Skeptic Project

I comment occasionally on a pro-ZM blog (http://planbfromthebacardiroom.blogspot.com). The fellow there, Ed V., seems to think I have some ulterior motive for criticizing Zeitgeist. As he posted there and at Voice of Reason's blog:

Personally, I think the whole “we are against conspiracy theories” is just the first barrier in their dismissal of Zeitgeist and the Venus Project. Much more lies beyond. Muertos showed some of his cards with his essay about ‘high modernism,’ indicating that other factors are at the core of his disagreement with Zeitgeist as well.
The ‘anti-conspiracy ‘r us’ is just a vehicle which enables them to criticize, deeper sentiments have yet to surface. Maybe some of the critics have to do some ‘soul-searching’ in order to find out what that is.

I gotta ask, what's your problem? Spare me that conspiracy theories are detrimental to our society. People will always talk, make their own conclusions and gossip like old women. It's a fact of life.
I think something else is bugging you beside theories. Playing the conspiracy angle is just a means to an end. There's probably much more at hand here than an old movie with some speculation about religion, 9/11 and men with power. But we'll get to that, Mike.

Here's your chance to speculate on my motives! It can't be because I hate conspiracy theories, disagree with the ZM's ideology and am offended by their contempt for charity, volunteerism and other acts to help people in the real world. Of course not. It must be something else.

No one could really disagree with the substance of the Zeitgeist Movement on its merits...could they?

I should make this a contest. Winner gets a free first edition copy of my "Fire, Metal, Blood & Money" book!

TZM ideology appeals to the paranoid, because you have to be paranoid to believe in it in the first place.

Are you surprised Muertos?

If only TZM realized Conspiracy Science is nothing but a bunch of bored nerds.

"If only TZM realized Conspiracy Science is nothing but a bunch of bored nerds."

Funny how a website with about a dozen regular posters can drive the zeitards crazy.

Don't forget that we're the reason TZM is failing. We're keeping the sheeple asleep

We are the king sheeple who enforce our law.

Dumb people.... I know I did.

I think this attitude is very interesting because it demonstrates something I've long suspected about Zeitgeisters: they simply can't accept disagreement with their ideas.

I've never once heard a Zeitgeister accept that disagreement with their program is in any way legitimate. If you disagree, something is wrong with you. Usually you don't understand, you've been swayed by negative influences, you're jealous of Peter Merola, you're mentally ill, you're just a troll, or you must support the money system.

They seem to accept as an axiom that anyone who truly understands the Zeitgeist Movement will, by definition, agree with them. They are also profoundly ignorant of how imperialistic this assumption is.

Its obvious what your ulterior motive is, you are jealous of the power merola weilds over his zeitards and yearn for his position of power so you too can be respected by hundreds of thousands of interweb fanboys.

Or alternatively you could just think its all bullshit ?

But that's "negative advertising", if you will. Making your guy look better by making the competitor look bad, making the RBE-ideal look better by making the system look bad.

I think it might in fact be the greatest "help" for something like TZM's social ideals to evolve to discredit and debunk this whole nonsensical notion of collapse, as if it were for certain that increasing amounts of debt would somehow determine our demise, instead of (while being more than uncertain) clearly threatening the living conditions in nations that heavily rely on imports (such as England), but leaving most nations in a state that might not be ideal, but clearly far from as catastrophic as TZMers might want to believe.

Thinking that the whole world is a house of cards clearly implies some sort of binary choice - if the ship is sinking, the choice of lifeboat is secondary to actually getting in one, no matter how imperfect it may be. But if the ship is not sinking, but only awaiting a sort of "shake" in the far future that might throw some people off the ship, regarding a binary choice as the only option is just stupid, yet this is what TZM proposes (and some members actually seem to disagree with).

And once TZM gets that, the question goes from "When will people AWAKEN to this impending chaos" to "The faster we act the better, but we do have time to discuss our options first" - and this would include the much needed debates over who controls the movement, what is its strategy and how will they measure success.

Unless this is done, I don't see how following TZM is better than having no idea whatsoever about the global socioeconomic conditions, as its theory of giving everything away for free it complete nonsense given our current problems. You might with a lot of luck reach a state where you can give food, shelter and basic electricity away for free, while charging production costs for anything beyond that, and I still don't understand why TZM is so opposed to that idea.

@CyborgJesus

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis. We do a fair bit of negative advertising, but then it is really easy to do, to point out flaws and propose where we could do better. And I agree we have to get on with the "doing" part. I'll admit when I signed on to this idea I was enamoured with the idea that technology would save us all, a la Ray Kurzweil, but over time I realized that technology although "neat" is only a small part of what we have to do. The biggest part of changing our system is changing our values. Notions of what motivates us and the recognition of the paradox of choice are key parts to changing our system. Our current use for the majority of us to the current economic system is that of a consumer, that is how we contribute, but to fulfill that role we must first sell our labour for money. And we are not necessarily selling our labour for the most rewarding or beneficial tasks (from a community perspective). So when it comes to the economy, the only things it values is our labour and our spending, and if it can't quantify our actions in terms of either, it has no value. That seems cold.

@Matt
We are good at adaptation, but we are not good with rapid change. We tend to panic and die in large numbers until a small subset of us get a handle on it. That is punctuated evolution for you. I would like to avoid that scenario if at all possible, and if you say it won't happen I'd like to believe you, but I can't just take you at your word you understand.

@TeeZedem:

Have you read this?
http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/2010/10/24/seeing-like-a-state-why-zeitgeists-world-changing-visions-are-a-recipe-for-disaster/

I'll admit when I signed on to this idea I was enamoured with the idea that technology would save us all, a la Ray Kurzweil, but over time I realized that technology although "neat" is only a small part of what we have to do.

Well, I think it's only fair to amend that with a confession on my own: What interested me in TVP/TZM was actual social engineering - see Nudge for examples. Don't "hope" that people will change their values and habits, but make them do it without using any kind of force or coercion. Changing pre-checked boxes in forms from yes to no or vice-versa is an easy example. I think that with enough thought - and obviously experiment - this could be applied to the economic system as a whole. Drowning people in advertisements and then airing useless discussions about how humanity is ruining the planet by consuming so much is a complete contradiction, and also shows that nudging people is clearly part of this society, it just doesn't seem to be used in any sensible way.

Sadly, and to my confusion, TZM has changed its course away from this idea and seems to promote a sort of anarchy, away from the (essential) use of technology, away from (essential) social engineering, to a blank slate type of anarchy in which societies will be able to deal with hardship, if people just learn the right values. This strikes me as particularly condescending, unscientific nonsense you'd find in the writing of Mao or similar thinkers, which has been proven wrong by history again and again.