Quote
james kush
Perhaps they are a relatively benign example of a "cult following" of sorts.

Destructive cults is what people post about and are generally interested in this forum, not benign cults.

It may be a personality fringe group with strange beliefs, but that seems to be about it.

Time will tell.

Some time ago in our debates on you Facebook you admitted that the Zeitgeist movement was not a cult. Yet here we are again.

What seems to come across is that TZM is a fringe groups that has some controversial beliefs, but that doesn't make it a "cult" by any meaningful objective definition.

For a group to be considered a "cult" according to Lifton it must be destructive, not simply objectionable due to its beliefs. It's about behavior.

Lifton says, "Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie" is evident.

Singer states, "imagine an inverted T. The leader is alone at the top and the followers are all at the bottom". There is little if any accountability and as Singer says, "the overriding philosophy...is that the ends justify the means, a view that allows [such groups] to establish their own brand of morality, outside normal society bounds."

Thus far TZM critics have been unable to specifically articulate such points as relevant to the group.

Simply because you object to a group's philosophy or quirky beliefs doesn't make it a "cult," certainly not a destructive one.

Perhaps TZM can be seen as a relatively benign fringe group with a "cult following," something like Trekkies or diehard Elvis fans.

Quote
rrmoderator
What seems to come across is that TZM is a fringe groups that has some controversial beliefs, but that doesn't make it a "cult" by any meaningful objective definition.

For a group to be considered a "cult" according to Lifton it must be destructive, not simply objectionable due to its beliefs. It's about behavior.

Lifton says, "Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie" is evident.

Singer states, "imagine an inverted T. The leader is alone at the top and the followers are all at the bottom". There is little if any accountability and as Singer says, "the overriding philosophy...is that the ends justify the means, a view that allows [such groups] to establish their own brand of morality, outside normal society bounds."

Thus far TZM critics have been unable to specifically articulate such points as relevant to the group.

Simply because you object to a group's philosophy or quirky beliefs doesn't make it a "cult," certainly not a destructive one.

Perhaps TZM can be seen as a relatively benign fringe group with a "cult following," something like Trekkies or diehard Elvis fans.

Sounds fairly reasonable.

Good morning, everyone

rrmod wrote:

"Typical family complaints would be that their loved ones have been isolated, don't communicate and become estranged due to the group."

But what if the cult's beliefs were so strange that anyone believing them would become
isolated?

Loughner's friends repeatedly talked about how they left him because he was getting so weird, and the weird things he was showing them, like the Z1 video.

James, this quote of yours is puzzling to me:

"Since the distinction between the logical and the mystical is, to begin with, artificial and man-made"

What is Singer trying to say here? That that occurs "within the framework of the sacred science, and sweeping, non-rational "insights."?

rrmod wrote:
"Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie"

What if the purpose of the cult is to exploit group members by using their desire for answers to sell irrational books and videos?

As VTV put it:
"WRONG. The only "leader" in the movement who values her work is Peter. TZM itself does not. And even Peter stated we are not going to push her work."

Notice the word "push".

In this case, I am not talking about Achariya S. so much as the authors and video makers claiming that the Illuminati bombed the World Trade Center, or that the Illuminati
(for which read Jewish Bankers) have manipulated fiat currencies?

Or say the folks who run the man did not walk on the Moon con?

The front seems to me to be Jacques, while the root is Peter Joseph, and the Cottonwood connection.

As far as ZM being a cult, the sacred science seems to me to be RBE.

VTV, why didn't Peter Joseph pull the Z1 video?

E.P. Grondine:

You completely missed and/or deliberately ignored/evaded the points.

The net effect of destructive cults is family complaints, unhappy ex-members with compelling testimonies and/or criminal and civil court cases. Such matters are frequently covered by the press when noteworthy, e.g. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara and Marshall Applewhite.

Nothing like that exists regarding TZM and you have failed to demonstrate this by providing links to local press or wire service news articles, court cases, etc.

Frankly it's time to move on.

You are spinning, but offering nothing of any meaningful objective substance.

You don't like TZM.

Got it.

But that doesn't make the group a "cult."

And the repetition of failed examples and spin doesn't make up for your lack of significant substance.

It seems you are a diehard though, but sometimes it's best to admit when you are wrong and move on.

As a "global administrator" for The Zeitgeist Movement, I'd like to express my thanks to those here who engaged in an evidence-based analysis of our movement.

I want to point out that some of those making the original claims against here us are quoting the posts by moderators here, and misrepresenting them in a way that contradicts what was said. Their goal does not seem to be analysis, or finding facts, but rather misusing this forum in whatever ways they can to attack those with whom their disagree.

I also want to say, for the record, that a primary purpose of the movement is to encourage the application of the scientific method for social concern. With hundreds of thousands of "members" loosely organized in chapters worldwide, the potential always exists for abuse or misrepresentation by individuals or groups, and should such cases occur in ways which are cult-like or not, we encourage others to examine the evidence, and if necessary discourage such abuse. Any time anything other than the scientific method, logic, and evidence is being used to manipulate people in ways which are destructive, or which discourage scientific analysis, it harms us all.

Regards,
Noel

this is truly silly. This whole Zeitgeist drama on RR appears to have been started by a person or persons who were banned from posting on the Zeitgeist forum. To equate this with "abuse" is INSULTING to those of use who actually have been abused and exploited by gurus, cults, or "groups with fringe ideas". No matter how strange or offensive one might find the Zeitgeist ideology, it's clear after weeks of reading these threads this was instigated here by someone with an ax to grind with this group over something petty and is NOT ABUSE. Some of us have been sexually, emotionally, and financially exploited by groups and gurus, and it's an insult to conflate the two!

Quote
darkadaptedeyes
No matter how strange or offensive one might find the Zeitgeist ideology, it's clear after weeks of reading these threads this was instigated here by someone with an ax to grind with this group over something petty and is NOT ABUSE. Some of us have been sexually, emotionally, and financially exploited by groups and gurus, and it's an insult to conflate the two!

While I would agree that this thread was not handled well by those "banned from Zeitgeist forums", and I don't think there was full evidence provided that this is a traditional dangerous cult, it is definitely a "controversial group", and worthy of discussion on this board. All one needs to do is view the original movie with its rehash of recycled anti-semitic conspiracy theories to see that there is something about this group worth questioning. Does that make it a cult? No.

Does it make it a "controversial group"? Yes. The very fact that there is a movement NAMED after the movie, yet the leaders are trying to disassociate themselves from the movie ("the movement is not the movie")... yet STILL calling it "The Zeitgeist Movement" is a red flag. Why not drop the "Zeitgeist" name entirely if "the movement is not the movie"?

Quote
shakti
While I would agree that this thread was not handled well by those "banned from Zeitgeist forums", and I don't think there was full evidence provided that this is a traditional dangerous cult, it is definitely a "controversial group", and worthy of discussion on this board. All one needs to do is view the original movie with its rehash of recycled anti-semitic conspiracy theories to see that there is something about this group worth questioning. Does that make it a cult? No.

Yes, I completely agree, but it's under 'Cults, Sects and New Religious Movements'. The Zeitgeist Movement is not a cult, sect or NRM, so there's no other forum on this site for it, unless a new one is created to do with conspiracy theory groups.

Hi Noel, glad you're here to set things straight -

Quote
tanktop
Any time anything other than the scientific method, logic, and evidence is being used to manipulate people in ways which are destructive, or which discourage scientific analysis, it harms us all.

Regards,
Noel

So then, where does all the non-scientific nonsense in the Z1 video fit in?
(I am not asking Achariya S's hypothesis.)

By the way, the only thing I ever heard of that resembled RBE was Leonid Brezhnev's attempt to bring computers and robots into the Soviet Union's economy.
The result was a disaster.