I knew a pedophile liberal who was very into this once...I don't like it. The media is making a video about how the media is controlling the world or something, I don't even remember it, whatever.

Quote
VTV

Quote
DavidWish
Thousands of people have been hurt, and are continuing to get hurt, at many different locations where TZM members are actively involved and encouraging others to participate.

If this is concerning to anyone here, please investigate.
Thank you

It is concerning to me that you are making the STTTTREEEETTTCCCHHH to suggest that people getting injured during activists protests somehow equates to "harmful cult" behavior.

I will be sure to let my friends in the Civil Rights Movement know that they are apparently a cult too. Because apparently Martin Luther King Jr. was an evil person getting people killed when he was protesting to see to it that people of color were treated fairly in this country.

Seriously despicable. Give it up. You had every chance in the world to prove to an actual expert that TZM/TVP was a cult. You failed at every turn. So now all you have is repeating the lie often enough on youtube and anywhere else they will allow your nonsense in the hopes that people will not know about this debate.

Somone pointed me to this thread and thought I'd put down my thoughts on the matter.


@VTV this thread is a few months old why revive it? My current stance on internet cults is that there haven't been enough academic journals really published (that have went through the peer review process) about the topic to really be defined as a group tat is purely on the internet and is a cult. Therefore groups like TVP, TZM, or Destinian along with other suspicious groups cannot really fall under the label of being a cult because of the lack of evidence to back up a claim. The evaluation methods for cults as far as on Rick Ross site are purely for localized based cults (or close vicinity) and therefore trying to apply such evaluation methods on internet based groups should not be taken that seriously until there is more academic works that look into such matters. However I'm not saying Rick Ross evaluation method for cults is bad, I'm just saying that there needs to be more academic work on the possibility of if there could be a possibility that internet based cults could exist and at that would the evaluation methods differ (I assume they would) from the typically evaluation method.

However if someone wants to call TVP, TZM, or Destinian a cult based on Rick Ross evaluation methods, I'd take it for what it is as it could be a possibility but as of right now there isn't enough academic works out there in this particular category to suggest that it is even a possibility. Therefore if someone called a internet based group a cult basing it off Rick Ross evaluation methods, I'd take it as more as there opinion then fact. At that if Rick Ross suggested a internet based group is a cult I'd probably take it more as his opinion then it purely being based in a academic sense although I welcome Rick or anybody else to prove me wrong by suggesting academic works I should take a look at :)

In that I am concerned that TZM and TVP are based in a Utopian ideology. A RBE (TVP's Resource Based Economy) or RBEM (TZM's version of a RBE called a Resource based Economic Model), are what attract the majority of people within these groups. In a RBE or RBEM people do not have jobs, resources are shared global and distributed equally amongst the Earths in habitants, if you want something you don't buy it you simply request it and the computer will figure out if there is a possibility based on the Earth resources if that item can be made.

Long story short my concern is the young people or have nots in society who are attracted to a RBE or RBEM. Mostly young people although they can be older. My concern is that the younger generation hasn't really put in there time so to say, and therefore when organization such as TVP or TZM say things "like when you clock in to a job your walking into a dictatorship" or "that jobs are slavery", these kids could base there thoughts on this material as to why they do not want to work. At that no one is forcing anybody to work, just ask VTV although I believe he's close to his 40's I don't think he's had a job in a long time (a few years now), he often blames the system as to why he doesn't have a job; to the extent that he begs for money on his internet radio show so he can continue to pay his rent and have a roof over his kids head.

VTV certainly isn't the only person doing this as I've seen similar situation in TZM/TVP as I can point out numerous example of individuals both in TZM and TVP that live off SSI and or often beg or request money from people in chat so they can pay for there rent. These people often detest money yet it's the very thing they need to live. I just think TZM/TVP could affect some young people who still have a chance in life to the extent that they justify not working because they have adopted a RBE or RBEM ideology. At that these people have suggest numerous times that a RBE or RBEM or based on science when in fact it's not, to me it seems to be a utopian ideology that's entirely faith based rather than fact based. There are no academic studies on a RBE or RBEM, no peer reviews, no science, not even a tested model, there is simply nothing, and yet the believers in TVP/TZM say it's based on science some even say academics are bias (which is a possibility but still). The only way a RBE or RBEM can be implemented is on a global level as well and the only way a RBE or RBEM can be put in place is when the economy fails. I do think TVP/TZM RBE or RBEM ideology is silly but people do get suckered into it. I mean the main motivation for wanting an RBE or RBEM is not having to work. Its such a juvenile and incoherent ideology.

2012_CT:

The same criteria used for evaluating any group as a "cult" can be used to evaluate an Internet based group.

See [www.cultnews.com]

The group named within this study as "[T] Call of God" is an example.

This paper about deprogramming was published within a peer-reviewed academic journal published in China.

Also see [forum.culteducation.com]

Here is a discussion of the same group at this message board.

Note the definition provided of a "cult", which was first written about and established by psychicatrist and educator Robert Jay Lifton.

See Lifton's paper "Cult Formation" [www.culteducation.com]

"Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie."


An Internet based group can be evaluated based upon Lifton's definition, which I regard as the nucleus for most other definitions of cults.

@rrmoderator I appreciate your fast response. I am reviewing the material right now, it may take me several days to get through before I respond. I am wondering if you or someone can post up or link me to a list of internet cults or suspected internet cult groups? Also if you or somebody else could give me any academic work on internet cults or suspected internet cults and or to a lesser extent any work not academically reviewed about internet cults or suspected internet cults as well. I would much appreciate the help, as I have got a few sources on internet based cults but not much, and besides the information above I do not have any academic works that are about internet cults which is understandable since internet based cults or suspected internet based cults is a relatively new phenomenon

Run a google search on internet cults. Put it in exact quotes.

There appears to be an option called Google Scholar.

Get advice from a librarian on how to do this.

And, whats so bad about discussing TZM here, on the RR.com message board. Whats so bad about 'reviving the discussion'?

TZM and its leader who isnt a leader are being discussed elsewhere, and quite vigorously.

Yet...somehow to 'revive the discussion on RR.com is considered not-good? Hmmm.

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

Forum Post: Break down and response to the Zeitgeist Movements Leader Peter Joseph Merola's video to OWS and the world, from the skeptic project aka conspiracy science

Posted 7 months ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 5:28 p.m. EST by 2012ct[/siz[/b]
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Quote

Might want to read my response of Peter Joseph's video to OWS as well after you read this.

[occupywallst.org]

This is a video breakdown of Peters 9 minute video response to OWS response on youtube as well as my thoughts on Peter reinventing the Representative Democracy wheel on the global scale. Originally posted on skepticproject.com.

Peter Joseph: Message to Occupy Wall Street & The World | The Zeitgeist Movement [www.youtube.com]

I watched the whole 9 minute video Peter made on this and it doesn't at all fall in line with what OWS is all about. For the first half of this video, Peter basically borrowed concept already presented on the OWS website. This would include re-explaining why the media isn't paying attention to OWS or why the media is downplaying OWS, Police beat the tar out of peacefully protestors, re-explaining that you must get away from violent protesters if their around you, etc...

2/3rd's (3:30) into the video Peter talks about solution in which he starts off with that the video is to not to promote the Zeitgeist movement (around 3:58) yet after saying that he goes in to how technology can create "true sustainability" which is TZM rhetoric. He developed a added appendage to the Resource source based Economic shtick by adding 'Model' (4:29) at the end of RBE so now it's called a Resource Based Economic Model. Just because Peter calls it a model doesn't make it. A model requires that something has been built and has been proven, a RBE is not a model as it has not been even tested it's nothing but a Utopian fantasy land. Then after that even though Peter said this wasn't about TZM he yet again says that if TZM's views are accepted how exactly do we transition over to it.

Towards the end of Peter's boring rant Peter goes into what I would define as hilarity insanity. I couldn't stop laughing at how insane his idea is. Starting around 5:11 Peter suggest a transition, in which he borrows concepts from his movement hierarchal structure such as he suggest OWS to

'Unify into regional movements into a global entity through representatives' and to have meetings with representatives at which to reinforce global unity.

To keep or reform the current system or to basically remove it as a whole. Then to have a world occupy conference for which to get exposure from the media and where reform issues are presented as to push recognition by the political establishment and the public.

Then Peter talks more about TZM and it's reform process. (6:45) which he explains in depth. Peter comes up with a "parallel government" in which a new government is formed at this table of the representatives made up of OWS individuals of each region. Eventually suggesting this will form a global institution at which Peter suggest the current system will be going on and eventually fail. He rambles on for a bit that doesn't make sense around 7:40.


Peter plugs the Zeitgeist Movement even though he said he wouldn't plug it (look back at 3:58) (at around 7:22 he plugs TZM), as Peter also throws out big numbers that he has a 1,000 chapters in his TZM cult yet on the TZM website their isn't even close to 1,000 chapters it's a complete bogus number to make them seem bigger than what they are or basically he's lying.

CT2012 From [skepticproject.com]

Original post Skepticproject.com [conspiracies.skepticproject.com]

13 Comments

13 Comments

post comment Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3700) from Santa Barbara, CA 7 months ago
in short, tzm is a globalization movement which beleives in god bots and which operates in fact as a fascist organization.

tzm is not an option, its a problem, ,they are a dangerous cult. they have some good ideas and some very sick and twisted ones.

we need to sort it out, but in the end the cult is doomed and the reason why they are trying to co-opt this movement is they need fresh dupes.

[occupythiswiki.org]

[www.followthemoney.org]

[maplight.org]

[www.opensecrets.org]

[occupywallst.org]

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by OTW (4) 7 months ago
The bottom line is reforming campaign finance. As long as corporations control the $$ politicians need to get elected, politicians will work for the corps.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by 2012ct (7) 7 months ago
I would agree with that. I think OWS is indirectly advocating for a collapse so major reforms such as the one you suggested would happen.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by hgoldmund (3) 7 months ago
First, I don't think it's "insane" at all. If you've read books like: "The Construction of Social Reality" by philosopher John Searle, you'll realise that our Social Reality is nothing more than an unspoken "collective agreement" on the way things work. The crucial point that he makes is that "Institutional Reality" has no foundation in "Physical Reality". All things that comprise our Social System are nothing but "institutions". The "strength" of an institution relies purely on mass "support/use" of that institution. For example, if we collectively agree overnight that money is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper (which it is), we'll be wiping our asses with it tomorrow. Hence the gInstitution of Moneyh will vanish immediately and completely. That in itself will bring the current system to its knees.

Second, the concept of a gResource Based Economyh is probably the most rational and logical proposal of an alternative system that Ifve ever come across! Is far from a utopia. Do you really have the scientific knowledge and a technical understanding of what wefre capable of doing technologically? Do some research on that and youfll be amazed! Are you even aware that there are over 6000 patents that have been suppressed by the powers that be? This alone would become a technological revolution of its own if unleashed! This isnft a gpipe dreamh. What do you propose as an alternative thatfs more rational and logical than a RBE?

Third, Peter isnft trying to hi-jack the movement. He, like everyone else is the 99%! All he is trying to do is bring some more structure to the OWS movement by making personal gsuggestionsh on a hypothetical basis for how it might unfold. Given point one, it makes perfect sense. If we stop supporting the existing institutions, they WILL fade! So, to propose a gparallel governmenth is brilliant. By doing this, wefre basically saying that gwe donft recognise your authority any longer!h Remember, what you resist, persists! So the question is, a reform or a revolution? If the latter, then what replaces it?

Last but not least. The Zeitgeist Movement is NOT a cult! The movement is as far from a cult as you can get. We need to gthink criticallyh and not be dismissive and critical without a basis. If you have personal reasons for not glikingh the movement, thatfs fine, but donft criticise and dismiss without doing some homework. I wish you all the best and hope that sanity prevails.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by 2012ct) 7 months ago

Quote

If it's not a cult why is it each time I express my opinion about TZM no matter what place it may be someone is always their to defend it? Usually it's the same TZM cult group of people connected to each other.

A Resource Based economy is not based on science, it's a Utopian pie in the sky dream based on communism to attracted gullible people. I read your material it's retarded bullshit. I support TZMers as much as Democrats, tea party, Ron Pauls, Republicans, or anybody else to go out and occupy wall street or occupy whatever is nearby, but I do not support ideas not based on science such as a RBE, or just bat shit crazy ideas being pushed by a very delusional person.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by sharken (1) 7 months ago
2012ct makes absolutely no sense and has lost all ability to think rationally. Clearly this person is a troll that has the specific goal of defiling Peter Joseph's name. Instead of listening to this horrendous hate-filled rant, why don't you get informed for yourself. I think Peter does a much better job of illustrating his points than does "CT2012" who is just a hate-filled troll.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

Quote

[-] 1 points by 2012ct 7 months ago
I am giving a breakdown of Peter Merola's video. I think I upset you and your Utopian ideology, and I'm ok with that. I support TZMers as much as Democrats, tea party, Ron Pauls, Republicans, or anybody else to go out and occupy wall street or occupy whatever is nearby, but I do not support ideas not based on science such as a RBE, or just bat shit crazy ideas being pushed by a very delusional person.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by socceronly (102) 7 months ago
There is nothing called conspiracy science. You could have a scientific theory about conspiracies if you want.... but that doesn't make it conspiracy science. Things are either done scientifically or they are not.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

Quote

[-] 1 points by 2012ct 7 months ago
Not sure what your talking about. It's called the skeptic project at www.skepticproject.com

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by scubaspv (1) 7 months ago
Zeitgeist is not just about sustainability its about keeping the earth from being destroyed. Its not a distraction either and it has been around for a long time. They make a lot of good points about how our economic system works and I dont think you should bash them for trying to introduce a possibility; when you do this your just like FOX news who call you all stupid directionless morons. I know your not but alot of brainwashed americans eat every spoonful of B.S. FOX feeds them. I found his response to be sincere and just like you al,l the TZM people belive in what they are doing. Just like the people who have been praying to god for change, do you think them to be a cult or conspiracy? I am against our current financial regime as well but cut some slack on judgment until you completely understand something.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by 2012ct (7) 7 months ago

Quote

FOX news does suck I agree with you no that. If you want to watch a news source that's interesting google "MOX NEWS" sometime.. It's a youtube channel and the guy dedicates his life to clipping out important things on the news and uploads them so that you can watch them.

TZM is dumb, Peter Merola is delusional bat shit crazy, and a RBE is not based on science even if you say otherwise. Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. To end it like I've ended the other conversations.

I support TZMers as much as Democrats, tea party, Ron Pauls, Republicans, or anybody else to go out and occupy wall street or occupy whatever is nearby, but I do not support ideas not based on science such as a RBE, or just bat shit crazy ideas being pushed by a very delusional person

.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 7 months ago
Don't fall for this psychological crap from any one percent goon. It's an obvious attempt to divert our attention from the obscene, unjust, immoral, and illogical concentration of wealth. Donald Trump went on record the other day telling us to blame the government instead of Wall Street and the richest one percent. His goons are obviously online and on air trying to divert our attention. Don't fall for it. Just keep protesting no matter what the one percent goons say or do. Our message is vital. Below is my two cents:

We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid f07Œ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole.

We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. Ifll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers.

In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It wonft. Not by a longshot.

Jobs donft necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another.

In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The efree marketf just doesnft cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty.

Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of f08Œ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it.

Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of f08Œ, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nationfs wealth has been concentrated.

Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we donft.

Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent already own nearly 1/2 of all United States wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

Quote

[-] 1 points by 2012ct 7 months ago
My response to Peter's video is that he's talking out of both ends. I can of imagine Peter jumped into this mindset that somehow he is all knowing and decided to graciously offer advice to OWS as because Peter is the only one who know the twoof and how to run a successful revolution. Even though Peter had really nothing to do with OWS and OWS formed after TZM did yet was able to accomplish it's goals within a few months. Yet Peter who I would define as delusional thinks he still has advice to offer to OWS? That in a way would be looked at as offense to individuals who started OWS and at best laughable.

Peter attempts to say he's with OWS and he's not stomping on their movement and then he in the video proceeds to stomp all over OWS ground and even plugs his TZM cult crap towards the end, spitting in OWS face by saying TZM is better and has a 1,000 chapters world wide (funny sometimes TZMers say they have 1,500 chaps, to even 2000 chap). As having 1,000 chapters (doubt it's even close to accurate number) is suppose to give Peter and his cult group some-type of clout.

When Peter refers to RBE as a RBEM (Resource based Economic Model) I started to laugh. This reminds me of the people who associate open source with a RBE. To say a RBEM, it would be suggesting that it's somewhat tangible and that their really is a working model. The problem being is that a RBE has no model so the added appendage Peter added doesn't make it true. I even went to google and googled a Resource based Economic Model and added such search appendages to RBEM such as zetgiestmovement.com and venusproject.com. What I found out is that no where on the venusproject.com website or the zeitgeistmovement.com website does it ever referred to a resource based economic as a model or even call it a RBEM (I could be wrong, if someone finds out otherwise post it up). I did find TZMers saying it's a model but not officially on both TVP and TZM mediums which shows the type of deception Peter is willing to go to push is communistic values system because of course he knows the answers and if he has to twist things up to get people to believe in his crap that's not based on science then so be it.


I had mention up top that Peter is reinventing the wheel and that Wheel is a Representative Democracy. When Peter gets into his parallel government crap he's basically taking a note from how the current way our representative Democracy works as of right now. He's not come up with something new he's basically made newly appointed leaders that supposedly will have clout in their region now. Peter fails to meet the goals of what OWS is about as OWS does not want to reinvent the wheel, OWS wants transparency, OWS wants a flat structure where everybody can contribute, and if their is structure it has to be justified (a little anarchistic value I suppose), and to get Washington hands away from the wall street among other problems.

To emphasize two important problems that Peter has failed to focus on when he talked about his very unoriginal to say the least transitional plan is that he includes no transparency when reinventing the wheel of a Representative Democracy, and neglects what OWS wants which is Democracy in that all people will be involved therefore representatives would go against their cause in the first place. This shows Peter cares not about OWS and it's wanting of transparency, nor does he care about everybody's involvement in the process getting their ideas expressed in the Democratic process. He only really cares about restructuring the government that which Peter Joseph will have control and say over because after all Peter knows the twoof.

Peter Joseph is bat shit delusionally crazy. I can imagine if Peter doesn't get his way like everything else he will deem OWS a government funded group that's out to get him and his cult. I support TZMers as much as Democrats, tea party, Ron Pauls, Republicans, or anybody else to go out and occupy wall street or occupy whatever is nearby, but I do not support ideas not based on science such as a RBE, or just bat shit crazy ideas being pushed by a very delusional person.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
this site was brought to you by various radicals
this website is free / open source software on github
email: general@occupywallst.org | help line: +1 (516) 708-4777

Yes I remember this. As I did think groups like TZM, TVP and Destinian were a cult I do not as of this moment think so now do to the lack of academic journals posted. A individual by the name of Muertos who is a scholar in his own right had provided strong supporting information from this and other sites suggesting these groups were cults however when following up with the information I determined that there isn't enough academic support to determine if a internet cult is even possible and therefore my stance changed until enough supporting relevant academic work gets through to make the case.

@corboy I hope I do not give the impression that I somehow agree with TZM/TVP/Destinian as I do not nor have I ever been affiliated with these groups. I am not here to upset people but actually to further study the new phenomenon of the possibility of cults being able to entirely be based on the internet.

I have actually tried google scholar among other scholar type search engines and cannot find even one academic article on internet based cults or anything close to it.

I am under the assumption that you think I said it was bad to discuss TZM/TVP on here at which I never did, it's perfectly ok to discuss TZM and or TVP anywhere. Then you said, "somehow to 'revive the discussion on RR.com is considered not-good?" I again never said it was not good to bring up TZM, I think it's perfectly fine however again VTV was responding to a person who posted the information up a few months ago like the person had just posted that up yesterday, I question if VTV realizes the person named David posted that up a few months back and not recently. At that typically on a internet forum it's bad to revive old topics, I am under the assumption that it's ok to revive old topics maybe under certain circumstances.

TZM in my opinion and observation does in fact have a leader which is Peter Joseph; As I am apart a member of the skeptic project site we have observed groups such as TZM, TVP, Destinian, Alex Jones Prison Planet, Reptilians, and Truthers (among others), and have more in-depth knowledge on these groups. The Skeptic Project website was one of the first sites to give a debunk on the Zeitgeist Movement Movie 1 as well as one of the most elaborate debunks of TZM 1, 2, and 3 movie to this day.

I believe I have made you upset and apologize for doing so. My intent was not to make anybody upset but to put down my opinion and maybe learn a little more about internet based cults, although I am still skeptical that internet cults can form on the internet do to the lack of academic works out there on this subject matter. If I give the impression that I am wanting a debate and or am looking for a argument I simply am not. If it remotely looks like I am I am not.

To note: My name 2012_CT looks cultish on conspiracy theorist in some circles as that was my intent as 2012 is the doomsday year and CT stand for conspiracy theory it's a spin off of AD and BC basically. I'm into doomsday, end of times things because it's interesting as well as hysterical.


Reference

My post on this very topic on Skeptic Project site
[other.skepticproject.com]

Skeptic Project debunk of Zeitgeist Movie 1 by Edawrd L. Winston
[conspiracies.skepticproject.com]

2012_CT:

An example was already given and a paper linked that was published in an academic journal.

A group was cited that has been called a "cult" and is Internet based. And a link was provided to the discussion about that group at this message board.

Internet based cults are a fairly new phenomenon, but it's a growing concern.

Many groups called cults routinely use the Internet for recruitment purposes.

The conclusion reached some time ago at this message board was that TZM did not fit the profile of a "destructive cult".

So your point is what?

"An example was already given and a paper linked that was published in an academic journal."

I read through the paper and am still looking through the other links. However as the academic work did mention a internet cult group that doesn't mean it has substance. I felt that substance was lacking not just for mentioning a internet cult group but for using evaluation methods that may not be the best tool for evaluating groups based on the internet. Not saying this work wasn't interesting as it was very interesting, just saying it doesn't have relevant content in my opinion to suggest cults can form on the internet and I'd say reevaluating the evaluation tool sets currently used for such internet based groups is needed.

Normally I may buy into something like this but attempting to sift through what's a cult and not a cult can become very problematic. At the word cult is a very derogatory label nowadays and if there is going to be a label on such groups for me there needs to be concrete relevant academic work to support it which in this case would be academic work towards purely internet based groups that could possibly be a cult.

"A group was cited that has been called a "cult" and is Internet based. And a link was provided to the discussion about that group at this message board."

I know, it peaked my interest. I'm still looking into the group and I much appreciate you telling me about it :)

"Internet based cults are a fairly new phenomenon, but it's a growing concern."

I completely agree.


"Many groups called cults routinely use the Internet for recruitment purposes."

I agree that happened and or there is a possibility of it happening. I'm strictly talking about internet based cults as I'm skeptical if these internet based groups could turn into cults purely on the internet. I do agree that groups that are internet based could turn into cults in the sense that like minded people get together, start a compound and do there thing however I'm skeptical based on the lack of academic evidence that cults that are purely internet based could really be defined as being a internet cult. I am not here to debate or argue but if there is academic evidence or something to read about it then I will gladly take a look.


"The conclusion reached some time ago at this message board was that TZM did not fit the profile of a "destructive cult"."

I agree with that 100% but for different reasons as to why. I do not think there is currently a way to determine if something internet based such as TVP, TZM, Destinian, [T] Call of God (assuming it's entirely internet based still reading through), can be defined as a internet cult.

So your point is what?

I'm not sure which point you think I am or am not making? I actually think that question is better suited for Corboy. But I'll try my best to answer it.

I think we got way off topic. Corboy had brought up some information, from a previous post I put up on a OWS site, to Peter Joseph not being a leader, and to why revive a TZM discussion is not bad ; I thought I would answer his question although I'd assume it's not relevant however if corboy finds it relevant then I find it relevant to an extent.

I suppose my relevant points would be why revive a old topic (this is towards VTV and not anybody else), that there isn't enough academic work out there of relevance pertaining to groups on the internet to really define them as internet cults let alone trying to evaluate these groups using methods that were not really for these purposes in my opinion (still reading through it). I do not debate nor am I here to argue just stating my opinion however showing academic work among other things does help and I'll gladly read through it.

2012_CT:

Your questions have been addressed and answered.

You are now way off topic.

The topic of this thread is TZM.

Please focus on the topic.