding of Spirituality” (See Spirituality, Technology, and Sustainability: Open response to Zeitgeist Movement) we find this is not the case.

“He has been working toward a resource-based economy in order to do away with the major aberrations of war, poverty, hunger, etc.”

Which are noble endeavors indeed yet it seems that certain means are justified by their ends. Its obvious to anyone with a critical thought process that both Mass Psychology and clever wording take the place of actual intellectual debate and analysis. The very proof is the statement we are responding to in this open letter. On December 29th we filed our letter of protest against the Venus Projects Trademark attempt of Resource Based Economy. After we did we proceeded to organize people around this to call Venus Project and Jacque Fresco specifically to inquire about the Trademarking. The response we got however was not a direct response it was instead the letter we are responding to which further claims the reasons are some scam in California was being run to make money off these ideas. Where that letter came from we’ve got no idea but one thing that is public record with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is that in early September Jacque Fresco filed a Trademark request with The U.S. Patent Office he paid the sum of $375.00 USD to do so.

At this time he released no official statement or explanation of it. Further Fresco never went and asked the members of The Zeitgeist Movement whether it would be ok with them. Rather what happened is he just went ahead and did it without any prior notice to anyone. Whats more is even while Trademark was pending Roxanne Meadows proceeded to send out “Cease and Dissent Orders” to entities using the term Resource Based Economy. One such group The Resource Based Earth Collective (formally called “The Resource Based Economy Collective”) was given a Cease and Dissent Order by Roxanne Meadows telling them not to use the term as their name. In fact this act even though its the only one we’ve uncovered in our investigations thus far shows exactly what Venus Project would be doing on a mass scale the minute any group they don’t approve of use’s the term Resource Based Economy in their work to further develop the ideas.

“Throughout the years, people have taken The Venus Project’s pictures, designs, architecture, language, and the name Resource-based Economy, to raise funds claiming to build a Resource- based Economy without collaborating with us in any way. They usurp the name, some of the procedures, and models, but use their own interpretation of a Resource-based Economy.”

Besides the fact that the only supporting evidence offered is an e-mail that could have been fabricated. Also it implies that anyone who use’s the term Resource Based Economy outside of Venus Project and any entities it officially blesses is doing so for personal financial gain. Yet whats really going on here is that once again its The Venus Project using clever mass psychology which has become their true Trademark. For example the biggest example of mass psychological manipulation they’ve been using is found right on their website. Where it says “Research Center For Sale” and in fact when you click this link it gives an actual set monetary value. This implies that The Venus Project is short on cash which hardly seems the case since Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows have been able to jet-set around the world. Hardly the tell tale signs of an entity thats going broke by any stretch of the imagination. Whats more is that in monitoring several message boards we’ve seen the zealous followers of Jacque Fresco try and scramble to come up with the named monetary amount so they can buy the research center and gift it back to The Venus Project. Which shows what a Social Engineer really is all about, which is socially engineering situations and circumstances for the purposes of causing something to come about. Very interesting how even though he says he’s a Social Engineer in Zeitgeist Addendum most people haven’t bothered to actually look up what the term means. Jacque Fresco’s social engineering in practice is manipulation of mass psychology to quickly raise a large sum of money for personal monetary gain and then still have some to keep projects running.

“After examining their interpretations closely, we feel the procedures they suggest will not work.”

If this was the case why not explain why these procedures would not work? Whose interpretations and procedures have you examined? Name the groups and organizations this as this statement is rather vague and its not clear who this nameless and faceless external groups or entities which threaten the future of humanity are. Interestingly enough we’ve seen this type of mass psychology used somewhere else before now where was that again?

“Others use the name Resource-based Economy, but interpret it in their own way and then raise funds for a different direction.”

If your referring to the fact that our movement would like to move in a direction that is not based on dogmatic “Scientific Materialist” doctrine then you’d be correct. You’ve made it clear your not in anyway open nor will you ever be open to any ideas that don’t conform to your strict dogmatic “Scientific Materialist” gospel. Your activist arm Zeitgeist Movement has ignored and avoided any discussion with us on what merits the absoluteness of the modern scientific method over all else. We’ve put forward two documents in an attempt to open those discussions. Yet you’ve ignored both so you’ve made it quite obvious your not open to any sort of discussion. On the other hand some of your not so zealous followers are open to a discussion on these matters and are quite frankly more open minded then you seem to be.
“Riding on the coat tails of Fresco’s work. This is detrimental to our efforts to raise funds for building a new city or making a major motion picture about our aims.”

So who decided building a city was the best way to start implementation of a Resource Based Economy? When was a vote taken on the matter? How many people where brought together? Was a conference/ meeting of the minds ever called at any point to consult with people and ask them what they thought the best way to implement a Resource Based Economy might be?

“We would not mind people using the term Resource-based Economy and our photos if they consulted and worked with us, and if their efforts promoted the true direction of a Resource-based Economy as proposed by The Venus Project.”

Who needs your photos quite honestly? Perhaps some groups like ours would like to come up with our own designs and ideas on the subject. Further why are you re-inventing the wheel? Have you gone and looked at or investigated self sustaining communities which already currently exist? Why not use those communities as a spring board and build up from there? To us it seems it would be better to go and investigate those already existing communities and develop technical methods for how those could be better and more efficient. It would sure beat having to start from scratch which is not really where anyone needs to start and quite frankly the Venus Project didn’t start its work from scratch either. In fact you simply took the work of others in the field of Natural Resource Economics and put together their ideas in a nice package and then called it “Resource Based Economy”. Of course this economic model is far from a complete new socio-political theory and quite frankly if you ever took a political science class you might actually know that. Of course you’d probably argue the semantics of the point rather then the merits of the argument itself. Probably something along the lines of “Its a social theory not a political one blah blah”. Quite frankly that’s the sort of response were expecting from you mixed with any number of additional claims as to why your interpretation is the only true interpretation. Interestingly enough where have we heard this idea of our interpretation is the only true one before? Sounds very hauntingly familiar don’t you think so?

Well to clarify for everyone else what exactly makes up a Social Theory and how one is developed. It firstly is made up of three developmental components which are; a) a view and or interpretation of history and social problems throughout history b) a social factor or analysis of contemporary social problems c) a device used for analysis and proposing alternatives and solutions.

Ok so on component b) it looks like this has been clearly defined, developmental component c) is your Scientific Materialism which we do note is a different type of Materialism then Marx’s Dialectical Materialism to that end we’ve gone ahead and called it Scientific Materialism for you since you choose to be so vague. Now on developmental component a) this one seems a little unclear as you haven’t bothered to really define it. It does seem you’ve borrowed The Technocrats view of Low Output and High Output Societies and expanded on that view. Curiously enough we’d like to see if they’d call you out on that point.

OK so we’ve established the developmental basis of your social theory for people now lets move on to the theory itself. A social theory has three components to it: 1)A method of administration whether centralized or decentralized. 2)A method of management and distribution whether centralized or decentralized. 3)A set of guiding social philosophy’s.

OK so on Component 2 you’ve made it clear Resource Based Economy is what it shall be. On Component 3 you haven’t been as clear but so far it looks like the guiding social philosophy your proposing is Scientific Secular Humanism. On Component 1 you’ve also made it clear you desire Cybernation as the method of social administration. Which to be clear is a form of mechanized centralization and since in this case that centralization cannot be thought of in terms of traditional notions. Its a virtual centralization or cybernated bureaucracy that your proposing for social administration. Why not just admit it already rather then hiding behind the term Resource Based Economy? To review the three components of your social theory are quite simply; 1)Cybernated Centralization 2)Resource Based Economy 3)Scientific-Secular-Humanism. The resulting ideology in our opinion should be coined Mechnocracy don’t you believe so as well? Or are you going to keep hiding behind component 2 of your social theory, as an attempt to avoid any sort of scholarly discussion or debate?

As for us we prefer not to simply hide behind the label for a method of management and distribution. We call our ideology Directivism which to break down into its three developmental components is:

a)Historical Nuit – a Neutralist view of history that accounts for both the reactive (situationist) forces that have driven forward human history and additionally the non reactive or subtle forces which have driven forward human history.

b)Universal Thoth – An understanding that change and social problems are directly derived from any social factor that limits an individuals pursuit of knowledge and personal enrichment.

c)The Einstein Method – A non materialist scientific method for both analyzing and offering solutions. Which we’ve thoroughly explained in “A Science of Intuition by Sidney Martinez”. Summarized here its quite simply a marriage of The Intuitive Method with The Observed/ Observable Method. These three developmental components of our philosophy have led to the formation of the three components which make up our social theory and they are;

1)Cooperative Distribution – Would have elected technical experts who create, and develop the methods of social sustainability. Further those technical experts would work with technology rather then having 100% Cybernation and full automation of resource management, production, and distribution. Only those aspects of labor that free up humanity from needless menial jobs should be automated. To go beyond that and place the entire process on autopilot and give machines full control is to create a new machine based bureaucracy. Further the consumer shall directly control production through Direct- Proportional-Democracy which is a system already in use at many small scale consumer cooperatives, that currently exist under the monetary system. In those models members of the coop vote on what is carried at the coop store which if no money was needed to run could easily be the way distribution centers would work under a Resource Based Economy. The other major difference is those distribution centers would have automated vehicles dispatched to deliver directly to the consumer what they want. No money would of course ever need to be exchanged and eventually such commodities could simply be teleported to an individuals residence. Eventually at some point machines could simply manipulate particles and molecular structures to simply replicate the desired commodity right in a persons home. Or even at a public location such as a community dining center. Of course not everyone will want to or need to do things in this manner there will still be those communities who still want to be naturalistic and agrarian. Those communities would have no problem existing right alongside technologically developed communities. In essence both would be using similar types of distribution methods and neither one would undermine the other. In fact they could compliment each other quite nicely since the more agrarian and naturalistic communities can be tasked by society with the care taking, cultivation, and nurturing of humanities natural preserves, old growth wilderness and other natural splendors of the earth. Public Service Consumer Cooperatives would be utilized in terms of creating holistic social services. In terms of Medical Care quite simply Naturalpathy Medicine and Modern Medicine would be joined together as one unified holistic medical system. Technology can easily be joined with naturalistic processes and natural methods of healing and the utilization of both would lead to a more advanced approach to medicine. Not too mention it would completely phase out altogether the need for behavioral medicine which is for the most part outdated pseudo-scientific quackery (Jungian Psychology being the exception) since its never been able to cure any of the so called mental disorders its ever diagnosed. In terms of education what we need is to implement and create a more Socratic System of Education especially in our schools, colleges, and universities. One working model of what education would look like under a Resource Based Economy is already in operation today. Soka University in Aliso Viejo, California and its sister campus in Tokyo, Japan are a perfect example of what an education system would look like under a Resource Based Economy. Quite frankly even the architecture of the university itself looks like it would fit in well in such a society. Of course this is just an example of how certain aspects of the ideal society already exist and that rather then reinventing the wheel why not look at examples that exist today and try to expand on those?

2)Resource Based Economy – A resource based economy itself is quite simply an economy that phases out our understanding of economics completely. In all simplicity it has three components to it: Resource Management, Production, and Distribution. The one commonality we do share in our social theories is that there needs to be Resource Management Centers, Production Centers, and Distribution Centers. Now what those should look like is where we differ but i will say that when you start drawing up what the inside of these three centers look like according to your social theory and when we do the same I’d imagine we’d both come up with two very differing visions, In terms of how they are operated and what levels of automation would be taking place.

3)Secular Metaphysics – Basically a society that is free from all dogma and doctrines in any form. Quite frankly a Secular Metaphysical view is neutral to all views and yet allows for every single one of them to exist. Secular Metaphysics is just a guiding principle for society that simply admits we really don’t know everything but were willing to investigate intuitively and observably to find out about everything that is beyond our current understanding. Secular Metaphysics is a non absolutist view point that doesn’t claim anyone or anything has all the answers. Secular Metaphysics is open to all view points and studies all archetypes in human history to understand what are the deep underlying principles present in our collective consciousness. As it stands now Secular Humanist views are quite absolutist in their viewpoint and approach to things. For they presuppose an absolute view about ultimate reality and argue for its absoluteness over all else. Its a dogmatic doctrine of scientific-materialism with zealous fanatics galvanized by its coying embrace.

With that said we have summarized many of our points here so as to open to door to scholarly debate and discussion. For more information about our views all our welcome to visit our website and join our growing grassroots movement: www.TheResourceBasedEconomy.ORG
With that we say

NAMASTE!

Promethean Workers Association (PWA)
Empowering For a New Age!
Whilst Changing The World One Person at a Time!

Peter Joseph kept letting Chapter abuse happen

Merola says: If you don't trust me completely, TZM is not for you.

https://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/4756/merola-says-if-you-dont-trust-me-completely-tzm-is-not-fo/

Roxanne Meadows explains why they are trademarking

Why has The Venus Project the term RBE trademarked?

Why has The Venus Project trademarked the term Resource-Based Economy?

The reason The Venus Project is trade-marking the term Resource-based Economy is Jacque Fresco has been working on this system most of his 93 years. This is an integrated system to provide for humanity holistically which includes all aspects of human need. He has been working toward a resource-based economy in order to do away with the major aberrations of war, poverty, hunger, etc.

Jacque Fresco coined the term Resource-based Economy which is the foundation that provides the parameters for social design. Throughout the years, people have taken The Venus Project’s pictures, designs, architecture, language, and the name Resource-based Economy, to raise funds claiming to build a Resource- based Economy without collaborating with us in any way. They usurp the name, some of the procedures, and models, but use their own interpretation of a Resource-based Economy.

After examining their interpretations closely, we feel the procedures they suggest will not work. The Venus Project cannot take responsibility for other interpretations of our work. Others use the name Resource-based Economy, but interpret it in their own way and then raise funds for a different direction. Riding on the coat tails of Fresco’s work. This is detrimental to our efforts to raise funds for building a new city or making a major motion picture about our aims.

We’d prefer not to trademark, but our predatory society encourages people to capitalize on the efforts of others.

The reason we trademark the name Resource-based Economy is so that the integrity of our direction is maintained. We would not mind people using the term Resource-based Economyand our photos if they consulted and worked with us, and if their efforts promoted the true direction of a Resource-based Economy as proposed by The Venus Project.

Many different groups usurping our name and material for their own purposes, bastardizes our social designs and architecture. If you wish to know more about the proposals of The Venus Project and a Resource-based Economy, please review:

• www.thevenusproject.com
• www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
• www.thevenusprojectdesign.com