[thezeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com]

(cached)

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

Disclaimer
This site is about examining of the Zeitgeist Movement. Just to be clear, the official Zeitgeist Movement [online benign cult] site is TheZeitgeistMovement.com, and this is not affiliated with them in anyway. The opposition is only with those who think the Zeitgeist Movement is still alive and makes sense and I think it's a good thing that a lot of people decided to jump ship and I hope that they try to find real solutions with the problems we face today.

Article here--alleges the TZM trademark expired. "allege" is the key word. Anyone know about this?

[thezeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com]

More

[zeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com]

(Cache)

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

A new twist on how the world of cultist’s work arrived today with a notification from Youtube that a “privacy” complaint had been filed against the video.

There is a policy at Youtube where you are not allowed to reveal personal information of another Youtube user or anyone in general.

When I went to the “offending” part of the video, it dealt with an exchange between two well known authors (D M Murdock/Acharya S and Michael Licona) who are on opposite ends of the spectrum. The exchange was completely in public (on their respective webpages) and I merely summarized the contents. Of course, the facts supported Licona and this must have upset one of the Zeitgeist fanboys.

Invasion of the Zeitgeist Cultists
March 7, 2012 Albert McIlhenny No comments

Over the last few years, I have been a vocal critic of the film Zeitgeist by Peter Joseph. It is a conspiracy theory film largely based upon the work of a once popular conspiracy theorist named Jordan Maxwell. The film has three parts with the second and third relaying the usual things one hears from conspiracy theorists about 9/11 and the Federal Reserve. Although I reject the film as a whole, my own criticismI has mainly concentrated on the first part dealing with religion (the film claims Christianity is a solar cult based on the suns travels through the zodiac in imitation of the pagan cults of antiquity) since 1) religion is more my area of interest and 2) I have nothing to add to the other areas that have not been said better by others.

Since the film’s release, Joseph has largely moved on from Maxwell’s ideas to the socio-economic ideas of Jacques Fresco as part of the Zeitgeist Movement he founded. Although I reject those ideas as well, I have little interest in arguing about the floating circular cities of a Buckminster Fuller wannabe. Frankly, the whole thing seems a bit silly and the whole thing falls in on itself once you apply the least bit of critical scrutiny. However, such matters were again not my field of interest and I left it to others to carry on that argument. I might add the occasional snarky comment on posts about the topic elsewhere but the Zeitgeist Movement was not a high priority topic for me.

Despite this, I did keep an eye on its goings on through other sources such as Zeitgeist Movement Examined
[zeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com]

the Zeitgeist Movement Exposed
[thezeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com]

and Muertos
[muertos.blog.com]

– among others. I am quite aware of how the movement has decayed to a hardcore group. However, the first movie still has much appeal as it intersects with various other audiences: some “village atheists” (Part 1), some of the more traditional “big banker” conspiracy theorists (Part 3), the remains of the 9/11 Truth Movement (Part 2), and, of course, the “Coast to Coast AM” crowd in general. Thus I made some videos on the topic, particularly in areas not covered widely by others, and responded to other Youtube users on the subject. I had interaction with supporters of the film – some friendly and others not so friendly – but largely it was at a low level. My videos tended to somewhat technical in the discussion and not very flashy and so the impact was rather limited except for those who were interested in the topic.


One series I had done was titled “Why I Don’t Take Zeitgeist Supporters Seriously” and detailed soem rather basic errors at the very foundation of the first part of the film. For example, Zeitgeist assumes all ancient religions were based upon the zodiac and precession and this went back at least 3000 BC with the Egyptians and perhaps millennia before then. However, the evidence is quite clear that the twelve sign zodiac was not used until around 500 BC when it was developed in Babylon and not used in Egypt until centuries later in the Ptolemaic era. Furthermore, precession was discovered only in the second century BC. This alone eliminates the supposed long standing precedent Christianity allegedly copied.

It gets even worse when you turn to the supposed “astrological ages.” The division of the sky assumed in the film is one agreed upon by modern astronomers in the twentieth century. Using the division present in antiquity, Jesus was many centuries too early to usher in any “Age of Pisces.” Furthermore, when you read the passages in the Bible used to connect it to such “ages,” it merely becomes a game where certain instances of bulls, rams, fish, and water are picked out and others ignored to make it look like it matches their theory.

Once you read the verses in context, the whole thing is rapidly exposed as pure drivel.

The discussion in the video was rather lengthy and not terribly exciting but, for those who wanted to know why scholars keep saying the film was absurd, it was probably necessary. As with many of my videos, it garnered a few hundred views, most soon after I posted it, and then trailed off. A few weeks ago, I was ready to remove the whole series since I had others on the topic that were more recent and thorough.

Then it happened: I had an invasion of Zeitgeist cult followers.

The whole Zeitgeist franchise of Peter Joseph’s has become very much a cult of personality. It also ties in with others of the types discussed earlier and each of these have their own gurus with their own little cults of personality. I am not quite sure how one of my videos became a target but I would guess it must have been referred to in one or more of the various websites catering to one or more of the various cultic constituency group.

I have found the whole thing quite interesting. The video, which had only a few hundred views total before, suddenly had over fifty a day minimun for the last few weeks with two of the days having over 100 hits. There were, of course, a sudden rash of “thumbs down” votes but I expected that in this situation: when you tell someone their little cult is baseless, it does get their knickers in knot – particularly when they have no clue how to answer you.

The Zeitgeist followers have suddenly been put in the position where they thought they had put Christians. They did not like it one bit.

I was more interested, however, in any comments that might be generated both in the video’s comment page and in private messages. These generally followed a definite pattern.

One was to tell me I had no knowledge of the Zeitgeist Movement and that the usual stuff about the “movie is not the movement.”

I replied to this that this video is not about the movement and I never even mentioned the movement but only the movie. It seemed the pattern was repeated on a daily basis with no one ever bothering to read any of the comments below and merely making the same assertions over and over and over. Sometimes they even argued that even though the video was about the movie and not the movement it was still unfair to the movement – as if it were my fault that Peter Joseph made a stupid movie and then later named an unrelated movement after the stupid movie.

Another “response” was to tell me I should shut up unless I had a better solution.

Again I pointed out this had nothing to do with the movement but an aspect of the first movie. But even if I were criticizing the movement, I would not have to give my own solution for the world’s problems to conclude your solution was ridiculous.

Then there were the occasional ones who actually tried to defend the content of the movie.

On these occasions, it became obvious fairly quickly that they had absolutely no knowledge of the basic facts on the ground. They merely assumed what Peter Joseph had told them was true. There is an amazing irony here that they were confident in their criticism of others as blindly following dogma without checking the facts when they were doing the exact same thing.

There were a few cases, however, when some good to come out of it.

I have had a few exchanges were the light seemed to suddenly go on and they realized they had been fed a web of lies by Peter Joseph. I recently did a video series titled the “Wacky World of Jordan Maxwell” that gave some amusing examples of the complete fraudulence of the man who was Peter Joseph’s inspiration for the film. I was able to point some to that series and the reaction was one of surprise and even shock. Zeitgeist is a paper tiger once you know its source.

But perhaps the most interesting responses allude to something Muertos has pointed out in his own blog.

[muertos.blog.com]

Some recent conspiracy theorists are moving away from persuading with alleged facts to emotional and idelogical appeals.

More than one comment stated the truth of what Zeitgeist was irrelevant to its importance. It was the idea of the movement that mattered – not the facts they presented.

This is perhaps the most disturbing since it removes the whole argument from the realm of what is true and indicates the group follows the movement regardless of the truth of its assertions or even what it asserts. It is now a cult for the sake of being a cult.

I have replied to Youtube’s notice but I have no idea if the video will be taken down or not.

Frankly, I don’t really care as I have done less and less on Youtube in recent months. It is simply become a forum for the least common denominators on each side of an issue and the exchanges more closely resemble professional wrestling than anything close to intelligent discussion.

This is one of the reasons I decided to reactivate this blog. It is a decision that is looking better all the time.

Corboy note: this comment "More than one comment stated the truth of what Zeitgeist was irrelevant to its importance. It was the idea of the movement that mattered – not the facts they presented. "

To TZM faithful - be careful of craving action for actions sake. Or movement for a movements sake. Umberto Eco has some insights on what this can turn into.

Eco has 14 points. This is just one.

Quote

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

[www.themodernword.com]

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Money problems mentioned here.

Also why some decided to leave.

This page is great good fun if you missed it the first time. Read and enjoy before it disappears.

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote
corboy
http://thezeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com/

(cached)

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

Disclaimer
This site is about examining of the Zeitgeist Movement. Just to be clear, the official Zeitgeist Movement [online benign cult] site is TheZeitgeistMovement.com, and this is not affiliated with them in anyway. The opposition is only with those who think the Zeitgeist Movement is still alive and makes sense and I think it's a good thing that a lot of people decided to jump ship and I hope that they try to find real solutions with the problems we face today.

Article here--alleges the TZM trademark expired. "allege" is the key word. Anyone know about this?

[thezeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com]

More

[zeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com]

(Cache)

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

So you have linked some of the sites I told you about earlier, all from James Kush who has a tendency to twist and sometimes outright lie about TZM. He along with Mario and his "The Zeitgeist Movement examined" basically run what would amount to being the national enquirer of the situation. How is any of this relevant? Other then to point to the obvious childishness of the people who are here trying to convince you that our activist movement is a cult?

Quote
corboy

Quote

A new twist on how the world of cultist’s work arrived today with a notification from Youtube that a “privacy” complaint had been filed against the video.

There is a policy at Youtube where you are not allowed to reveal personal information of another Youtube user or anyone in general.

When I went to the “offending” part of the video, it dealt with an exchange between two well known authors (D M Murdock/Acharya S and Michael Licona) who are on opposite ends of the spectrum. The exchange was completely in public (on their respective webpages) and I merely summarized the contents. Of course, the facts supported Licona and this must have upset one of the Zeitgeist fanboys.

Invasion of the Zeitgeist Cultists
March 7, 2012 Albert McIlhenny No comments

Over the last few years, I have been a vocal critic of the film Zeitgeist by Peter Joseph. It is a conspiracy theory film largely based upon the work of a once popular conspiracy theorist named Jordan Maxwell. The film has three parts with the second and third relaying the usual things one hears from conspiracy theorists about 9/11 and the Federal Reserve. Although I reject the film as a whole, my own criticismI has mainly concentrated on the first part dealing with religion (the film claims Christianity is a solar cult based on the suns travels through the zodiac in imitation of the pagan cults of antiquity) since 1) religion is more my area of interest and 2) I have nothing to add to the other areas that have not been said better by others.

Since the film’s release, Joseph has largely moved on from Maxwell’s ideas to the socio-economic ideas of Jacques Fresco as part of the Zeitgeist Movement he founded. Although I reject those ideas as well, I have little interest in arguing about the floating circular cities of a Buckminster Fuller wannabe. Frankly, the whole thing seems a bit silly and the whole thing falls in on itself once you apply the least bit of critical scrutiny. However, such matters were again not my field of interest and I left it to others to carry on that argument. I might add the occasional snarky comment on posts about the topic elsewhere but the Zeitgeist Movement was not a high priority topic for me.

Despite this, I did keep an eye on its goings on through other sources such as Zeitgeist Movement Examined
[zeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com]

the Zeitgeist Movement Exposed
[thezeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com]

and Muertos
[muertos.blog.com]

– among others. I am quite aware of how the movement has decayed to a hardcore group. However, the first movie still has much appeal as it intersects with various other audiences: some “village atheists” (Part 1), some of the more traditional “big banker” conspiracy theorists (Part 3), the remains of the 9/11 Truth Movement (Part 2), and, of course, the “Coast to Coast AM” crowd in general. Thus I made some videos on the topic, particularly in areas not covered widely by others, and responded to other Youtube users on the subject. I had interaction with supporters of the film – some friendly and others not so friendly – but largely it was at a low level. My videos tended to somewhat technical in the discussion and not very flashy and so the impact was rather limited except for those who were interested in the topic.


One series I had done was titled “Why I Don’t Take Zeitgeist Supporters Seriously” and detailed soem rather basic errors at the very foundation of the first part of the film. For example, Zeitgeist assumes all ancient religions were based upon the zodiac and precession and this went back at least 3000 BC with the Egyptians and perhaps millennia before then. However, the evidence is quite clear that the twelve sign zodiac was not used until around 500 BC when it was developed in Babylon and not used in Egypt until centuries later in the Ptolemaic era. Furthermore, precession was discovered only in the second century BC. This alone eliminates the supposed long standing precedent Christianity allegedly copied.

It gets even worse when you turn to the supposed “astrological ages.” The division of the sky assumed in the film is one agreed upon by modern astronomers in the twentieth century. Using the division present in antiquity, Jesus was many centuries too early to usher in any “Age of Pisces.” Furthermore, when you read the passages in the Bible used to connect it to such “ages,” it merely becomes a game where certain instances of bulls, rams, fish, and water are picked out and others ignored to make it look like it matches their theory.

Once you read the verses in context, the whole thing is rapidly exposed as pure drivel.

The discussion in the video was rather lengthy and not terribly exciting but, for those who wanted to know why scholars keep saying the film was absurd, it was probably necessary. As with many of my videos, it garnered a few hundred views, most soon after I posted it, and then trailed off. A few weeks ago, I was ready to remove the whole series since I had others on the topic that were more recent and thorough.

Then it happened: I had an invasion of Zeitgeist cult followers.

The whole Zeitgeist franchise of Peter Joseph’s has become very much a cult of personality. It also ties in with others of the types discussed earlier and each of these have their own gurus with their own little cults of personality. I am not quite sure how one of my videos became a target but I would guess it must have been referred to in one or more of the various websites catering to one or more of the various cultic constituency group.

I have found the whole thing quite interesting. The video, which had only a few hundred views total before, suddenly had over fifty a day minimun for the last few weeks with two of the days having over 100 hits. There were, of course, a sudden rash of “thumbs down” votes but I expected that in this situation: when you tell someone their little cult is baseless, it does get their knickers in knot – particularly when they have no clue how to answer you.

The Zeitgeist followers have suddenly been put in the position where they thought they had put Christians. They did not like it one bit.

I was more interested, however, in any comments that might be generated both in the video’s comment page and in private messages. These generally followed a definite pattern.

One was to tell me I had no knowledge of the Zeitgeist Movement and that the usual stuff about the “movie is not the movement.”

I replied to this that this video is not about the movement and I never even mentioned the movement but only the movie. It seemed the pattern was repeated on a daily basis with no one ever bothering to read any of the comments below and merely making the same assertions over and over and over. Sometimes they even argued that even though the video was about the movie and not the movement it was still unfair to the movement – as if it were my fault that Peter Joseph made a stupid movie and then later named an unrelated movement after the stupid movie.

Another “response” was to tell me I should shut up unless I had a better solution.

Again I pointed out this had nothing to do with the movement but an aspect of the first movie. But even if I were criticizing the movement, I would not have to give my own solution for the world’s problems to conclude your solution was ridiculous.

Then there were the occasional ones who actually tried to defend the content of the movie.

On these occasions, it became obvious fairly quickly that they had absolutely no knowledge of the basic facts on the ground. They merely assumed what Peter Joseph had told them was true. There is an amazing irony here that they were confident in their criticism of others as blindly following dogma without checking the facts when they were doing the exact same thing.

There were a few cases, however, when some good to come out of it.

I have had a few exchanges were the light seemed to suddenly go on and they realized they had been fed a web of lies by Peter Joseph. I recently did a video series titled the “Wacky World of Jordan Maxwell” that gave some amusing examples of the complete fraudulence of the man who was Peter Joseph’s inspiration for the film. I was able to point some to that series and the reaction was one of surprise and even shock. Zeitgeist is a paper tiger once you know its source.

But perhaps the most interesting responses allude to something Muertos has pointed out in his own blog.

[muertos.blog.com]

Some recent conspiracy theorists are moving away from persuading with alleged facts to emotional and idelogical appeals.

More than one comment stated the truth of what Zeitgeist was irrelevant to its importance. It was the idea of the movement that mattered – not the facts they presented.

This is perhaps the most disturbing since it removes the whole argument from the realm of what is true and indicates the group follows the movement regardless of the truth of its assertions or even what it asserts. It is now a cult for the sake of being a cult.

I have replied to Youtube’s notice but I have no idea if the video will be taken down or not.

Frankly, I don’t really care as I have done less and less on Youtube in recent months. It is simply become a forum for the least common denominators on each side of an issue and the exchanges more closely resemble professional wrestling than anything close to intelligent discussion.

This is one of the reasons I decided to reactivate this blog. It is a decision that is looking better all the time.

Corboy note: this comment "More than one comment stated the truth of what Zeitgeist was irrelevant to its importance. It was the idea of the movement that mattered – not the facts they presented. "

To TZM faithful - be careful of craving action for actions sake. Or movement for a movements sake. Umberto Eco has some insights on what this can turn into.

Eco has 14 points. This is just one.

Quote

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

[www.themodernword.com]

And another obscure blog quoting other obscure blogs as "sources"? I have already demonstrated how these blogs are generally full of lies.

Corboy

Now you are quoting blogs which are quoting each other. You are reading what amounts to people cyberstalking and cyberbullying. And you are re-posting it here. There are false allegations brought up on these blogs constantly. They might take a grain of truth here or there and then fill in the blanks with outright lies.

What is the point? If you are having "great fun" at the expense of others here what does this have to do with TZM or TVP being some sort of cult?

If we are going to trade blog links over and over again I can do that to. But anyone can set up a wordpress or other blog and claim they know what is going on.

You seem to be enjoying the trolling. I guess that's your choice but I thought this forum was supposed to be part of a real effort to expose and analyze cults. Not to reccomend "great fun" articles where people are trolling each other on the internet.

Zeitgeist chapter coordinators and members want to kill 1000's of innocent people

Here is a screenshot archive of the conversation http://s1133.photobucket.com/albums/m591/RonaldoDeLosMuertos/Zeitgeist%20Forum%20Screenshots/

Here is a mirror of the conversation that took place where leaders within Zeitgeist Movement discuss what a great idea it is to murder 1000's of innocent people.

http://shared.skepticproject.com/citations/7/7d9fe6bd64e91ece60b6c70828d1564433c0d78e/
http://shared.skepticproject.com/citations/4/4e25628eb74bfd7a4ca5d1238619d089d0d1e38e/

Zeitgeist Chapter Leaders wanting to kill 1000's of innocent people is nothing to be alarmed about. Lets ignore this data and all data as VTV suggests because lets face it, ZM is benign and none of the evidence of violence and violent intentions really is relevant towards TZM goals etc. ZM is just a benign fringe group with weird beliefs, which happens to attract people bent on hurting others, and as VTV says, this is common for any group.

First, I am a pacifist–Although not absolutely. I understand the fundamental innocence of humanity, the innate value of life. That every human being, regardless of social and political stature later in life, is born equal, born innocent and pure of all conceived evils. What dispositions one develops contrary to the human condition, over the course of life, is molded into one’s fibre despite what one would prefer in an innocent yet knowledgeable state of mind.

The extremely minor group of people to whom I display not the slightest inkling of sympathy (about 1000 people in the United States), I do so understanding very well that by destroying these people we could fulfill multiple objectives critical to improving the human condition (I am a pseudo-utilitarian):

1) Their existence is directly in opposition to our objectives, as our existence is directly in opposition to their objectives:
A) They will not hesitate to employ any political and legal means to hinder our advancement.
B ) They will readily, and without the slightest hesitation, destroy us.
C) They will corrupt and manipulate our image.
D) They will consciously portray us as violent, whether or not we pursue violence–Jared Lee Loughner
2) Their existence is directly detrimental to the well being of every human being:
A) Some of these people have within their grasp the fate of millions if not billions of people–At a mere whim they could toss us all into a state of depravity the likes of which we cannot comprehend.
B ) They have corrupted our institutions of government and social welfare into lackeys in their imperialistic campaigns.
C) They have profited from war crimes–Millions have perished for the sole purpose of increasing their profits.
D) Country, life, god, identity, moral obligations, and the future, are mere words in their vocabulary and play no factor in the decisions they make–Except to manipulate the sheep into supporting their agenda.

Ask yourselves, do you believe they will have this same discussion amongst themselves when they feel their condition of existence is jeopardized by us?

I should also note that I do not believe these things with certainty. I am very well aware of the power of peace and love during social turmoil, as displayed so blatantly by Mahatma Gandhi-But Gandhi did not threaten to destroy the British Empire, he merely struggled for the freedom of a single colony from a single empire. We wish to dispose of countless corporations and nations from existence–To believe that they will merely accept their fate is foolish to say the least. Thousands of Indians perished in the struggle for independence, imagine how many people will perish in the struggle for humanity’s independence from the very ideas of nationality and capitalism.

Here is a response from the Massachusetts Chapter Coordinator:

It is aII weII and good to not participate in vioIence as a Movement as a personaI choice – but we must be carefuI to not engage in horizontal hostiIity and Iook down upon those who do wish to use direct action to dismantIe industriaI civilization. The unfortunate thing is – vioIence is extremeIy effective as a tactic. We can’t put up the Gandhi shieId and ignore reaI proven tactics that resistance movement have used throughout history. It is fine if we as a Movement do not participate – but we cannot stop others from using them. For exampIe – destroying dams or energy infrastructure wouId be extremeIy effective at deIaying the ecocidaI practices that are murdering our pIanet.

Just a thought. I don’t want to participate in vioIence myseIf – but we need it aII and stopping actions that actuaIIy heIps us in the Iong run just because we may happen to not Iike vioIent tactics ourseIves is immature.

This is an above ground movement – but there are underground aspects to any resistance movement.

I should make it abundantly clear before I continue that I am not comfortable discussing this matter, for I am not a very violent person. But with the recent barrage of atrocity preceded by atrocity, I am weak spirited and it has generated within me a sort of fury which has compelled me to consider this option as a sort of temporary remedy to our ails. I certainly hope that everything I am about to say is utterly wrong.

Also, this discussion is not isolated to the movement, but in relation to any individual disposed to revolutionary conduct.

[Violence] does breed more violence. Case in point: The violence inflicted upon the masses by the few has led me to consider applying violence onto the few. This is true, but I don’t think this fact alone is sufficient to render violence an unfavorable option. For I do not believe it is the violence itself that breeds more violence (casualty), but the hate that results from the infliction of the initial set of violence that then increases the probability of violence, as a sort of illogical solution or to avenge the initial violence inflicted (correlation).To analyze whether this would apply to the destruction of the elite we would have to consider multiple factors: How many lives would we save in the long term by destroying these individuals; how many lives we would have to destroy; how lives would be destroyed as a result of the hate generated thereby; etc. Regardless, I believe it would still be to our advantage to destroy these individuals, since a single decision made them jeopardizes many more people than we would destroy.

I must disagree with the statement that violence is a tendency of the uneducated. Since the elite often apply violence to expand their economic and political dominion–I do not consider them uneducated, although perhaps improperly. They apply violence to pursue their objectives and they have succeeded for millenia. I cannot help but believe that I have taken a very twisted and deranged perspective on this issue. But one cannot overlook the fact that violence has in fact assisted them over the centuries and that they are not uneducated.
_
Yes it will also hurt the family and friends of the individuals to be destroyed. But you must also take into consideration that should these people remain alive the choices they make will hurt many many more people. In fact, the number individuals who would be hurt directly by their actions will well surpass, by many many fold, the individuals who will be hurt indirectly by our actions. Although, I would like to believe that if they even a shard of sympathy in their conscious, they will understand that these people are the epitome of evil, and we have every right to destroy them in the enterprise of preserving the continued existence of human life on this planet in as superior a standard as possible. If they have the gall to mourn the loss of these individuals, then they are as tyrannical as the individuals should perish.
_
I would love to remove my violent tendencies, but it is becoming awfully difficult; particularly when I observe the treatment of my fellow revolutionaries by their hands. I wonder how the media would react should one of them experience a mere fraction of what we have experienced?
_

_
“The means IS the end”:
I’m assuming this means that to reach a greater state of existence we must apply those tenants of existence into our regular life (i.e. be the change we wish to see), immediately. Resorting not to extraneous, i.e. violent means, to achieve this greater standard of existence. It makes sense, but I do not believe that this philosophy is set in stone, populations have resorted often to extraneous actions (not reflective of the ends) to achieve the ends without negative ramifications. Consider the struggle for independence of a nation:
_
The actions to which a nation might resort to achieve that independence is not necessarily reflective of the foundations upon which the nation itself will be established once it has disposed of the tentacles of empire.
_
How can I advocate the destruction of life, yet abhor the idea of propagandist tactics? I can, since the destruction of that life would not be inflicted by the revolution; the sanctity of the revolution must stand at all times, preserving it’s pure pacifist stance. A single individual would destroy that life, fully detached from the revolution. And the individual would destroy their life, understanding very well that he is jeopardizing his own in the process. The revolution cannot resort to propagandist tactics, for the use of propaganda would mark a surge of corruption in the revolution: I.E. the rise of the Soviet Union. How would we define the limits of our propaganda? And WHO would define the limits of the propaganda?
_
[It] is of great detriment to us to deny the reality that at least two groups of people exist: The elite, and the masses. For these two groups of people possess two diametrically opposing sets of political and economic interests for which they fight and struggle. The elite are willing to destroy us to preserve their quality of existence, and we are willing to destroy ourselves so that the elite may preserve their quality of existence. Sounds a bit absurd, but this is essentially what happens in war. One group of economically deprived serfs travels thousands of miles to destroy another group of economically deprived serfs so that the elite may preserve their standard of existence. I believe the time has come for the serfs to destroy the elite so that their standards of existence may improve.
_

_
I support [Gandhi’s disposition] as much as the next rational and pacifist individual, I only wonder how long we continue pursuing this before they release the chlorine gas down Main St. They will not surrender! Nothing short of literally killing them will make them stop killing us. You must understand that by preaching pacifism in this regard you are still advocating murder, but of the masses rather than the elite.
_
It is for this reason that I do not believe the revolution itself should be violent. But a clandestine group of individuals; the revolution must continue preaching peace in the streets.
I’m sure you understand that they will have the media on their side during the entire course of events. We will be painted as the most horrific and violent people imaginable. And, chances are, we will have people marching against us.
_
They will stop short at nothing to quell us, and from what I have seen so far we are hardly prepared for the hell that they are going to send us through.
_
_
At this point, the Arizona Chapter coordinator (Arizona killings Jared Loughners Chapter Maybe?) chimes in and urges the violence:

As a movement, we do not condone violence. BUT we can be willing to accept it may take many different tactics considering our goals & what we are up against……I have many other problems with the pacifist use of the idea that force is solely the dominion of those in power. It’s certainly true that the master uses the tool of violence, but that doesn’t mean he owns it.It seems clear to me that violent and nonviolent approaches to social change are complementary and unavoidable even though I would not participate in violent acts unless it was a matter of survival or self defense.
_
Another Zeitgeist Member comments:
Okay, realistically-if our backs our entirely against the wall-what are we going to do?? of course we don’t condone violent behavior against the elite– but -it could get to the point where we have to defend ourselves
_
And still another member:
The use of violence for self-preservation is a basic human right, it’s the only legitimate violence there is……There are some powerfull individuals in the world that only fear a gun. They are beyond the law, and won’t stop until they are forced to. I won’t shoot a politician, but I won’t pass judgement on the man who does either.
We must respect individual violence, since we cannot realy stop it in our midst. When masses try to impulse change, a minority will always be violent (not counting the guaranteed undercover agitators). Maybe they don’t know better, maybe they are desperate, doesn’t matter. We are not a revolutionary army, so we are not responsible for individual violence among us.
Material damage is not violence, nor is resistance to authority.

Still another Zeitgeist Member responds:
IMHO , i wouldnt mind if they all were found dead. Alot of these so called elite are made threw thievery and deceit. A majority of them didn’t become wealthy in a positive way.
_
different members calling to hunt down the potential mass murder victims:
Violence? To whom? Where are the people who are responsible (MORE RESPONSIBLE) for what has been happening and what will happen if we do nothing? I don’t want to hold the organizeable people responsible, but those who organize them. I, myself, don’t think change will happen any other way unless these people are confronted face to face. My interest has shifted today from caring and dedicating energy to topics about reality and science to something along the lines of finding the people responsible….Anyone who has anything to say about being violence should at least know who is causing the most damage and at least dedicate their own energy to finding them and talking to them personally…
_
The original poster is surprised that his fellow zeitgeist members are supporting his 1000 person killing spree Read here:
Although, I must say, I am extremely surprised that this idea has had such a positive reception. I interpret this as a manifestation of our universal angst and impatience. We do not know what to do, for our individual observations of the general mass has lead us all to essentially the same conclusion: That little hope exists within this context, we doubt that we can awaken them before it is too late. As one individual has mentioned previously in this thread: Desperation and hopelessness leads to violence. We must merely ask ourselves whether we can justify this violence.

_
Upon creation I had expected, and, truly, to a much more profound extent, hoped that the bulk would disparage me, raise vehement opposition to what I had proposed. I am not glad that violence is accepted by so many as a legitimate course of action–Regardless of its minor application by a select few in a clandestine fashion.
_
Another member states:
The system will get violent, we are the system. So we can now justify anything we want to.. I hope we can give ourselves a chance too.
_
The original poster chimes in again:
You have provided little to no support for your argument against violence–The fact that you live in a violent society is no reason to oppose violence. Should you have lived in an RBE would that justify opposing an RBE? Certainly not. The argument against violence is, nonetheless, an extremely simple one: To not harm others, understanding that by harming another you are harming yourself, for we are one extended family lost in a twisted world.

I, then, attempt to justify violence by raising the argument that by harming a select few we can prevent them from harming many more.
Certainly, it is a bit unrealistic to hunt down 1,000 of what could be the most difficult game in the world. Then again, we are to some extent disposed to pursuing the unrealistic in this movement. I also understand that they will be replaced.
_
Hunting down 1000 could be a difficult game?
_

_
He continues………..
But consider also the following: 1000 need not die before the people realize the motives behind the actions. I suspect that before even the destruction of a dozen, fear shall sink into the loins of the elite and they will realize that an institution has arisen violently disposed to their existence. Their potential destruction will become a factor in their economic formula. They will debate whether they can afford to risk implementing certain economic policies without being destroyed in return. The destruction of even a handful of the elite will serve a profound symbolic function: That no longer are the people dormant and passive, that no longer will we accept our exploitation and mental corruption; that for so long have our wishes been denied politically, economically and socially that we now seek other mediums to pursue our needs, foremost that of the barrel of a gun. We will no longer subject ourselves to the torment and futility of public and civic display understanding very well that this enterprise is designed well in favor of the established order–Failing dreadfully to fulfill its intended purpose. Perhaps I did not make it clear in the previous posts of mine: TZM will not commit the destruction itself, rather a rouge, clandestine group of individuals detached from any socially progressive movement.
Do you truly believe that this is an attractive proposal to most people?For TZM to destroy them? No.For others to destroy them? I do not know, possibly. That is the purpose of this thread to figure out whether the advantages outweigh the ramifications. Could you really look the children of your victims in the face and tell them that murdering their parent was for the betterment of the world?
If it’s the truth, yes.
By the same logic, wouldn’t killing you and other TZM members be just as justified to others from their point of view?

Possibly. Of course by joining this movement we assume that we have assessed the human condition correctly and that they have a corrupted perspective; therefore if they kill us they will have made a dire mistaken, where as if someone killed them we could praise them for having made a considerable contribution to humanity.

Another member says:
We are all violently inclined given the right circumstances. And we are all participating in structural violence that causes far more death and destruction than all the crime in the world. Yet, very few people openly advocate violence.

It is socially incorrect to do so. But again, look at the mass behavior of humans and you see violence on a large scale. That is why I argue that the pacifist stance is hypocritical.

We are not necessarily what we say we are

Still another Zeitgeist members add:

I’m almost 100% positive that we will need violence in the end to get rid of the last parts of the so called elite but in order to make sure it won’t bounce back on us we need to make sure we are prepared. Preparation means indepandency from their tools, re-educate our self and children, perhaps even going back to basics and learn how to become hunter gatherer. The moment we resort to violence without preparation we will be ridiculed, and even worse….if we are centralised we will be wiped out in a matter of minutes.

Everyone knows what thrives this so called elite, our hunger for consumer goods, usefull and useless…we don’t care. So it’s very simple to draw the conclusion where the solution is, only feed our basic nescesarities, try to get of the grid (rain water can be filtered, power can be caught from waterflows, wind and the sun and instead of a car many of us can use a bicycle. Learn what our planet provides us for nutrition and grow your own foods if possible.

Once these goals are achieved we can resort to eliminating the persons of whom I believe, they have no right of being part of a human society as they think they are above any natural law. They are much easier to pinpoint as we took away their tools of subjugation making them panic and people who panic are prone to making mistakes.

_

Some members want to keep the murder plans secret so the Zeitgeist Movement wont feel heat after the killings:

Perhaps I did not make it clear in the previous posts of mine: TZM will not commit the destruction itself, rather a rouge, clandestine group of individuals detached from any socially progressive movement.Perhaps you’re missing the obvious: You are posting your murder plans on the TZM Forum. When you are caught, TZM will be blamed as well.
_
original poster:
I am well aware that forces exist in this world that people can yield exponentially more powerful than violence, I do not deny this fact. Such as critical thought–That, should a population have this weapon in their possession, tyranny would not find domain within the chambers of our judicial and executive halls. The general deprivation of this force in the people is but one of multiple factors that has compelled me to indulge the possibility of this otherwise heinous act.

again, this data is just for archive purposes. in no way do members and chapter coordinators advancing the notion to mass murder makes the zeitgeist group dangerous or a cult by any means. as VTV says, tis normal for social groups to attract members and chapter coordinators who want to kill alot of people. None of my posts here are meant to classify TZM as a cult, I do not care if they are. I am simply passing on alarming data on this benign fridge group.

I don't expect you to gain anything from it VTV. If you could, you would've already done so. I'm not here to argue with you. We will have to earn the dissociation of cult label with our organization.

Quote
Corboy
Readers who have looked at the sample of material here can decide for themselves whether TZM and its drama represent a good investment of time and emotional/physical energy.

I totally agree, I don't have the time to convince anyone of anything. If they are interested in the problems and resolving them, they can do so. I'm not here to manipulate anyone's perception about anything.

Quote
VTV
"And....?

I deleted some stuff from my facebook group because I was sick of you insinuating TZM is a cult because you were removed from a coordinator position.

Thanks for re-posting most of the argument people gave to you when this came up then. Not sure what you hoped to accomplish by re-posting it here?"

Enough with the hand waving, that is probably not what is really going on, VTV. Your words tell me you don't understand what I said in those discussions, which is why I ultimately had to bring them here. You treated me like dirt for disagreeing with you about something that you still don't seem to quite grasp.

I don't understand your semantics, "Thanks for re-posting most of the argument people gave to you when this came up then. Not sure what you hoped to accomplish by re-posting it here?". If you don't comprehend, then why are you thanking me? I'm pretty sure most people here are now bored and don't care. Do what you want. Mainly I'm here to discuss the words shared between me and VTV in the conversation, but I didn't want to take them out of their contexts, which seems to help from my point of view.

What you are doing can be seen as misinformation and censorship, VTV. Your interests lie in exclusively TZM, that has become abundantly clear. I have said nothing that should or would hurt anyone, but on the other hand, you do. I read your blog and don't see how your behaviour differs from those you are calling out. You are out of practice based on my observation. I am guessing that was a delayed response about Codie Vickers to 2012_CT.

Quote
RickRoss FAQ
Webster's Dictionary defines a cult as:

"1. A formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as "unorthodox or spurious."; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. a: A great devotion to a person, idea, thing; esp.: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad, b: A usually small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure."

This definition obviously could include everything from Barbie collectors to old "Deadheads," "Trekkies" to diehard Elvis fans. American history might also include within such a definition the devoted followers of Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science, or the Mormons united through their devotion to Joseph Smith.

Veneration and devotion for the "Resource Based Economy" , "Peter Joseph" and the top tier "Coordinators" could be included, as promulgated by the founder of TZM and the very few national/international coordinators. Even if there is no direct stated veneration qualifying it to be a cult, TZM still demonstrates that it exhibits characteristics/signs that it is an unsafe group. Also the coordinator structure is designed to give more power to the higher tiers and less power to the lower tiers. Hence, a national coordinator can remove a State coordinator from communication mediums without any discourse from other State Coordinators that are relevant to the decision.

It's still in progress, but my idea to improve TZM would be to change the coordinator structure from this,

International— [Countries]
State/Province— [ Next lower degree regional distinctions within a given Country ]
City/Town— [ Next lower degree regional distinctions within a given State or Province ]

Into this,

International/State/Province/City/Town

There would be no "lower". I would simply make a distinction between regional location, plus no person can occupy the entire country all at once, so should never be considered capable of being responsible for all that. Whoever wants to be listed under any regional level, should be able to make it so themselves. The terms higher and lower implies a pyramidal structure. All coordinators do the same type of things, so could easily work without any leaders of the coordinators. Coordinators aren't even leaders of non-coordinators in their respective chapters, but information relays to help realize organized action on the local levels.

This would flatten the hierarchy, where as long as privileges are not exclusive to any person due to their title, there would effectively be no structural or inherent centralization or 'inverted T' with regards to decision making, hence more compatible with the ideals of our organization. It already self-organizes itself this way, as the people at the highest levels are still heavily influenced by their grassroots chapter proximity. This can be problematic when they inherit more power, and thus have more influence spilling over in the entire global movement. I witness this taking place. The US chapter is centralized around the State Chapter in California, as that is now where the International Coordinator for United States(JenWilding) and Founder(PeterJoseph) both live and organize local events, and feed off each others inherited power. This can very well change, though. This could apply to the whole world, not just the US.

Quote
RickRoss FAQ

Isn't the word "cult" a pejorative label used to discriminate against new religious movements?

No. It is disingenuous to ignore the historical significance and modern day applications of the word cult. Today many controversial groups, that have been called "cults", are seeking to either eliminate the word, or create through fear of litigation a reluctance to use the term. Some cult apologists have literally said that "'cult' is a four letter word," and should be replaced by the politically correct title "new religious movement" (NRM). However, historically cults have always been with us and they continue to be a part of the world today.

Quote
Rick Ross FAQ

What typifies an unsafe group or "cult's" leadership and structure?

Again, a good working understanding has been provided by Margaret Singer: "In most cases, there is one person, typically the founder at the top...decision making centers in him or her." Illustrating the structure Singer says, "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".

Margaret Singer, makes no distinction in the above statements between an unsafe group and an unsafe cult.

Rick Ross Warning Signs

Quote
Myself
”Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. “

National coordinators not answering to anyone other than themselves, and not following the TZM Structure. Making unilateral decisions on behalf of other chapters, overruling sub-coordinator (the structural existence of sub-coordinators that answer to higher ranking coordinators also is of a concern) concerns without rational consensus. It is hierarchy as it is absent rational consensus when warranted as spelled out in TZM Structure. The guidelines don't apply to the people who are in the most critical positions.

“No tolerance for questions or critical enquiry. “

National level coordinator holding my criticism, against me to justify decisions as to whether I am an official coordinator loyal to TZM. So making the personal decision to revoke my privileges that served a function for my chapter's operations.

“No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement. “

I don’t understand who is funding the movement, and how they are funding it and what the costs are for the global movement infrastructure. However, that’s not the most important of concerns at the moment, as their has been some accountability with regards to finances, and there’s no real TZM merchandise that people are being directed to on a continual basis. I think this is a main difference between TVP and TZM, though.

“Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. “

Peter Joseph not disclosing who he really is, out of paranoia that he and his so called ordinary helpless family will be killed or something, and asking/allowing other members to disclose who they really are, as compared to the Anonymous organization. Also Pj making stuff up about his life for perhaps the purposes to improve his image. Again, TZM is not alone, and TVP does really share this warning sign to a degree.

There’s just a lot of things that have never been verified and may negatively impact other members/activists when a time comes when it is forcibly revealed by people who know what they are doing. There are also many people who are not going by aliases, including almost all the rest of the TZM support base. . We can’t have a real conversation until we get confirmation from him or a 3rd party to determine why he truly does obscure his name. I already have hypotheses that seem very valid to me, and if he had gone the more truthful route, it would sully the image of TZM, not put him in mortal danger.

“Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. “

There are others who have been wronged in similar ways to me. There are actually videos concerning Jen Wilding’s lack of accountability on youtube from previous State coordinators. Not saying I share all the same views and opinions as the so called ‘trolls’.

“The group/leader is always right.”

Select few individuals have the power to shut things down in a unilateral manner. This I have already covered. And again, not talking about TZM alone.

Quote
Myself
She [Jen Wilding the sole national coordinator] seems to be making unilateral decisions without consulting with any of the other coordinators in the US nor any in the Missouri chapter (thereby not adhering to the TZM Structure). I was banned for some technical reason (a recent small disagreement that I can barely remember on US chapter meetings + joking around with some people on TS, where others got the wrong idea about what I said in the context–ie me typing “i’m gonna kill all of you” taken out of its context and taken literally) that I have completely debunked already, and she refuses to recognize it. As she is the sole national coordinator of the entire USA, this puts me in bad standing with TZM-US, even though my own chapter definitely thinks otherwise, as they have already put me up again as the St.Charles coordinator. She had taken me off my chapter’s website without consulting with anybody.Even the person (and the moderator who was contacted by that person) who reported me on TeamSpeak said they felt bad for reporting me (i made a bad joke that this person didn’t catch, probably in part due to I didn’t vocalize it and they didn’t get my tone or were not following the conversation going on)..

Quote
Matthew Wagner
Eric, this sounds like another example in a series of missteps of a few key individuals in control of the structure of TZM. Go work with TVP and remove the “middle man” with people who seek to control and govern with their own agendas.

Matthew Wagner was a State Coordinator and after having spoken with even an Administrator for The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project-Ray/Gman, who also has no clue why Jen banned this guy. There is clearly an inverted T structure going on with the present day Zeitgeist Movement organizational structure.

I can also go into who I think Peter Joseph really is, but I'm not saying I am 100% certain of my theory, and would not want you to be either.