PoopMeat

I'm a free market advocate and participate in this discussion every Monday and am able to hold my own there. I agree loud does not mean someone is right therefore I use logic and reason to back up my claims. There have been instances where I have been shouted at but more times than not I can hold my own. I realize when going into a communication medium where it's not hospitable for free market thinking; that I follow their rules and act polite but also use logic and reason to get my points across not various forms of logical fallacies which for TVP and TZM seems to mostly be appeal to emotion. I've handled my own in a room full of TVP./TZMers and most have been able to tolerate me. That's how I first met outbound actually. I do not think of the open discussion as hostile I'm able to get my understanding across, therefore I don't see a reason for you not to come and see your viewpoints either through possible debate. They may or may not start trouble with you I can't guarantee that but if you compose yourself and follow your line of reasoning while they go on attack or appeal to emotion as the bases of their argument, you will be a much better person and you will look much better in any discussion you have.

@Armitage prove it

Well if it wasn't a problem you wouldn't be on here seeking help. There are probably issues there.

I have read the books even when I didn't agree with the ideology I attempted to develop a RBE criteria by listening to TVP lectures I have observed TVP and TZM for years. I have to say after reading what you write you don't really understand what a RBE is as I have proven above. Wrong you better be interested in hair splitting when you talk about a unproven ideology such as RBE. I see cognitive dissonance at work here lol Wrong you said "RBE is an idea. A RBEM as you say is a model." that's not the correct definition of a RBEM that's your generalization. You just made stuff up and tried to pass it off as a RBEM/word salad now your trying to deflect and say you you never treid to define a RBEM even though I just pointed out you just did. Wrong you should care because I'm pointing out how ignorant you are of your own RBE ideology you claim to of studied. I clearly know more than you on a RBE then again I know more about a RBE than most members of TVP. You don't really care about science or technology in a RBE you just want to live in a utopia where you can be a bum and not work. Wrong you clearly again and again do not understand your RBE ideology therefore you shouldn't be advocating a ideology you don't even understand. wrong you just want a utopia where you don't have to work cause your lazy. You don't know your own RBE ideology you shouldn't be speaking on behalf of it. Wrong you clearly have demonstrated your ignorance of RBE ideology. You don't believe in science when you believe in a RBE. Not proven, not scientific, no academic peer review, no academic review at all, horrible idea, feces is a RBE. Often people preaching for a RBE will claim it's based on science but when one asks them to show the science they say they don't need science, scientists are overrated and Fresco is the proof, or we don't need science it's like eating a hamburger it just works.A RBE is mostly a dogma based belief system at which only works in the believers mind much like Scientology or Destinian belief system. Again RBE is not science, is not open source, has no working model, zero historical presidence (unless including socialism), no academic peer review but it does have believers whose ideology is purely based on faith. Wrong, you don't know what your RBE ideology is as I have proven above, I doubt you know about anything else. Wrong, I asked you what the different forms of RBE/RBEM's definitions are you knew nothing and were not correct in the ideologies at all I was the one who had to correct you several times on a ideology you claim to known therefore to me you seem to not know much about your own RBE ideology. If your wrong I'm going to call you out and I'm center of left who believes in the free market which happens to be values libertarians adopt as well. At that I call you wrong because in fact your wrong, that's not violent it's the truth your wrong, learn to take criticism better it's not an attack you just do not know what you are talking about with your RBE ideology as I have proven above several times.

I'm just a bit shocked you would have no clue what a RBEM is though. If you are not in TVP or TZM or TVP authorities forums then why would you speak on behalf of them or a RBE? Defend them or a RBE? It doesn't really sound like your really that involved in your own ideology much at all really so what makes you think you can speak on a RBE/RBEM? I will have to explain a ideology that you claim you have studied. A RBE aka resource based economy is made by the venus project, a RBEM aka Resource based economic model is a ideology made by Peter for the Zeitgeist movement which is a ripped off ideology of TVP. [1] [2] Refences in responce to what a RBEM is as opposed to a RBE: [1] http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/4765/my-open-source-text-response-to-tzmbigsteelguy-youtube-video/#reply-f7926829 TZM RBEM definition RBEM term is now on the new tzm website. RBE vs RBEM: Out of a general respect to TVP's work with what they consider to be the proprietary notion of a "Resource-Based Economy" [RBE] and its definition, TZM adapted to the term "Resource-Based Economic Model" [RBEM] to separate the Fresco-specific association/definition and also allow for a more general flexible understanding of the premise. Strategy: In their communication, TVP, tends to source themselves as the solution and hence operate as an Institution, often claiming intellectual ownership of various ideas of Jacque Fresco. For example, the term and hence definition of a "Resource-Based Economy" was sought for Copyright by TVP in 2010. TZM does not limit its solution reference to TVP or any single person or institution and also does not claim ownership or origination of any idea promoted. Instead, it focuses on the underling reasoning behind the approach of applying Scientific Efficiency to society, sourcing the whole of scientific inquiry indiscriminately, without the emphasis on any specific institution or figure. It could be argued that all knowledge is serially developed through cultural and informational evolution and the concept of "Credit" and "Institutional Proprietary" becomes intellectually untenable in reality. This is not to say that those with expert authority are no to be favored in a situation that needs such merit in application. But, on the data/reasoning level, information always stands on its own and endures its own logical scrutiny and the messenger becomes unimportant. TZM see the Values System Shift and educational imperative as the most critical issue at this time which is why public interaction programs are at the forefront. The highly specific technical designs characteristic of TVP which would actually comprise the mechanics of the social system are seen to emerge as a natural consequence once the train of thought is digested by the public. Furthermore, TZM, while working to promote the open source train of thought to educate the public as its most important goal through community interaction and media, it also has a more traditional activist side, with ongoing Food Drives, Protest Actions and Charity work to help ease the growing stress being caused by this system. TVP engages no larger order activism or charity actions and, again, operates solely for the expression of the work of Jacque Fresco. (5) What are some of the central characteristics of the solution proposed (RBEM)? No Money or Market System Automation of Labor Technological Unification of Earth via "Systems" Approach. Access over Property. Self-Contained/Localized City and Production Systems. Science as the Methodology for Governance 1) No money or market system. Market theory assumes a number of things which have proven to either be false, marginally beneficial, or outright socially detrimental. The core problems to consider are the following: A) The need for "Infinite Growth" which is mathematically unsustainable and ecologically detrimental. The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and "economic growth". In order to keep people employed, people must constantly consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources. B) A "Corruption Generating" Incentive System. It is often said that the competitive marketplace creates the incentive to act for the sake of social progress. While this is partially true, it also generates an equal if not more pronounced amount of corruption in the form of planned obsolescence, common crime, wars, large scale financial fraud, labor exploitation and many other issues. The vast majority of people in prison today there because of monetary related crime or non-violent drug offenses. The majority of legislation exists in the context of monetary-based crimes. Also, if one was to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others - it is found that they did not find their motivation in the prospect of monetary gain. The interest to make money must not be confused with the interest to create socially beneficial products and very often they are even at odds. C) A disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe rather than to produce locally. We import bananas from Ecuador to the US and bottled water from Fuji Japan, while western companies will go to the deprived 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc. Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs. This "cost efficiency" generates extreme "technical inefficiency" and is only justifiable within the market system for the sake of saving money. In a RBEM, the focus is maximum technical efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor as compared to methods today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the "strategically best" possible goods. (see more below) In other words, the system is planned, to maximize efficiently and minimize waste. D) A propensity for "Establishments". Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition, if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit and hence power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self perpetuation. If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created whereas anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a "competition" mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level- which is the competition against new advents which would make them obsolete, outright. The best way to expand on this point is to simply give an example, such as the US Government and 'Big Oil' collusion to limit the expansion of the fully Electric Car (EV) in the US. This issue was well presented and sourced in the documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car?". The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well being of those on the pay role, leads to an inherent tendency to stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to adsorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations ( ie - the perpetuation of "Hybrid" cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance.) There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced progressive drugs which would void existing/profitable ones. In a RBE, there is nothing to hold back developmental/implementation of anything. If safe and useful, it would immediately be implemented into society, with no monetary institution to thwart the change due to their self-preserving, monetary nature. E) An inherent obsolescence which creates inferior products immediately due to the need to stay "competitive" This little recognized attribute of production is another example of the waste which is created in the market system. It is bad enough that multiple companies constantly duplicate each others items in an attempt to make their variations more interesting for the sake of public consumption, but a more wasteful reality is that due to the competitive basis of the system, it is a mathematical certainty that every good produced is immediately inferior the moment it is created, due the need to cut the initial cost basis of production and hence stay "competitive" against another company... which is doing the same thing for the same reason. The old free market adage where producers "create the best possible goods at the lower possible prices" is a needlessly wasteful reality and detrimentally misleading, for it is impossible for a company to use the most efficient material or processes in the production of anything, for it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis. They very simply cannot make the "strategically best" physically - it is mathematically impossible. If they did, no one would buy it for it would be unaffordable due the values inherent in the higher quality materials and methods. Remember - people buy what they can afford to. Every person on this planet has a built in limit of affordability in the monetary system, so it generates a feedback loop of constant waste via inferior production, to meet inferior demand. In a RBEM, goods are created to last, with the expansion and updating of certain goods built directly into the design, with recycling strategically accessed as well, limiting waste. You will notice the term "strategically best" was used in a statement above. This qualification means that goods are created with respect to state of affairs of the planetary resources, with the quality of materials used based on an equation taking into acct all relevant attributes, rates of depletion, negative retroactions and the like. In other words, we would not blindly use titanium for, say, every single computer enclosure made, just because it might be the "strongest" materials for the job. That narrow practice could lead to depletion. Rather, there would be a gradient of material quality which would be accessed through analysis of relevant attributes - such as comparable resources, rates of natural obsolescence for a given item, statical usage in the community, etc. These properties and relationships could be accessed through programming, with the most strategically viable solution computed and output in real time. It is mere issue of calcualtion. F) A propensity for monopoly and cartel due to the basic motivation of growth and increased market share. This is a point that economic theorists will often deny, under the assumption that open competition is self regulating that that monopolies and cartels are extremely rare anomalies in a free-market system. This "invisible hand" assumption holds little validity historically, not to mention the outstanding legislation around the issue, which proves its infeasibility. In America, there have been numerous monopolies, such as Standard Oil and Microsoft. Cartels, which are essentially Monopolies by way of collusion between the largest competitors in an industry, are also persistent to this day, while less obvious to the casual observer. In any case, the "free market" itself does not resolve these issues - it always takes the government to step in and break up the monopolies. This aside, the more important point is that in an economy based on "growth", it is only natural for a corporation to want to expand and hence dominate. After all, that is the basis of economic stability in the modern world - expansion. Expansion of any corporation, always gravitates toward monopoly or cartel, for, again, the basic drive of competition is to out do your competitor. In other words, monopoly and cartel are absolutely natural in the competitive system. In fact, it is inevitable, for again, the very basis is to seek dominance over market share. The true detriment of this reality goes back to the point above- the inherent propensity of an "Establishment" to preserve its institution. If a medical cartel is influencing the FDA, then new ideas which void that cartel's income sources will often be fought, regardless of the social benefits being thwarted. G) The market system is driven, in part, by Scarcity. The less there is of something, the more money that can be generated in the short term. This sets up a propensity for corporations to limit availability and hence deny production abundance. It is simply against the very nature of what drives demand to create abundance. The Kimberly Diamond Mines in Africa have been documented in the past to burn diamonds in order to keep prices high. Diamonds are rare resources which take billions of years to be created. This is nothing but problematic. The world we live in should be based on the interest to generate an abundance for the world's people, along with strategic preservation and streamlined methods to enable that abundance. This is a central reason why, as of 2010, there are over a billion people starving on the planet. It has nothing to do with an inability to produce food, and everything having to do with an inherent need to create/preserve scarcity for the sake of short term profits. Abundance, Efficiency and Sustainability are, very simply, the enemies of profit. This scarcity logic also applies to the quality of goods. The idea of creating something that could last, say, a lifetime with little repair, is anathema to the market system, for it reduces consumption rates, which slows growth and creates systemic repercussions (loss of jobs, etc.). The scarcity attribute of the market system is nothing but detrimental for these reasons, not to mention that it doesn't even serve the role of efficient resource preservation, which is often claimed. While supply and demand dictates that the less there is of something, the more it will be valued and hence the increased value will limit consumption, reducing the possibility of "running out"--- the incentive to create scarcity, coupled with the inherent short term reward which results from scarcity driven based prices, nullifies the idea that this enables strategic preservation. We will likely never "run out" of oil, in the current market system. Rather, the prices will become so high that no one can afford it, while those corporations who own the remaining oil, will make a great deal of money off of the scarcity, regardless of the long term social ramifications. In other words, remaining scare resources, existing in such high economic value that it limits their consumption, is not to be confused with preservation that is functional and strategic. True strategic preservation can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient technical applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation. [2] Here is TVP defnition of a RBE http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/4765/my-open-source-text-response-to-tzmbigsteelguy-youtube-video/#reply-10656359 Here is a TVP definition of a RBE What is a Resource-Based Economy? To transcend these limitations, The Venus Project proposes we work toward a worldwide, resource-based economy, a holistic social and economic system in which the planetary resources are held as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants. The current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant, counter-productive, and falls far short of meeting humanity's needs. Simply stated, within a Resource Based Economy we will utilize existing resources - rather than money - to provide an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner. It is a system in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude. To better understand a resource-based economy, consider this. If all the money in the world disappeared overnight, as long as topsoil, factories, personnel and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we needed to fulfill most human needs. It is not money that people require, but rather free access to most of their needs without worrying about financial security or having to appeal to a government bureaucracy. In a resource-based economy of abundance, money will become irrelevant. We have arrived at a time when new innovations in science and technology can easily provide abundance to all of the world's people. It is no longer necessary to perpetuate the conscious withdrawal of efficiency by planned obsolescence, perpetuated by our old and outworn profit system. If we are genuinely concerned about the environment and our fellow human beings, if we really want to end territorial disputes, war, crime, poverty and hunger, we must consciously reconsider the social processes that led us to a world where these factors are common. Like it or not, it is our social processes - political practices, belief systems, profit-based economy, our culture-driven behavioral norms - that lead to and support hunger, war, disease and environmental damage. The aim of this new social design is to encourage an incentive system no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people toward self-fulfillment and creativity, both materially and spiritually. http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/faq Resource Based Economy The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society. A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all. Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war. In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power. At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary. A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern. Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat. A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people. What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy. As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity. With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities. If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold. Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such. http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy The Venus Project-Resource Based Economy The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic social and economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society. A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo Wrong actually you just made that up, here I'll correct you on that. A RBEM is basically TZM's version of a RBE. It also indicates in a RBEM the definition of a RBEM is different than a RBE as well which you neglect to suggest what the difference between a RBE and RBEM is. [1] At that TVP does not endorse a RBEM and has said so in their lectures as TZM distorts TVP's RBE and what it does. Refernce: [1] http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/4765/my-open-source-text-response-to-tzmbigsteelguy-youtube-video/#reply-f7926829 RBE vs RBEM: Out of a general respect to TVP's work with what they consider to be the proprietary notion of a "Resource-Based Economy" [RBE] and its definition, TZM adapted to the term "Resource-Based Economic Model" [RBEM] to separate the Fresco-specific association/definition and also allow for a more general flexible understanding of the premise. Wrong, since we're talking about a RBE we're talking about TVP ideology not TZM's RBEM ideology. TVP is very specific at least it says so and does not want to be mixed up in any other ideology except TVP ideology as other ideologies do not have the direction of where TVP's ideology wants to go. [1] Reference: Threats towards TVP [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX2IfjZXJZg#t=23m10s I agree it was to note the name of TZM's RBE is now called a Natural law resource based economy. Wrong, TVP made up RBE in the first place. Just because Peter says a RBE is this does not make it so. If you agree with a RBE then you agree with TVP if you agree with a RBEM then you agree with TZM. TVP and TZM ideology cannot mix because both are attempting to differentiate from each other. It's clear to me you do not even know what your own ideology is with a RBE. At that asking you if you know the differences between a resource based economy, resource based economic model, Earth economy [1], natural law economy [2], and natural law resource based economy [3], is futile. Don't get me wrong there are differences but you clearly do not know what they are even within your own TVP and TZM parameters/ Though most TVP and TZM do not understand their own ideology nor are familiar with any form of economic thinking in general as well as it doesn't help when Peter says economists are bad and it's a waste of time to learn about economics. The problem here is most free market advocates at least know what they are talking about, you however clearly do not even know your own ideology. Though I know more than the average person when it comes to TVP and TZM's ideology it's also pretty sad. To refute TVP and TZM I often had to bone up not necessarily TVP or TZM website but on Marxism and studying the different socialist societies of the world. You've not answered any of my question and I deliberately asked you those question for a reason, I wanted to gage your knowledge on a RBE and RBEM at which you have no clue and at which I very much have a clue on. [1] Earth Economic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Economics [2] Natural Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural+law http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq LAW121 - Natural Law Theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqtsExnYeFI Natural Law Theory in less than 6 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IQqKHVhJ0g [3] Natural law resource based economy Jen Wilding- Natural Law, Resource-Based Economy Presentation 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikSQcej4wHU http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/mission-statement http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I figured out something kind of funny with TZM awhile ago if you really examine the terminology they/Peter use which is basically that TZM believes in a ripped version of TVP's RBE which they call a RBEM which specifically is natural law resource based economic model. In short Peter/TZM says Natural law is based on science which to believe in natural law one has to believe in God therefore that would make TZM RBEM creationists LOL because of course believing God made everything is a science.... Peter doesn't know what he's talking about he's a total buffoon much like most of the member base in TVP and TZM. So TZM is basically promoting creationism which they call a Natural Law resource Based Economy or RBEM.

It would be most convenient if you could do teamspeak but I'll ask. I know you have been contacting TZM and TVP I just wanted to point you in a direction where you would encounter more indivduals who beleive in that particular ideology. Why talk to one when you can meet a group of them to debate?

@Armitage interesting so you don't think a RBEM is very good but a RBE is better. Got another question. I've heard various terminology spinoff's of a RBE. What is the difference of a resource based economy, resource based economic model, Earth economy, natural law economy, and natural law resource based economy? [1][2] Refernces . RBE VS RBEM VS Earth Economy VS Natural Law Economy http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5519/australian-tzm-member-david-zwolski-upsets-the-leaders-of-tz/#reply-bf3228ef ECONOMIC CALCULATION in a NATURAL-LAW/ RESOURCE-BASED ECONOMY -Peter Joseph http://www.eventbrite.de/e/economic-calculation-in-a-natural-law-resource-based-economy-peter-joseph-tickets-8908291941

Read through everything have to say you married into a situation thinking it would resolve your problems was a bad idea. Then you finding out things do not work out after having two kids isn't that surprising. I think you knew the situation you were getting yourself into, that in fact you know she had the ability or possibility to cheat while in a relationship with others as well as she's interested in love but also in money as well. I'm not so shock as to why she would cheat during marriage my question is why would you think she is marriage quality when her actions are pretty much antimarriage? To me she is not marriage quality, so in my opinion I'm not sure why you would salvage that unless it's for the kids and even then I'd have a tough time rationalizing that. You will have to think long and hard before you decide on anything To me this is a woman that has a lot of problems emotionally and at some extent can be cruel to people she says she loves. Certainly one could give her a pass because we know so much about her horrible childhood or whatever but to me I don't give passes. That's not an excuse as to how she is acting now, and you shouldn't accept this type of attitude or actions she is doing. She wasn't marriage quality to start with and I'm certainly not surprised she still isn't in my opinion. Marriage is something your lover hasn't earned the right to have with you by her actions alone. Certainty you didn't do everything right but the majority of the blame does not go towards you though putting blame on something doesn't solve anything. Figure out a next course of action. I almost feel like you do not really know her, and that you need to extract yourself from being married to her and just be her friend. It's hard when kids and marriage title is involved as there can certainly be a lot of emotions involved but right now she hasn't earned that right to be in a marriage with you, and thinking that getting married with a person like that would solve all the problems has created even more problems. Right now my thoughts are you need to reevaluate the situation, maybe your not in a marriage maybe she can be your friend for now and not even a lover. You are to close to the situations and I don't think this qualifies as a marriage to start with. Just be her friend, be someone she can go too and tell you her problems, redefine your situation with her because that's important when kids are involved. Maybe you or both come to a conclusion that you married for the wrong reasons, maybe you and her bonds strengthen, maybe you find a different relationship altogether (possibly become good friends and can avoid going to court/still see your kids). I feel like your really to close to the situation when you identity yourself as being married to her when in my opinion she hasn't earned the right and at the actions she has done while being in a so called marriage. If things go in a direction where marriage is no longer a reality try to solve problems without getting the lawyers invovled. I think whatever your call is you explain the situation with the kids and don't try to sugar coat anything but tell them the whole situation. Maybe even explain your reasoning for getting married and the other things you mentioned in the above post to your kids as well. I don't believe you should hide things from your kids. To finish this off it was her choice to move to the U.S. for you. Don't feel that it was just for you. I find it hard to trust someone who had cheated in a relationship with your best friend and you to be someone who is trusty worthy or honest but rather she does things on impulse as to keep herself happy. At that to consider her marriage quality after she essentially was cheating on the person she was in a relationship with then technically cheat on her secret lover with another lover (you) kind of shows bad judgment on your part to suggest she's marriage quality. She needs to deal with her issues in a different way without using others so she can be happy. If in the pursuit of her happiness she doesn't consider your happiness then she really is just using you to satisfy her own needs and you should recognize this and act accordingly. You and her should want to make each other happy not be with her to make you happy and vice versa. You have to protect your own interests when she could care less about your interests. If you contiure down the path you are going it will be physiologically straining. She wasn't marriage quality and if you decided to separate you may not realize or believe me now but there are more fish in the sea more qualified for the marriage title. You just have to have better judgment for a particular person who actually can handle the marriage title.

Hi, I am not apart or subscribe to TVP or TZM or RBE but I have found a individual by the name of Outbound who supports a RBE and is willing to debate you. He has a lot of criticisms towards the video you made. Outbound attends TZM open dicussion meetings (not official meetings) every Monday at 10 pm est. Outbound welcomes you or anybody else (including freedomain radio memebers) to attend the meeting anytime on TZM team speak 3 for open dicussions that are held every monday. They are holding a meeting later on today at 10 pm EST if you want to debate today. TZM teamspeak connect info Open dicussion meetings held ever monday on TZM team speak 3 server at 10 PM EST Server:[/size]thezeitgeistmovement.com Pass: ts_129tzm [/size] Teamspeak 3 download[/size] http://www.teamspeak.com/?page=downloads How to install teamspeak[/size] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S32AGZdY5yA click link below to go directly to channel after download and install teamspeaks 3[/size] Open Discussion Teamspeak 3 channel How to read UTC (Zulu) Time Conversion Chart[/size] http://www.scc-ares-races.org/generalinfo/utcchart.html

We are apart of nature so if we are affecting nature I just see it as only a natural progression. Whose to say it's wrong if we change earths environment not to necessarily deterraformimg it but to reterraform [1] it so its a more hospitable environment for everyone. At that we've had several major deterraforming that have happened on earth where commets were the main cause for major life extinction [2]. Is a commet not natural as well? I don't think it's bad eating animals and plants it's the way our society natural progressed through nature. I hope through our natural progression that we develop technology that allows you to regain sight along with other problems technology can solve within our society thanks to the market place. Reference: Terraforming [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming Extinction event [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

@Armitage Got a question. What is the difference between a resource based economy and a resource based economic model?

That depends on you if you want to stay together or breakup. I cannot nor anyone can say if you should stay in your marriage or leave. However I'll throw up my thoughts on this. I never get why two people agree to get married and essentially be exclusive towards each other if one or the other or both decide to cheat. It's kind of pointless in getting married then. Maybe when you can think rationally and develop some type of questions for her as well as she develop questions for you and at some point make time to ask each other questions which such question may possibly be if she even wants to be married, what she thinks of marriage, Does she think seeing other people while married is a good definition or standard of what a marriage should be. I myself an not married or have kids, nor am I a therapist though I have seen friends and had to be a Dr. Phil many of times when these types of occurrence came up. However if you are considering getting a divorce or even if your not I think it would be a good idea (I could be wrong) to explain to your kids the problem you have with their mother or you and her sit down and tell the kids what happen explaining to them what a marriage is and in a nicest way possible explain how mommy was seeing somebody else and doing things that only marriage couples should do therefore was violating their marriage. Try to articulate your anger as clear and concise as possible verbally to your kids or wife with little to no anger as possible as to why you are upset. For the kids may be try to suggest to your kids a scenario where what if you and your bestfriends had a agreement and your one best friend in the world violated that agreement. Would you trust them the same way as you once did? Would you question if you still wanted to be best friends with them? Ask this on your wife too. I just don't feel hiding things from your kids is a good approach, kids are a lot smarter than people give them credit for. Even if the kids are not of age to really understand at somepoint they need to understand what happened. I understand people change overtime and your wife is allowed to change. If she changes she's allowed to and she's allowed to opt-out of marriage as well which is fine. I mean in all reality would you want to be stuck with somebody who doesn't even like you or wants to uphold a real marriage. I suspect she's not going to give you a honest answer if you pose any questions to her and you will have to accept that fact however you will have to think long and hard if this is the sort of thing you want to continue with. Questions you may need to ask yourself is if your willing to accept the fact that your married to a person who could possibly in the future violate your marriage again? If she cheats again will you accept this as your standard of marriage? Are you only staying in until your youngest turns 18 then you will get a divorce? If your willing to accept the possibility that your wife may cheat again and are willing to keep the marriage anyways then your choice to stay with her may be easier if not then you will have a very hard choice ahead. If you are not willing to accept that she could cheat but are wanting to keep the marriage together it may possibly but it may be a constant mind battle to questions if she's cheating or not. In general it may be a mind battle if she's telling the truth or lying. You've gotta ask yourself if it's worth the mind battle for maybe the rest of your life. I think the best course of action is to always try to articulate your anger to get others to understand why you are upset. Although Stefan may disagree I do not think therapy is the best course of action and in my opinion should be avoided. You go to therapy and are constantly reminded and rehashing of problems in the past over and over and over again. Certainly their is some grain of truth to things affecting peoples actions that happened within their childhood however I believe that people will believe in these things merely by believing that this beleif manifests into reality within their personality and then a problem that didn't really exist before exists [1]. I think people just need to be able to articulate their problems better so others can understand and just simple communication (not that, that will help the situation). I think the best therapists are family and friends so I don't really get why one needs to go to a therapists in the first place when there are more approachable and free solutions their for a person, you just have to utilize youe network, even going online and telling strangers your problems helps as well. Refernces: Kelly McGonigal: How to make stress your friend [1] youtube description: Stress. It makes your heart pound, your breathing quicken and your forehead sweat. But while stress has been made into a public health enemy, new research suggests that stress may only be bad for you if you believe that to be the case. Psychologist Kelly McGonigal urges us to see stress as a positive, and introduces us to an unsung mechanism for stress reduction: reaching out to others. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcGyVTAoXEU

Members of TVP and TZM are rationalizing their way through cognitive dissonance basing their argument on various forms of logically fallacy than on science. I have 3 quotes members on Skepticproject.com have said that stand out to me when talking about TVP and TZM in explaining TVP and TZM organization throughout the years as well as the various logical fallacies implemented to lead them to irrational actions within these two small fringe groups which are entirely internet based. SP member quote 1 SP member quote 2 SP member quote 3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Really how so? Just because you say it's so doesnt mean it's so. Ok so go make your RBE I won't stop you. Actually there is a bit of a story behind this. I'll copy and paste the relevant info. Peter was upset at something else, the Australian chapter TZmers did which is write a debunk Venus project article and post it in their magazine. TZM Australia agreed to take the TVP debunk article out of their magazine through a democratic vote, that wasn't good enough for PEter, Peter was upset they didn't take it down immediately and instead conduct a vote within their chapter to take it off. Therfore Peter decided to flex his muscle a bit and not only make TZM Australia chapter a unofficial chapter of TZM but also demanded the Australian chapter take down the TZM dvd section they had on the site through legal threats. I could point out numerous examples of other websites that have a TZM DVD section on their site and Peter to my knowledge has done nothing to them. Funny thing is Peter was actually the person who told the makers of the magazine about TVP making $200,000 for the big budget movie the inspire the author of the magazine to write about TVP. Peter looked at the TVP debunk article and approved of it being posted in the Australian based magazine before hand. Peter only had a negative reaction to the article he approved after TVP wrote a responce to it, Peter attempted to distance himself in a attempt to save face with TVP in possible hope of reconnecting back with TVP in the near future.

This is a bit interesting you say this because TVP leaders Roxanne and Fresco and TZM leader Peter Joseph are very much captalists interacting within the market as the rail against the system. Peter Joseph in TZM movie 2 rails against Wal-Mart yet we see he cut a deal with Gravitas and has his movie sold in places like walmart, best buy etc.. I see a lot of hypocrisy time and time again in the things Peter says versus what he does. I will not down Rox/Fresco/Peter for making money I actually support it however if I was a member of TVP or TZM I would see the hypocrisy in railing against money yet see Fresco/Roxanne/Peter making money within there own cause lol... I don't agree with Stefan Molyneux on everythnig but one thing we do agree on is we need more free market within the market system because everybody will benefit from that (at least that's what I believe Stefan is trying to get across). Stefan is walking the walk but Peter well he's talking and he sure likes to talk a lot but he certainly doesn't walk the walk. Heck Peter doesn't even interact with his own TZM community much unless he needs something done. By TVP/TZM logic if someone else makes money it's bad unless it's Fresco/Roxanne/Peter because of course their saving the world! So basically the leaders of TVP and TZM are in fact not really for capitalism unless it's for themselves which certainly does not represent free enterprise values. I don't blame TVP/TZM because they are trying to protect there own interest but the rest of us are fools if we let them get away with it. If there was a better way as you say then it would of be implemented by TVP leaders Rox/Fresco or TZM leader Peter Joseph or somebody else by now. If you think you can do a better job then go and do your RBE, get credible academics to write about it etc... People are rational if it works and it's better they will go to it. However I won't be joining a RBE but I won't stop you from making RBE cities as well. Here are some examples of TVP/TZM leaders capitalist ventures within there groups: Peter through a joint venture with Gravitas is selling his movies at walmart and other online retail chains, the very retail chains he says are bad and not to shop there. Also Peter is going threatening to sue a TZMer if he does not take his movies off a TZm Australian site. http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5519/australian-tzm-member-david-zwolski-upsets-the-leaders-of-tz/#reply-2caede87 NEtflix TZM http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Zeitgeist_The_Movie/70106739?locale=en-US Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (2011) http://www.walmart.com/ip/20595380 Zeitgeist: The Addendum (2008) http://www.walmart.com/ip/20590312 On Amazon zeitgeist: Addendum (2008) http://www.amazon.com/Zeitgeist-Addendum-Peter-Joseph/dp/B00443YDWK Selling t-shirts, and dvd's. http://www.gentlemachineproductions.com/ Zeitgeist - Cost of Movie http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/cost/ TVp raised money for "The Choice is Ours" documentary series. Raised over 75K http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thechoiceisours/the-choice-is-ours-documentary-series More on Peter Josephs Gentle machine company http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5539/archiving-anticultist-blog-on-sp/#reply-935522dc TVP needs $300,000 to write Jacque Fresco biography! http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5513/the-venus-project-needs-300000-to-write-jaque-fresco-biogr/#0 Peter Joseph Selling his music on amazon. https://archive.org/details/PeterJosephMerolaAmazonSelling TVP raising $200,000 for a big budget movie http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5349/the-venus-projects-100000-big-budget-movie-scam-prediction/#0 Peter Josephs makes money off the movement as he uses TZM material for a black sabbath video. http://www.metalinsider.net/video/black-sabbaths-video-asks-us-god-is-dead black sabbath youtube video Peter is selling t-shirts for his culture in decline videos. http://www.cultureindecline.com/support.html TVP DVD/audio sales http://www.thevenusproject.com/2013-08-20-04-51-29/store TVP T-shirts http://www.thevenusproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&tmpl=openurl

Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / RBE, Peter Joseph, The Zeitgeist Movement, Berlin (full 2:43:06) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9FDIne7M9o Economic Calculation in a Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy http://event.tzm-deutschland.de/ Economic Calculation in a Natural Law/Resource-Bas http://www.ustream.tv/channel/peter-joseph-berlin

I think Peter's got his Marxist rule down on the TZM forum already though 1 person calims it must be a forum bug (though it could be the case) I have witnesed several times in the past where a person questions Peter or goes aignast his idea and that post or topic disappeares. http://thezeitgeistmovementforum.org/common-objections-tzm/1382-deleted-thread-no-explanation.html Title: Deleted Thread, No Explanation On TZM forum written by Dev On TZM forum written by Ozymandias On TZM forum written by TAEHSAEN On TZM forum written by Glueparkenigma On TZM forum written by TheLamelyNamed On TZM forum written by Dev On TZM forum written by Dev Sol

I know how much TZM likes to quote Einstien, therfore I thnik a particular Einstien quote fits Peter really well. Einstien: If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Ted talks have gone down in quality for awhile now. Anyways Here's a Ted X talk done by a Venus Project higher up named Sue Everatt explaining what is a Resource Based Economy. Though this is not done by PEter Joseph I think anybody directly associated with TVP has a bit more credibility in explaining a RBE versus Peter since this talk/speaker was approved by TVP as well as a RBE term originated in TVP and Peter just high jacked the term for his movement when TVP and TZM split up. Resource based economy: Sue Everatt at TEDxPasseigDesBorn The best part of this ted talk is in the start of it she starts singing about how money makes the world go round. I thought a fail in this Ted Talk is when Sue talks about different types of solar energies then says (exactly 10 minutes into the Ted X talk), "Not long ago I read in a article in magazine where a politician was saying that alternative energy are more expense. Of course they are in a monetary system." Sue then goes into how because of money we pollute, cause wars etc.... TVP's RBE cities remind me of exactly what Disney wanted to build back in the 1950's that they actually wanted to build in Florida. Isn't Florida the same place the TVP compound is in? Also keep in mind in TVP's FAQ question 12 about the plan, it lists 4 phases in which in the 4th phase after the city is built that they will have a theme park within the city or TVP says it "After the experimental research city is built, a theme park is planned that will entertain and inform visitors about humane and environmentally friendly life-styles. " References: The Venus Project http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project TVP FAQ question 12 about the 4 phases of TVP's RBE "Frequently Asked Questions From Over 25 Years" http://www.thevenusproject.com/extras/faq The Originality of "The Venus Project" Jacque Fresco wants to be like Walt Disney The Venus Project -- City Concept Walt Disney's original Epcot / Florida film (1966) SD VERSION http://www.youtube.com/user/TheOriginalEpcot/videos Why do people laugh at TVP?The originality of TVP part 1 Woody Allen gets kidnapped by the Venus Project The Zeitgeist Movement And Raelian Movement Similarities - Part 1 The Zeitgeist Movement And Raelian Movement Similarities - Part 2 The Zeitgeist Movement And Raelian Movement Similarities - Part 3 The Venus Project Is Just A Repackaged Atlantis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCWwCN2pz_Q

HAHAHAHA, SOYLENT GREEN FALLS IN LINE WITH A RBE!

I'm interested as well. Peter's MO from the past for example his TZM companion guide is to hire researchers to do the research for him, the only real work he does is he simply recites information off his podium unchallenged while TZMer's eat it up. I don't think it will have any real meaning he's just trying to get any type of publicity since TZM is dead. I don't follow TZM as much as TVP but I'll find out when he is doing that lecture and post it up on FDR when it's out.

Poopmeat is sort of a play on words for TZMers. TZmers always preach about a RBE being abundant and natural and poopmeat is abundant and natural. RBE and poopmeat is a natural fit... Poopmeat is extracted proteins from fecal matter. Shit Burger: Japanese Researcher Creates Artificial Meat From Human Feces http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDvSPQ7megQ TZM stuff isn't productive but then again talking about it may help others stay away or get out of it. That's the reason I spend time on such things.

Interesting The Zeitgeist Movement implemented a similar policy/ even referenced concerned trolls as such on there old forums. TZM aka Peter started banning individuals who he deemed as not movement members who didn't believe 9/11 was a inside job, NWO, or didn't believe in peak oil. Troll hunting is like witch hunting, it's futile. They even instituted a public black list of people to ignore. Be skeptical use logic and reason to figure things our. calling someone a concerned troll is like labeling something a cult, to vague for my taste. I would consider myself a academic troll though I use logic and reason towards unfounded beliefs. 'whose only activity is aimed at the Peter Joseph threads (as if by coincidence, yeah right!)." Just a FYI I didn't hide my intention my specific intent was to write in topics with Peter Joseph in them i even said so publically in the intro I made. I guess you found out my hidden agenda lmao... First post on FDR my intentioned exposed o mmyyy http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37307-hello-came-here-because-of-the-stefanpeter-discussion/ At that I have been writing and observing TVP and TZM for years now my name is The Burger King on skepticproject.com, look it up I've been doing this for a long time now. Every now and then I join a site talking about TVP, TZM, Alex Jones, David Ike, William Cooper etc... and share my knowledge on these places that I have gathered over the years.

I give up you win.

Nice you should of ignored me in the first place or PMed me you disrupted this topic a bit lol....

I'm not spamming. I'd ask why ask the same thing on two different topics that I'm spamming? "Why keep pontificating on issues that members here already know?" So you speak on behalf of everyone? "Attention-seeking is not a productive way to garner positive attention." Interesting attempting to reveal my motives. No I'm not attention seeking, I wanted to share information and I'm doing so. However I think your donig a bit of attention seeking yourself as you basically point me out, mush me in a category then tell me I'm spamming without giving a good enough reason.