Skeptic Project

Hi All,

I hope you will welcome me to your forum.

Apologies for the length of this blog, but it is worth your while to read it all through.

There has been so much done and said (a lot of it unpleasantly personal) that I feel the time is right to settle the confusion and most importantly make progress towards our mutual and much needed goals.

My background is academic in business/economics/history and practical in terms of senior roles in financial services.

Some years back in my training in Macro Economics I had bumped into several publications (including Moneyless Government: Why and Why Not – Author McCowen published in 1933 among others dating back to the 1888). Furthermore our study group would discuss the economics of pre-industrial societies such as the tribes of Africa, Australia or pre-European America. We even discussed the theoretical economic processes of the moneyless Jewish Utopia (a pre Christian concept) and the communes that flowered during the wild and rebellious 60’s. This idea really is as old as sex itself and I received criticism for using an expression used/co-opted by TVP, nothing more. That expression was in use before… after all it is English.

As I say in my book “The Failing Logic of Money” the purpose of an economic system is to create benefits and then distribute them to people and I wrote my book to illustrate why and how our present systems came about, are failing and how to transition to a new way of meeting the needs of people.

I wrote the first draft of the book after boring friends about the specifics of how a “heaven on earth” would work economically and was consistently told to write it. Being new to the writing game I was happy when this primary draft was quickly accepted and in my excitement I accepted an appearance on the show “On The Edge” some 6 months prior to the anticipated release date. For the opportunity to appear on this show (for which I was not paid) I freely gave away the rights for them to use the interview as they chose. I do not have any influence over how this programme (in which I was disastrously nervous) is distributed or broadcast. Unfortunately, that interview did not address the historical or implementation aspects of change, concentrating only on that phrase. But, I am now better equipped to ensure my talking points are no longer ignored.

It was little after that show I bumped into The Venus Project and sent them an electronic copy hoping to find a way of working together.

I was surprised to discover that my book was unwelcome and they moved to halt publishing because of my use of the expression “Resource Based Economy”, a term that describes the activities of all pre industrial societies; this includes our Cave dwelling ancestors who lived directly off the land. The Venus Project was also concerned that I had a question and answer page, which they felt was similar to theirs. This clearly shows when people first meet this concept they ask similar and predictable questions which I addressed.

In order to satisfy The Venus Project and realising that they were not seeking associates with a different perspective, I postponed publishing and made changes in the final draft replacing RBE with Earth Economics (Earth’s Amble Resources with Technology Humanely and Sustainably applied). This new draft was sent to TVP and I received email confirmation that The Venus Project had no further interest in my book other than requesting a mention. This was done alongside other books that may be of interest to this audience.

You can imagine my shock when accusations of plagiarism appear on Amazon, Google and other places and I find it disingenuous that the source of these comments is The Venus Project itself AFTER they acknowledge in writing that there are no grounds for complaint against “The Failing Logic of Money”.

My book is very different from TVP’s work but has in common a different method of distributing goods and services. My book describes why our social problems are as they and how they developed from a historic, economic perspective. It describes Earth Economics but most importantly details how people can manage the transition to this new economy and the essential changes needed to our failing democratic systems/government. These are not addressed by TVP.

I am disappointed that TVP is not interested in constructive cooperation/dialogue but since I am clearly not welcome in that corporate body, I should at least expect TVP to act honourably and cease encouraging personal, inaccurate and insulting comments in public. I also hope that you will see that my intention is to improve our world and not spend energies in petty conflict over an issue that TVP themselves confirmed to me in writing is settled.

During my research I discovered the contribution of Buckminster Fuller (born 1895). Fuller made many contributions in the area of building and vehicle design. He also had much to say on the concept of our planet being an enclosed system that needed to distribute goods and services in a way that respects all people. Buckminster Fuller’s Futurologist contribution pre-dates TVP and his present day Institute uses its resources to actually do something practical to help the poverty stricken; not just talk, suppress thinkers, make movies and idealise an individual. It was Fuller that said (paraphrased) if we were a rocket hurtling through space would we only feed some of the crew.

This is not said to disrespect the contribution of Jacques Fresco, but to put the vitriol into perspective. What is being forgotten is that everyone stands on the shoulders of those that predate them, otherwise we would need to reinvent the wheel every single day or pay homage to its inventor. The comments made about me obviously come from a corporation that is more interested in monopoly of thought and respecting/enshrining an individual (in the manner of “the borg” or other high control group) than an organisation interested in achieving an outcome. Isn’t it the outcome that’s important? Which individual is more important than the well being of all people? Shouldn’t all contributions to the goal be welcome?

To re-visit the analogy of the wheel. Circles and spheres were there all along in nature occurring naturally. However, an observant person noticed it, adapted it and people used it happily for thousands of years until an individual comes along, labels it, then legally tries to stop people talking about it or improving it unless he is credited for something that was there before his birth.

I feel I have a contribution to make in achieving the needed result quickly and I should not be suppressed, silenced or forced to submit to an organisation that claims to have similar aims to my own. It is also a sign of a dangerous, high control organisation when a contributor is “demonised” despite no-one having seen the book and the corporate body having had their requests complied with and their legal interest officially withdrawn.

I really hope this settles the matter and the destructive behaviour stops and the slurs removed. I agree with TVP in broad overall terms, but I profoundly disagree with how they deal with the rights of the individual and what that indicates for the society they are working towards.

I want to make change, not just talk about it and suppress others that can help make it happen in the real world.

Duane Mullin – EarthEconomist
www.duane$spammer$mullin.com
12 April 2011

User was banned for this post: Spammer.

@Matt, I wouldn't mind a little more crazy in here. It's entirely too rational sometimes :)

@Duane, why do you care about convincing us that TVP is in the wrong in this whole situation? We don't have anything to do with this other than sharing your disdain for them. And why don't you explain to us the thesis and supporting evidence of your book, rather than just plug it here. This is a forum, you know, for discussion.

And how exactly is this thing different from TVPs writings?