Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

The Venus Flytrap - Dogmatic Ideology

Chapter 1.
Because The Venus Project is the most dogmatic ideology nowadays.


1-01 Summary) Jacque Fresco devotes more time and effort to criticizing accepted norms and beliefs than describing his alternative society. According to Fresco, an essential thing to do in order to make people accept his alternative is letting them to face the fact that their thoughts have been governed by ideologies, and helping them to escape from their ideological prejudices. The Venus Project is described as something they will accept as a matter of course at the moment they finally liberated from ideologies.

1-02 But this method which looks plausible at a glance only caused many side effects. Many supporters of The Venus Project behave like people who received some kind of intellectual revelation. They believe that they are special people who removed all prejudices from their mind and that anyone with contrasting opinions has been brainwashed by the system. Even Fresco himself identifies his subjective opinions with the law of nature impliedly.

1-03 The introspection which Fresco emphasizes is neither original nor advisable. The method through which Jacque Fresco attempts to bring revolution in our consciousness is similar to the method of a pseudo-scientist named Alfred Adler, not to the method of Albert Einstein. Fresco may pledge us liberation from ideologies, but his ideas are already becoming the most dogmatic ideology nowadays.



1-04 There has been a long dispute about whether the economy must be planned out or left to the market. This problem has been one of the greatest political issues ever since it was first raised. We now have a system of the economy that distributes most goods through the market, and this is referred to as the market economy. On the contrary, communist societies like the former Soviet Union controlled everything through the central government. This is referred to as the planned economy.

1-05 We never think that the entire economy should be left to the market or planned out. Keynesianism, corporatism, and social democracy have their own views about what is to be planned out and what to be left to the market. However, we can classify different ideas according to the degree at which a nation participates in production and distribution. Complete laissez-faire that leaves everything to the market would be placed at the rightmost, and planned economy would be placed at the leftmost.

1-06 Jacque Fresco's Resource-based economy does not exist outside the vertical line alone. The argument of Jacque Fresco that communism is identical to capitalism because it also uses money simply means that for many people, only the resource-based economy is placed to the left of communism. Communists who are at the leftmost side always argued for the complete abolition of money, but only few of them believe that they are essentially different from other communists.


1-07 It is not that there is no different between resource-based economy and communism. There are many differences between them. My point is very simple. The reason why many people oppose resource-based economy is that it is a planned economy. They accurately understand what they are trying to refute. In any case, argument about the resource-based economy cannot be free from the long argument between the market economy and planned economy.

1-08 To those who reject planned economy, failure of communism does not simply mean failure of communism. It also suggests failure of planned economy. You may argue that failure of communism cannot prove the failure of all planned economies, but you should not say that your opponents fail to distinguish between resource-based economy and communism. They well understand the difference between communism and resource-based economy. [1] They simply regard this difference as unimportant.

1-09 Such simplification is always being used by supporters of The Venus Project. According to Jacque Fresco, all systems that use money are money-based economies and money-based economy is wrong. As such, supporters of The Venus Project equate all subjects of their criticism such as capitalism and communism. They simply regard such difference as unimportant.

1-10 All of those who criticize planned economy have an integrated rebuttal applied to all planned economies. Whether the plan is devised by scientists or politicians, it has absolutely no influence on their logic. If supporters of The Venus Project cannot refute this, they can never argue that The Venus Project is fundamentally different from other planned economies. They must not believe that they have exclusive right to identify something with another.


1-11 However, according to many supporters of The Venus Project, all other thoughts about social systems are mere ideologies. Only their classification is justifiable. If someone else uses a different classification, it shows that the person has fallen into some kind of ideology. They believe that scientific and engineering methods are only being correctly applied by themselves to designing of social systems. In short, only The Venus Project is science and common sense.

1-12 Did Fresco really say such thing? In this case, yes he did. One of Fresco's favorite things is to imagine how our descendants who will live in much "saner" world would think about our current civilization. According to Fresco, they will conclude that our current civilization is definitely wrong. They may not even understand why we didn't start what Fresco calls The Venus Project earlier.

1-13 We will later demonstrate that the so-called scientific methodology to which Jacque Fresco relies upon is not scientific at all. This though is not something that we want to talk about in this Chapter. We are going to get back to this in Chapter 9. This Chapter is about why Jacque Fresco and his supporters came to assure that his resource-based economy is not an idea, why they had to be assured, and what inevitable conclusion is brought forth by such assurance.


1-14 According to Fresco, thoughts and personality of a person are determined by the social environment in which the person is placed. Most people cannot think past this limit because even the vocabularies and sentences they use are affected by their environment. Whether they are created by intentional propaganda or nature, thoughts infused into us by the environment serve to perpetuate our environment. [2] We refer to these thoughts as ideologies.

1-15 Jacque Fresco compares the astonishing accomplishment of natural sciences with various social systems that repeated failures. Based on his explanation, the reason why social systems failed until now is because they have their basis in ideology. By removing prejudice, we can apply truly natural scientific methods to our society. This is an objective method to which nobody can raise an objection. There cannot be an ideology about how to make an airplane.

1-16 Hence, what he demands from people is clear: We must perceive and remove things that are injecting incorrect thoughts into us. We can then begin truly objective social engineering. If we could get rid of prejudice, things that we need to do will become as obvious as natural science. Also, he suggests The Venus Project as such obvious alternative.


1-17 Of course, it is not easy to escape from ideology. It requires the process in which one realizes that he has fallen into the mainstream ideology and places efforts to overcome this ideology. We will call this process as introspection from now on. Most people are not willing to go through such trouble, including economists. Thus, there is no meaning in arguing economics as being a field of science because they have not removed their prejudice.

1-18 So this differentiates The Venus Project from all other alternatives. Other alternatives were made without introspection. Only The Venus Project went through the process of introspection. It is not surprising to see that supporters of The Venus Project fail to imagine that The Venus Project is an ideology. We can only start with The Venus Project by removing ideology.

1-19 We already seem to be able to give two criticisms against thoughts of supporters of The Venus Project: First, there is no guarantee that introspection would reveal all prejudices we have. Second, the fact that a previous belief was an ideology is completely unrelated to the fact that our new belief is not an ideology. We must consider the two separately. New beliefs adopted after removing prejudice are often found to contain a greater prejudice.

1-20 At this point, one may want to ask the following questions. Isn't it true that The Venus Project, after all, made a new attempt never tried by other alternatives? Therefore, isn't The Venus Project superior to other alternatives in some ways? The problem is that even this is a fallacy. Fresco's attempt is what Popper called Sociology of knowledge, and what Mises called Polylogism. It's far from something new. The proper criticisms were already made.


1-21 Let us first disclose the miserable performance left behind by people who applied such attempts to natural sciences. In the history of science, there was no single true scientist who contributed to the development of science by finding specific prejudice or ideology in the mainstream science through introspection and trying to overcome such prejudice or ideology. The only reason why we need to have a constraint of being true is because followers of theories that were later found to be pseudo-science have always made similar attempts.

1-22 Einstein did not tear down the prejudice at the time by contemplating the essence of time and space. In fact, he was able to reach the theory of relativity with major experimental results at the time, theoretical outcomes like Michelson-Morley experiment, and theoretical efforts to explain Lorentz transformation as a compatible system. Fathers of modern science also did not ask for introspection to overthrow prejudice of the medieval age.

1-23 Whether it is or not the same type of introspection demanded by Jacque Fresco from us, there is a serious doubt about the existence of methods that can cultivate objective thinking which encompasses all fields of study. The history of science shows that a person who removed a prejudice can become more vulnerable to another. Einstein never acknowledged the quantum theory, and Newton believed in alchemy.

1-24 There were times during which introspection was deemed important in science. Science in the medieval age dominated by the idea of Aristotle placed importance in such fostering. Therefore, we can see two groups that faithfully followed scientific methodology of Fresco: Pseudo-scientists today and medieval scientists. We might have to look at Jacque Fresco, who tried to differentiate his alternative from others, with eyes of concern rather than eyes of respect.


1-25 Fresco has a critical misunderstanding about scientific methodology. He believed that objectivity of natural science comes from an individual's efforts to have objective thinking or be objective. This definitely is not true. Even if it is true that scientists have relatively few prejudices compared to other people, this clearly is not a result of introspection or their efforts to remove their prejudices.

1-26 Objectivity of science is not a personal attribute of scientists but an attribute of a community created by a group of scientists. A philosopher of science Karl Popper wrote, 3) "Objectivity is closely bound up with the social aspect of scientific method, with the fact that science and scientific objectivity do not (and cannot) result from the attempts of an individual scientist to be 'objective', but from the friendly-hostile co-operation of many scientists. Scientific objectivity can be described as the inter-subjectivity of scientific method."

1-27 A scientist presents his theory, convinced that there is no place for refutation. However, this fails to move the heart of his colleague scientists or competitors and can actually arouse their objection. Scientists know that scientific attitude is an attitude of criticizing everything, and they cannot be held back by authorities. This results in ceaseless logical arguments by those who have opposing opinions.


1-28 What does it mean by the fact that scientific objectivity comes out of logical argument among scientists with different opinions instead of individual efforts by scientists to become objective? Sometimes, an entire group of scientists can have prejudice. However as shown by the actual history of science, possibility of this prejudice being refuted is open as long as science allows argument and doubt. We must not give up on this possibility.

1-29 The problem is that this is an arduous path for someone who wishes to tear down prejudices. He must confront many opponents. He must confute all objections by opponents. Even if his argument began from doubt about the fact taken for granted by most of scientists, he needs to accept that other scientists also have the right to doubt his argument. Unless he endures all these hardships, it is forever impossible to tear down their prejudices.

1-30 This may sound hopeless. He may think that most scientists are so ignorant and full of prejudice that he cannot communicate with them. Therefore in many cases, people who are trying to tear down prejudices take the opposite path. He seeks to settle disputes by making other scientists to have the same doubt as he does. He looks for solution by appealing to introspection by scientists.

1-31 The problem is that such appeal can never see its effect. At any time, such appeal would be regarded as ridiculous by the world of science. The theory of relativity by Einstein completely changed our awareness about time and space. However, he did not accomplish this by appealing us to doubt the essence of time and space. There is a great implication in the fact that such revolution that overturned the basis of physics was solely based on logical argument.


1-32 Let us clarify what logical argument means. All people who try to remove other people's prejudice by encouraging introspection tend to misunderstand the term logical argument. They trust that pointing out someone else's prejudice is an act of logically refuting his opinion. This phenomenon cannot easily be understood by explanation. Consider the following example.

1-33 Peter Joseph says in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, "Whether you are dealing with the philosophies of Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, Ludwig von Mises, or any other major market economist the basis of rationale rarely leaves the money sequence. It is like a religion. Consumption analysis, stabilization policies, deficit spending, aggregate demand... it exists as a never ending, self-referring self-rationalizing circle of discourse." [4]

1-34 All of those who believe that this is a logically appropriate refutation of the market economy should read the following sentence: "Whether you are dealing with the sciences of Erwin Schrödinger, W.K. Heisenberg, Richard Phillips Feynman or any other major quantum physicist the basis of rationale rarely leaves the wave function. It is like a religion. Operators, perturbation theory, exchange forces, Schrödinger equations... it exists as a never ending, self-referring self-rationalizing circle of discourse."


1-35 Of course, this is nothing but the most ridiculous pick on the quantum theory. Nobody would think that this is a reasonable refutation. [5] But what we must be aware is why we do not consider such arguments as reasonable refutation of the quantum theory. It is related to the fact that such arguments simply reproach abstract concepts of the quantum theory instead of rebutting specific principles of the quantum theory.

1-36 The value of the quantum theory is in that it offers specific principles applied to explain the real world. If a principle of the quantum theory applied to the real world, the principle of uncertainty for example, is found to be only justified by internal circular logic, the impact would be significant. This finding will be published as the cover story of all science magazines, and the very first scientist who makes this finding can easily fix the prejudice of his colleagues.

1-37 Economics has as detailed principles as the quantum theory. In fact, economics exists to come up with principles. Thus, we can show without difficulty that one of economic principles is wrong. It is easy to point out the flaw in an economist who argues that the planned economy fails based on reasons only justifiable to monetary economy. Jacque Fresco should have criticized at least one of economic principles like this.

1-38 Perhaps Jacque Fresco wanted to deny the entire modern economics rather than a specific proposition of modern economics. However, in this case, he can only do so by refuting detailed principles that form the basis of modern economics - for example, economics would collapse if the principle of supply and demand were to be refuted. Fresco surely attempts hard to criticize the methodologies of economics, but he was never successful in refuting a single principle of economics.


1-39 It is absurd to think that one can refute a field of study by pointing out the concepts on which the field relies. No field of study is free from such criticism. The fact that specific scientific principles are true does not prove that premises of such principles are also true. Let us think that estimations of quantum mechanics are always correct. Can we argue that all premises in the basis of quantum mechanics are true? The answer is self-evident: No.

1-40 If we take the Newtonian mechanics as the truth, we must believe that objects exchange force and move according to a differential equation. However, this contradicts the Lagrange dynamics arguing that objects move according to an optimal route with a purpose. Amazing thing is that these two dynamics estimate exactly identical phenomenon despite the fact that they have different and contradicting premises.

1-41 Strictly speaking, maybe this is the reason why we must distinguish between principles of science and premises in the scientific background. The fact that specific estimations of a theory are true does not verify that the theory is true. The ridiculous criticism that quantum mechanics is self-referent perhaps may not be completely wrong. We cannot argue that interpretations about its nature are true based on the fact that estimations of quantum mechanics are often correct. [6]

1-42 In short, Jacque Fresco seems to be consistently applying the following definition to the term science: Science is an objective system of knowledge that we obtain by looking at the nature without ideology. The problem is that such thing does not exist anywhere. How Jacque Fresco handles this problem only demonstrates his ignorance about science. To say the truth, it is impossible to interpret the world without ideology.


1-43 If so, what distinguishes science from non-science? It is difficult to answer this question. It is no exaggeration to say that the entire philosophy of science was made to answer this question. I can introduce to you different schools of philosophy of science that answer this question in different ways. However in this text, such introduction would simply be a waste of time. (Anyway, it is not about existence of ideology.)

1-44 For instance according to Karl Popper, it is falsifiability. The biggest characteristic of scientific proposition is that it can be disproved. We cannot verify the principles of natural sciences. For example, we can never guarantee that the law of gravity is applied to all matters, since we have not tested all matters that existed before and will exist in the future. Nevertheless, it can still be disproved. The characteristic of natural sciences that presents specific estimation that may be correct or incorrect brings possibility of counterevidence.

1-45 If an ideology is an arbitrary assumption about something that has not been proved, we cannot completely get rid of it from science. It is impossible. What we must drive out through science are explanations that cannot be disproved by any experience. We can define them as an ideology in narrow terms. However, this must be fundamentally distinguished from the broader sense of ideology mentioned earlier.

1-46 Jacque Fresco could perhaps demonstrate that economics is not science by showing that economic principles cannot be disproved, based on the view of Popper. This may not be totally impossible. [7] Nonetheless, all of these are distant from what Fresco actually attempted. There is no meaning in listening to his criticisms about economics. It is natural to neglect wrongful criticisms.


1-47 One thing must be made clear before we continue with the discussion. Ideologies that can exist at the base of all fields of study including science are different from simplification of situations used by the fields to come up with an actual estimation about something. Economics can assume that all human beings are selfish, but this is not an underlying ideology of economics. They are only using this to simplify complicated economic problems.

1-48 The assumption in economics that people behave selfishly is similar to negligence of air resistance in physics. They do not use such assumptions because they believe in them. They simply use them to simplify complex problems. Economists use the assumption that people are selfish in order to simplify difficult economic phenomena in the real world. This is quite different from underlying ideology of economics. [8]

1-49 Many critics consistently failed to differentiate between assumption and conclusion. They say that economics assumes invisible hand - the principle in which each individual enhance social benefit by pursuing personal benefit. However, this is not an assumption under any term and clearly is a conclusion drawn by economists based on a series of assumptions. Nobody believes in a conclusion without reason. It is absurd to refer to a conclusion as assumption or ideology.

1-50 Jacque Fresco's understanding of science is so epically wrong that it is unclear where we should start criticizing. We proved that it is an erroneous thought to believe that correct science is always free from ideology. However, such criticism is undeserved for Jacque Fresco if he fails to distinguish between what is an assumption and what is an ideology.


1-51 Someone may think like this: Alright, Fresco definitely misunderstood scientific method. However, whether or not he uses the method of scientists is not a big deal. No matter what method he used, wasn't his attempt to fix the errors of economics positive after all? But the difference between these two is not so small. It is about the difference in the method of approach to the truth.

1-52 There is no doubt about the fact that principles of study presented to resolve problems of reality can always be disproved. On the contrary, ideology cannot be disproved. This implies something simple. Those who wish to refute a study through destruction of ideology can never use logical method. Instead of arguing or persuading opponents by reasoning, they try to convert their opponents or refuse to communicate.

1-53 Jacque Fresco simply turned down on economics instead of refuting specific arguments by economists. According to him, economics is inevitably wrong because it uses concepts eaten up by ideology. In substance, its meaning is as follows: We should not accept an argument of economics, even if it seems perfectly logical. The only reason why it seems right is because it uses biased concepts.

1-54 So then, what can we argue about with economists? The answer of Fresco is firm. Nothing can be expected of people who are completely brainwashed by ideology. Accordingly, Jacque Fresco gave up on all constructive communications with economists. He isolated himself by building a bridge between him and economists that can only be crossed by conversion based on introspection. He did not just refuse to apply scientific method. He made it impossible.


1-55 Jacque Fresco's hatred for argument is noteworthy. Carefully listen to what he has to say: "We must learn to outgrow our egos in exchange for constructive dialogue rather than debate. In addition? We must be capable of stating problems and proposing solutions clearly and succinctly… even when these solutions are radically opposed to accepted norms." First sentence is the key, which was mainly quoted to stop the mouth of those who oppose The Venus Project.

1-56 If you think there is nothing wrong in what he says, suppose the same is being said by someone who supports market economy. He is demanding a 'constructive conversation' instead of 'argument' to improve market economy. What kind of reaction would supporters of The Venus Project show? The reaction would not differ much from my reaction to the words of Jacque Fresco when a supporter of The Venus Project told me.

1-57 The advice of Fresco can only be accepted when we agree that his resource-based economy is fundamentally correct. In what sense is this constructive attitude? Science never developed when scientists failed to challenge the mainstream opinions and when they were satisfied with 'constructive conversations.' Most of scientific developments were made possible with active and aggressive challenge against the mainstream opinions.

1-58 Jacque Fresco's thinking is morbidly ambivalent. When speaking about market economy or money, he emphasizes doubting and challenge of the most fundamental part. When speaking about resource-based economy or The Venus Project, all doubts are not 'constructive' and we need to only discuss the details while accepting that the direction of The Venus Project is fundamentally correct. This is their scientific methodology. This is The Venus Project.


1-59 The doubt of Jacque Fresco about selfishness of human beings and scarcity may be important, but why should that be treated as special? All fields of study were developed based on doubt. Even economists were not completely uncritical about the mainstream opinions. Modern economics began from the doubt of Adam Smith about mercantilism. Jevons and Menger doubted one of the most fundamental assumptions of classical economics that goods have objective values, which resulted in marginal revolution.

1-60 The argument of Jacque Fresco that The Venus Project is special because it is free from ideology is a mere attempt to grant a privilege for a ridiculous reason that it is the outcome of introspection. The truth is exactly opposite from what supporters of The Venus Project believe. Jacque Fresco is not the only person who successfully doubted the mainstream opinions, but he is the only person who gave up on logical argument.

1-61 Peculiar emphasis on introspection by Jacque Fresco is not an evidence showing dominance of his view. It actually shows that his view is inferior, because he is trying to create a non-existent privilege in his doubt. Imagine how ludicrous Jevons would have appeared if he were to argue that the classical value theory is a prejudice generated by the society and emphasize introspection.


1-62 The method used by Jacque Fresco gave birth to pseudo-science when it was used in science. Popper presents Alfred Adler's psychology as an example. Adler saw all human actions as revelation of inferiority. According to Adler's theory, an act of helping others is an attempt to get out of this inferiority by proving one's ability. An act of not helping reflects inferiority, regarding oneself as incapable of helping others.

1-63 Such theory of course cannot be disproved, but Adler is indifferent about it. Adler demands from his opponents what we have been referring to as introspection - the process of removing one's psychological prejudices by objectively looking at oneself. He makes his theory seem more scientific by denouncing all people who do not accept his theory as people surrounded by prejudice.

1-64 All of these are typical characteristics of pseudo-science. Why exactly such pseudo-science prosper? Popper points out that these methods have profound psychological effects. We consider Adler's theory as ridiculous solely because we have no trust in it. Once you start to have trust in it, it cannot be rejected. In fact, the world is full of evidences that prove this theory.

1-65 This is what Adler is aiming for. Once an ideology is removed, there is no way we can stop a new ideology from taking the place. Ideology does not disappear. It is substituted. More moderate ideology was substituted by a radical ideology arguing that it is the absolute scientific truth.


1-66 The method used by Jacque Fresco gave birth to bigger ideologies when it was used in reconstruction of society. Just like Fresco, Karl Marx asked people to overcome capitalist ideologies in order to achieve communism. The strange part was that the communism itself became an ideology which is even bigger than what he tried to eliminate as soon as the revolution he desired finally happen.

1-67 Marx emphasized science as Fresco did. He thought that we can reconstruct our society scientifically by overcoming capitalist ideologies. But now, few people doubts the fact that what he regarded as a science was not a science at all. Mises even insists that Marx's ideology theory is not only far from scienct, actually a revolt against science and reason. He named it polylogism.

1-68 Mises describes Marx's polylogism as follows. "Human reason, he asserted, is constitutionally unfitted to find truth.... The bourgeois mind of the economists is utterly incapable of producing more than an apology for capitalism. The teachings of bourgeois science, an offshoot of bourgeois logic, are of no avail for the proletarians, the rising class destined to abolish all classes and to convert the earth into a Garden of Eden."

1-69 Now we can find another polylogism in Fresco's book, named The Best That Money Cant Buy. "The word suggests a way of talking or stating problems in which the words used do not have a physical referent; that is to say, one cannot find agreement among people as to what, in the real world, the words are actually referring to. In this context, the author fears the idea of resolving conflict on the basis of mutual understanding is a myth as well."


1-70 Unfortunately his method already had a profound influence on his supporters. Not every supporters of The Venus Project gave up on logical argument by accepting Fresco's advice. They often argued passionately when somebody challenged to The Venus Project. But they never thought that they have to challenge to the mainstream economics if they are right. They just gave it up for the reason that economists are full of prejudice, or for the reason that the languages economists are using are contaminated by ideology.

1-71 The reason why such stances can't be supported would be clear if we look back on the past and see what the fathers of modern science did to overcome prejudices of medieval science. They were not satisfied merely with dismissing medieval science. They challenged to medieval science and rebutted it. Galileo's famous thought experiment was for breaking the mainstream science of that time.

1-72 Guardians of the medieval science were never had less prejudice than economists of today. Nevertheless they could not stand long against the power of logic which modern science has. If Fresco's ideas are obvious like science, why supporters of The Venus Project never believe that they can do same thing with the fathers of modern science? Of course, it would be because Fresco's belief that "there is no sharing of values and no communication at all if we don't have a common starting point."


1-73 After dismissing the idea of resolving conflict on the basis of conversation as a 'myth', Fresco asks. "How then, in a society that is culture-bound and has limited language and ideas, can we introduce listeners to new concepts which, even if they desire to learn them, have no connections in their experience and thinking?" And he answers. "We live in a perpetual 'show me' state. In like manner films, books, seminars, videos, will be necessary to demonstrate the validity of our proposals."

1-74 But the only way to 'show us' the feasibility of The Venus Project is actually doing it and carrying it to a successful conclusion. Not only rubbishes like films and books but also even his experimental cities seem not be able to show much as long as he doesn't rebut the mainstream. We will see the problems of Fresco's experimental cities in chapter 8. But anyway, what he's trying to say is obvious.

1-75 As Mises pointed out, polylogism or sociology of knowledge is no more than a refuge for people who failed to rebut their opponents' logic. Fresco explains why he didn't try to rebut mainstream economics through his theory about prejudices. Perhaps his theory about prejudices exists for it. If we notice this, it would not be very hard to understand why scholars like Popper and Mises regarded these kind of mythology as a revolt against science.


1-76 In addition, I seriously doubt effectiveness of introspection. I am not simply saying that it fails to achieve desired effects. It arouses reverse effects. It is not by coincidence that excellent scientists consistently refused to take part in such attempts. Introspection leads us to a strange self-deception that we can be completely free from prejudices without exception, which as a result reinforces prejudices instead of removing them. [9]

1-77 Jacque Fresco presented new terms that do not contain ideology, arguing that most of existing terms are contaminated by ideology. These new terms and classifications are commonly known to not contain any ideology. Is it really trustworthy? The new terms contain explicit value judgment. It's impossible to what exactly based means scientifically in phrases like resource-based economy and money-based economy.

1-78 Problems of these terms will be discussed in detail in Chapter 9. The fact is that the truth is exactly opposite from what supporters of The Venus Project believe in. If Jacque Fresco simply introduced these terms without making such a great fuss about prejudice, some supporters of The Venus Project might have been able to question these terms. Thus, we can find an astonishing effect of so-called introspection, but this effect has a negative value.


1-79 It would be impossible to finish the discussion of Chapter 1 without sneering at some of introspections demanded by Jacque Fresco because they are so absurd. One of them is about realizing that all people are connected to each other. He argues that all prejudices magically disappear by doing so. We can learn the meaning of unconditional love. I do not understand this, but they say you will understand once you feel it. This feeling is told to be astonishing.

1-80 I think that Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph are probably influenced by Buddhism or similar Eastern mysticism. However, there is no meaning in digging up their ideological background. Realization, or whatever this is called, is regarded as the most important means of enlightenment. (If not, you cannot explain the profound importance of this foolish sermon in Zeitgeist Addendum.) These things practically replace logical arguments.

1-81 One thing I can say is that most of great scientists were not engaged in such foolish thing in order to gain objectivity. Richard Feynman did not do it. Friedrich Gauss did not do it. Even Einstein did not do it. Small number of scientists may have done it, but it only reconfirms our previous conclusion that not all scientists need to be sane.


1-82 Just a moment ago, we saw people who worshipped science and objectivity as idols fall into the most pathetic mystics. Speaking in earnest, people being connected through quantum field means nothing. It cannot mean that we should love other people as we do our own body. It is as silly as the argument that tigers and rabbits should love each other because they are connected by circulation of ecosystem.

1-83 Before laughing at Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph, remember why he had to use such method. He tried to remove other people's prejudice, but he did not believe in argument. He rejected the method used by science in the past to remove prejudices, which is called mutual exchange and argument. If we refused the only rational and scientific method, only the irrational methods remain.

1-84 Fresco's attempt is similar to Adler's attempt. He first removes the ideology we originally have. When we become blank, he naturally injects his new ideology into us. This new ideology contains absurd contents as we saw earlier. It is presented as something absolutely right, like science, instead of ideology without any ground.

1-85 Mysticism of Zeitgeist Addendum deserves to be ridiculed, but it is only one of new beliefs presented to us by Fresco. He forces his perspective about almost everything in us. Most supporters of The Venus Project would not doubted it. Considering how often this method was abused by pseudo-scientists in the past, they must be afraid and start questioning it. I will help them become suspicious through this text.


1-86 There is something much closer to The Venus Project than science: Christianity. They say that their religion is not a religion. It is the truth and process that conveys existence of God. They also say that conflicts will disappear once Arabs, East Asians, Africans and Europeans altogether accepted the fact that God exists. They hate conflicts at much as supporters of The Venus Project do. They try to get rid of conflicts by converting other people into Christians.

1-87 Supports of The Venus Project say that conflicts will disappear once children in Israel, Palestine and Bolivia come to have the same wish. Of course, this same wish would mean The Venus Project. They also say that their idea is not an ideology. It is an obvious truth. They are trying to remove conflicts by turning the entire mankind into supporters of The Venus Project.

1-88 Christians have their religious leaders. These leaders had special spiritual experiences that ordinary Christians never had. They were visited by the Holy Spirit. It must be an amazing feeling. Jacque Fresco and the economic sniper that appeared in Zeitgeist Addendum had a rare experience of feeling connection of all things through their body. This must be astonishing. All supporters of The Venus Project wish to have the same experience, as Christians do to feel existence of God.

1-89 So my question is simple. Excluding religions, what ideology is more dogmatic than this?



[1] It's true that many critics of The Venus Project are calling it socialism. But in this case, they are not saying something wrong. The socialism exactly means 'a planned economy in which there is no private ownership of the means of production.' According to Wikipedia, its exact definition is as follows. 'Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.' But it's true that the term socialism can make certain prejudices about The Venus Project. Anyway when we hear the term, most of us tend to imagine certain systems distributing scarce resources and goods. Also, if Fresco really reached his conclusion independently, he may not want his alternative to be labeled with existing alternatives. In these contexts, it's quite understandable that The Venus Project keeps saying it's not socialism. I do not want people have such prejudices about The Venus Project. That's why I never call The Venus Project socialism in this text. But, I repeat, The Venus Project and resource-based economy which it pledges are socialism by definition. Critics have a right to call them socialism according to the definition.

[2] We can find the same argument in Sociology of Knowledge established by Max Scheler and Karl Mannheim. They referred to the collection of common ideas determined by social environment as ideology. In fact, the term ideology was first used with this meaning by Karl Marx. Read his German Ideology. Views of Jacque Fresco and Karl Marx are much more similar than often believed.

[3] Someone may refute this by saying that Popper's scientific philosophy is not the only way to understand science. However, none of these support Jacque Fresco's view on science. There are some scientific philosophers who believe that scientific research is conducted according to Fresco's method. The problem is that they deny objectivity of scientific knowledge without a single exception.

[4] This can be simply interpreted as a comment that modern economics is only interested in the problem of money and does not care to satisfy actual desires of people. If so, it is wrong. Economics always discuss about the method of improving the livelihood of the public or net income. This is exactly why their suggestions are popular. Modern economics is not useless in analyzing economy without money. Modern economics is not based on money but the concept of subjective marginal utility, which can be naturally translated into the term desire which Fresco likes. Furthermore in economics, money is an abstract concept that refers to an ideal medium of exchange created to analyze indirect exchange economy. Such ideality exists nowhere in the real world. Anyway, both of them are far away from the interpretation intended by Fresco. He simply claims that economics is wrong because it uses a thinking tool called money and is a circular argument. It is a fact that some economics use the thinking tool called money when analyzing non-exchange economy. However, this is not because they actually believe money to exist in non-exchange economy. Physicists actually do similar things using ideal gases. What is the problem?

[5] This is so ridiculous that someone might think I made up this argument impromptu to criticize Jacque Fresco's ideas. But I merely repeated actual arguments proposed in the past by many post-modernists and anti-scientists using Fresco's expression. Fresco would not even have imagined that his elaborate criticism can be applied to natural sciences. This is a representative example of prejudice.

[6] However if someone argues that physics is a faulty science based on this, he is having a serious misunderstanding about natural sciences. The only reason why physics becomes valuable is because it comes up with predictions that can be applied to the real world. Presumptions placed in the background of physics - we may be able to refer to it as ideology - are not something that we must accept in order to accept physics. The world view presented to us by Newtonian mechanics is completely different from the world view presented by Lagrangian mechanics. Nevertheless, we consider these two mechanics as being equivalent today because they predict the same phenomenon. Scientists in the Newtonian era did not know there can be a different interpretation on Newtonian mechanics. More objective interpretation on it became possible after Lagrangian mechanics was discovered. However, the field of physics was not innovatively changed.

[7] It's true that Jacque Fresco sometimes refers falsifiability which was defined by Popper when he compares science and religion. But he never uses it when he criticizes economics. Instead, as we saw, he always depends on loose and poor logic which was rebutted by Popper. He doesn't seem to have noticed that these two are contradictory to each other. At least there are many differences in opinions about whether economics is a field of science defined by Popper. But Fresco's alternative is not science.

[8] Assumptions used in physical calculations may or may not cause problems. Which assumption causes a problem and when it does are important subjects of study in physics. This is also the same in economics. Economists well understand the limitation of assumptions they use, and they also study when such assumptions create problems. Truly ideological problems in the basis of study cannot be studied by these methods. To tell the truth, it is unclear as to whether modern economics based on the concept of subjective utility requires the assumption that human beings are selfish. Someone who does good deed does so because the act of doing so gives him utility called psychological satisfaction. He may be selfish in a way that he is trying to maximize his subjective utility. At any rate, he is not actually a selfish person. Refer to Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, especially Chapter 1 Acting Man.

[9] Precisely speaking, such attempt generally only removes what is exposed to the surface among our prejudices. In return, deeper prejudices are actually reinforced. The fact that we removed a prejudice does not mean we can remove another. In fact, we already learned a lesson from Einstein. He brought a revolutionary change in our thoughts about time and space through the theory of relativity, but we could not accept the quantum theory until the last moment. We cannot ascertain about what is prejudice and what not until we are completely freed from prejudice. We can only say that we might have prejudice. Fresco acts as if he knows what the prejudice in our society is. He believes he has already eliminated his prejudices. We will see how this belief is based on unscientific methodology and mysticism.