PatrickC Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 .You're having hallucinations on what other people write. The hullucinations are all yours my friend, rest assured. I did not say that all. I said "when Stefan talks about the market, he has all the definitions of freedom etc. so narrowed down, that they effectively boil down to fascism, to dictatorship of market forces" Stefan's conclusions are that market forces are driven by billions of individual voluntary choices, which has nothing to do with fascism or dictatorship. market forces (which can initiate violence against humans as they see fit, in order to make "market corrections" How in God's name do billions of individual voluntary choices end up initiating violence. This is marxist make believe. I said nothing about 'control' of market forces. Market forces can be only totally replaced and annihilated by designing a whole different environment, such as The Venus Project. We can not outlaw or control anything successfully, we can only make it obsolete. The market forces have an important function and this function must not be suppressed or ignored, it must be replaced. You can only annihilate billions of individual voluntary decisions with a dictaorship or tyranny controlling those decisions.
Kevin Beal Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 @armitage Okay. Well, you really ought to watch Stef's post debate analysis then because this approach you are taking to this debate is sophistic. You come off like a very sincere nice guy, but what you are saying is total boloney. You cannot use adjectives, frame a debate or even provide definitions without offering any actual counter argument and call it a criticism. What you need to do is provide very specific evidence of or demonstrations of any actual errors in logic (or false evidence) that Stef has made. Without that, you are not going to get very far among this group of philosophers. "Narrow" is not an argument. There is also an introduction to philosophy series that stef hosts on youtube which is quite good.
Armitage Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 @armitage Okay. Well, you really ought to watch Stef's post debate analysis then because this approach you are taking to this debate is sophistic. You come off like a very sincere nice guy, but what you are saying is total boloney. You cannot use adjectives, frame a debate or even provide definitions without offering any actual counter argument and call it a criticism. What you need to do is provide very specific evidence of or demonstrations of any actual errors in logic (or false evidence) that Stef has made. Without that, you are not going to get very far among this group of philosophers. "Narrow" is not an argument. There is also an introduction to philosophy series that stef hosts on youtube which is quite good. I'll listen to the philosophy video (probably again). But I don't think I've begun a debate yet. I pointed out a problem that apparently made the debate impossible. When market was the topic, Stefan went into a market fever and started using definitions that had no relation to reality (or morality and free will) and thus were wrong by default, even if they were internally coherent. You know what Hitchens said, arguments that explain everything, explain nothing. I want to make sure I know how to deal with the market fever. Right now the thing to do is to go over the very basic definitions (like "voluntary" ) and cross-check them. This is long, slow, boring and maybe a waste of time. I might also try to introduce TVP from a new, fresh angle, correct some myths about it, and so on. The hullucinations are all yours my friend, rest assured. Stefan's conclusions are that market forces are driven by billions of individual voluntary choices, which has nothing to do with fascism or dictatorship. How in God's name do billions of individual voluntary choices end up initiating violence. This is marxist make believe. You can only annihilate billions of individual voluntary decisions with a dictaorship or tyranny controlling those decisions. What if these decisions aren't voluntary? Depends on what is your definition of "voluntary choice". Can you give me an example of a "voluntary choice" that is right on the border of being an "involuntary choice"? Do you see any difference between "voluntary choice" and a "voluntary action" and simply "human action"?
Jer Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I pointed out a problem that apparently made the debate impossible. When market was the topic, Stefan went into a market fever and started using definitions that had no relation to reality (or morality and free will) and thus were wrong by default, even if they were internally coherent. You still haven't pointed out anything... Here's an easy question. Can you cite a definition used by Stefan that had no relation to reality? You don't just get to say "He's wrong" and call that your theory. Try presenting some facts and or evidence to backup your claim once you figure out what your claim is.
PatrickC Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 What if these decisions aren't voluntary? Then they aren't by definition voluntary.. And have been subject to coercive pressures.
Armitage Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 You still haven't pointed out anything... Here's an easy question. Can you cite a definition used by Stefan that had no relation to reality? You don't just get to say "He's wrong" and call that your theory. Try presenting some facts and or evidence to backup your claim once you figure out what your claim is. Well, that would take time and it's so frustrating, to see one so brilliant caught in a blind spot. I just found this guy. He sums up my feelings so well, yet I have just found him this moment, he seems one of many people who share exactly the same frustrations. He also reminded me of one typical problem, so maybe it answers you, if you remember it. Stefan used a TWISTED example of the lemonade stand, one of many such. At one point in the long discussion, Stefan described a simple hypothetical lemonade stand of his daughter to describe how the market works. (the usual superfluous Economy 101 rants) If he was honest about the market, he would have to throw his daughter out of the house if her lemonade stand did not make enough money so she can pay the rent. That is how market works every day and that is how it should work in his example. Either his daughter would get thrown out of house, or he shouldn't use her in the market example at all, because we don't throw our children out of house, because we're good parents, especially Stefan. Actually, we provide a resource-based economy to children and give them lots of socialistic subsidies, that's how family economy works. So the example is wrong on many levels.But he describes the market as a happy la la land where everyone always earns enough money on rent or food, does not mind the boredom of working hours and never has to leave home and move away to work in a foreign country and never worries about feeding the family and finding a new job when getting thrown out of one job by a "market correction". So these people never think of restricting competition, crime, espionage, voting for socialists, or joining unions or cartels, nobody joins business cabal of local Christian fellowship to throw the local atheists out of work and drive them out of town. But if they do, it never lasts long and nobody gets stressed out and their children do not get traumatized. Not in la la land. If someone gets hurt by the economy, Stefan usually says this would never happen if there was "free market", which is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Free market is Stefan's la la land and maybe he is so dependent on it, maybe this is the only way he has to interpret the world, and so he would be terribly afraid of doubting it, even if he could consciously contemplate such a thing. Maybe I should first show him there are other ways to see the economy and the world, before I try to take his only one away! This guy calls it tunnel vision. I call it a blind spot, narrow view, or market fever, you call it what you want. But so many people noticed it, you still don't believe there is a problem? Then they aren't by definition voluntary.. And have been subject to coercive pressures. Can you give me some examples of coercive pressures? I can imagine those that come from people, for example mugging or tax execution. But what other coercive pressures do you recognize? Do you recognize between living people and non-living circumstances or environment? Do you recognize a low-intensity coercion or even a subversive influence of cultural notions or neuro-marketing advertisement? Would you classify losing a job or the chance, threat or "choice" of losing a job as a coercive pressure, even if it's nobody's fault, just circumstances? Do you recognize the concept that Peter Joseph calls "structural violence"?
PatrickC Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 Can you give me some examples of coercive pressures? I can imagine those that come from people, for example mugging or tax execution. Firstly, people don't make choices to be mugged. There is no market for that.But there are examples where peoples choices are limited by the state, such as when they restrict (regulation/licensing), favour (subsidy) or ban (arrests) a market. These would be examples of coercive pressures. Whilst some of these market providers might personally profit from these limitations. The coercion emanates from the state solely. I have no idea what PJ means about structural violence. Since he hasn't laid out his ideas for scrutiny, I find him evasive and disingenuous.
Armitage Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 I'd porbably debate you on free market So what do you think about free market? We agree, that free market is better than the current non-free market. I just say, free market does not mean a voluntary market. If people had a choice, there would be no market at all, they'd take directly the stuff they want and give away directly the stuff they don't want. And they would not give up money just to show how much do they value a certain product, they would not sacrifice the hours of their day at work, to get the product. This is why there are better, more voluntary arrangements than free market. My favorite is a resource-based economy, such as TVP. And there are even better institutions than ownership, such as strategic access in TVP Firstly, people don't make choices to be mugged. There is no market for that.But there are examples where peoples choices are limited by the state, such as when they restrict (regulation/licensing), favour (subsidy) or ban (arrests) a market. These would be examples of coercive pressures. Whilst some of these market providers might personally profit from these limitations. The coercion emanates from the state solely. I have no idea what PJ means about structural violence. Since he hasn't laid out his ideas for scrutiny, I find him evasive and disingenuous. Can you name other things that limit people's choices, besides the state? For example, nobody makes a choice to get hungry or cold, yet this is what restricts lots of people's choices. A state or a businessman does not need to coerce anyone, he just needs to stand by a little and let people be coerced by the nature itself into striking a deal with him. Is this still voluntary in your book? If so, why do people try to get away from that kind of deal? Why would they prefer food and housing for free, without working in some smelly factory for half a day so they can afford it? That doesn't seem much of a choice to me. Most of all it reminds me of the Christian choice, you either CHOOSE to accept Jesus into your heart, or you burn in hell forever. But it's still a choice, dictionary says! A choice means that it's voluntary. Even if it's just one and it sucks and yet you "choose" it, because the alternative sucks even more.
PatrickC Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 Can you name other things that limit people's choices, besides the state? For example, nobody makes a choice to get hungry or cold, yet this is what restricts lots of people's choices. A state or a businessman does not need to coerce anyone, he just needs to stand by a little and let people be coerced by the nature itself into striking a deal with him. Is this still voluntary in your book? If so, why do people try to get away from that kind of deal? Why would they prefer food and housing for free, without working in some smelly factory for half a day so they can afford it? That doesn't seem much of a choice to me. Most of all it reminds me of the Christian choice, you either CHOOSE to accept Jesus into your heart, or you burn in hell forever. But it's still a choice, dictionary says! A choice means that it's voluntary. I'll be honest with you for brevity. I'm not much interested in persuing much more of your questioning. Since I answer you and then you return with more or less the same question again. I have pointed out that market forces are billions of voluntary choices and where there are limitations to those choices and where they come from. The only other limiting factor would be your own self. Going hungry would I think, galvanise most folk to find ways to feed themselves. The fact that they may have to work, rather than lay about in order to feed themselves, is not the fault of your grocer. The fact is, your grocer has also had to work in order that you can purchase food for yourself. Saving you the trouble of producing it yourself. Before you go any further with this thread I think you should read Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson. It's a short read and available in audio I believe, from the link provided.
Armitage Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 I'll be honest with you for brevity. I'm not much interested in persuing much more of your questioning. Since I answer you and then you return with more or less the same question again. I have pointed out that market forces are billions of voluntary choices and where there are limitations to those choices and where they come from. The only other limiting factor would be your own self. Going hungry would I think, galvanise most folk to find ways to feed themselves. The fact that they may have to work, rather than lay about in order to feed themselves, is not the fault of your grocer. The fact is, your grocer has also had to work in order that you can purchase food for yourself. Saving you the trouble of producing it yourself. Before you go any further with this thread I think you should read Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson. It's a short read and available in audio I believe, from the link provided. You did NOT actually answer me. You answered the first paragraph, which was saying what I DON'T want answered. I did NOT want you talking about state. I wanted you talking about something OTHER than state. Going hungry is just one of many examples and it not being a grocer's fault is the ideal case. The grocer has a measure of power over the customers. He is always motivated to abuse this power, unless he is engaged in price war with other grocers. Not abusing the power is the last thing he does, that's why the market competition is deemed necessary. Now, what psychological and social effect does this COMPETITION have on both grocers and customers? Are they happy that someone tries to undercut them or extort money from them? I have read Economics In One Lesson. I understand Economy 101. I am concerned by social and psychological impact of market mechanics on people. This is the basis of structural violence. Some institutions, for example market, are inherently stressful and destructive to relationships. Currently we have no alternative, but the bad violence-like effects are still there and they have an impact. They motivate many socially pathological phenomena, if not all of them. Other kinds of violence (state, crime) are actually not that pervasive. Structural violence is as difficult to imagine for some people as is the effect of child spanking on adults.
Mike Fleming Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 Going hungry is just one of many examples and it not being a grocer's fault is the ideal case. The grocer has a measure of power over the customers. He is always motivated to abuse this power, unless he is engaged in price war with other grocers. Not abusing the power is the last thing he does, that's why the market competition is deemed necessary. Now, what psychological and social effect does this COMPETITION have on both grocers and customers? Are they happy that someone tries to undercut them or extort money from them? Maybe you should go talk to your grocer and ask him about this power that he has. My guess is that he feels beholden to his customers and feels like he has to satisfy them in order to stay in business. That's the entire reason so many businesses, particularly big businesses (eg. banking) run to the government. They go there to get protection from their customers so that they can abuse and gouge their customers and don't have to play by the rules of free market competition. It's an easy way to get big profits. Government is happy to do so, but stipulates that the employees must get a certain share of these improved profits. This process reduces productivity and increases inflation and customers are the worse off.
PoopMeat Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 So what do you think about free market? We agree, that free market is better than the current non-free market. I just say, free market does not mean a voluntary market. If people had a choice, there would be no market at all, they'd take directly the stuff they want and give away directly the stuff they don't want. And they would not give up money just to show how much do they value a certain product, they would not sacrifice the hours of their day at work, to get the product. This is why there are better, more voluntary arrangements than free market. My favorite is a resource-based economy, such as TVP. And there are even better institutions than ownership, such as strategic access in TVP 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
Armitage Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 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. I see what you mean. If TVP/TZM has an ideology, then it's denying that ideology. Why aren't their heads buzzing with cognitive dissonance? The truth is, capitalism is where all means of production are today. We have to work with what we have, not what we don't have. Any kind of public activity is an economic activity and today capitalism is THE economy. The current system is doomed no matter what. But if we aren't to be dragged down with it (if only for repeating the mistakes again) we have to use the current system and its resources to prepare a new one. Grow a new tree out of the corpse - without the corpse there would be no tree, because all the nutrients are in it. So it makes sense planting the new seeds into places of the old rottenness, sell the Zeitgeist movies in WalMart and recycle the old system. Recycling is good, isn't it? Yes, it may turn out one day there was a fraud or at least too much capitalism, see that TVP is much more reluctant to capitalism (releasing and selling Fresco's work, that won't happen) than Peter Joseph. But only in the last analysis we will see, if anyone sold his soul. Until then, I don't see any point in blaming very idealistic/busy/elderly people of raking money, because they know very well that soon the money or the current system will not be worth much. 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. Do you know any academics interested in this? There is no RBE to be done on one's own, except of what we all grew up in - a family, that's a RBE we can manage. What we really need is an equivalent of NASA. NASA researches the ways of living in the worst places, like the orbit, Moon or Mars. That is not wise. We need to know more about how to live in a better place - on Earth. We need to use the same methods of researching materials, self-erecting mass-produced city structures with stuff built in and so on. We already did that with all kinds of technologies, we crammed two dozen of various media devices into one small smartphone. We must do the same with industry and housing. When that's done, it will be "you" who builds the TVP cities. It will be a better method of utilizing your current resources and you would lose the life standard if you did not convert your economy to TVP. We know that it's a better method, because our body uses a resource-based economy and it can run for decades without maintenance (opening and re-arranging the contents), just by managing the inputs. It also provides a great leisure to its brain cells, who are not occupied by processes of its internal economy and instead focus on making us human. So I don't know what is there left for the academics to doubt. We need a NASA for Earth (or Silicon Valley for the physical world) and we need it now. 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 I don't say I like that Joseph does, but apparently he had some rules and they violated them. He should have just ask them and negotiate about the rules, but well, he didn't. Apparently he doesn't know the principles of non-violent communication. Again, this sucks, but there is the ugly truth, that even people at the front of social innovation are imperfect and have personal flaws and make mistakes. Why do you think I am here? I see a Stefan's flaw in thinking that I think is really ruining his show and making him enemies left and right (actually, only left). I will start condemning people when I will be as productive and hard-working as them
PoopMeat Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 I see what you mean. If TVP/TZM has an ideology, then it's denying that ideology. Why aren't their heads buzzing with cognitive dissonance? 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 I'm not sure The Zeitgeist Movement is a cult, I've never really agreed with that particular label. But I do think it is an e-sect (or Internet-Sect) that promotes an isolating and unhealthy world view. When something almost entirely exists on the Internet, I think it is fair to criticize how moderation is done. On the surface, yes, it was just a forum. But in the context of the e-sect, the forum was a temple. The idea that dissent was accepted is, from my long experience visiting their "temple", simply not true. I specifically remember one user who was cast out and shunned for no other reason than he opposed the inclusion of 911 conspiracy theories. The goal of TZM and all that was something he fullyembraced, but he opposed the inclusion of conspiracy theories. Peter Joseph Merola himself finally banned him because of his continued dissent on an issue the user thought made TZM look bad. There were also users banned and shunned due to personality conflicts with certain moderators and those close to moderators regardless of the users fully embracing the ideology and goals of TZM. This is not indicative of a group that welcomes or even tolerates dissent. It may sound silly, but if you really believed in something and were shunned by a group simply for having different ideas, even one that only really exists online, it probably isn't like being banned from some random forum you rarely visit. The forums also contained an enemies list: a list of people's Facebook accounts that were off limits to members. The enemies list contained former members who became critical of TZM and people who had never been members that were critical of TZM. This list was presented as if the names and links on the list were people who were actively seeking out and harassing TZM members, but there were plenty of people on the list who never harassed anyone but were merely critics on some other forum or site. It was very similar to the sorts of lists Desteni keeps. This list was started by VTV himself and defended by him after questioned by members. The enemies list remained on the forums, and stickied, until they were closed. I don't think TZM is necessarily a terrible thing, simply because it's fairly incompetent atgetting any real exposure or acceptance by anyone outside of TZM. But I also think it's an unhealthy organization because it saps the time, energy and money from well intentioned people and sucks them into a bizarre Internet utopian sect. SP member quote 2 My initial interest in monitoring TZM came about due to the drastic differences in the groups philosophy vs. the way the organization was lead. I found it rather interesting that members of the organization wanted a form of direct democracy but decisions regarding the direction, messaging and imagery of the organization were entirely controlled from the top down. Sometimes even to the chagrin of those at the bottom doing the actual legwork to promote the organization. I found myself wondering how they could overlook such a glaring contradiction. The only explanation I could think of is that the members on the bottom of the pyramid had so much emotional investment in the goals of the organization that they were willing to overlook the glaring contradictions. I've always been interested in how people can rationalize their way through cognitive dissonance, and monitoring TZM's forums were a constant source of watching people do exactly that. I will not attempt to assume the motives of those at the top of the pyramid. It is pointless to speculate as to whether they are con artists or true believers. The only thing one can look at is the results, and the results have so far been more and more central control as interest in the organization wanes. SP member quote 3 Another thing I might mention is TZM becoming an activist arm of The Venus Project. TZM was initially sort of like AboveTopSecret and sites like that: a place for people to discuss conspiracies, alternative history, psueo-science and things of that nature. On a whim, Peter Joseph Merola decided that Jordan Maxwell was no longer his inspirational figure and hero, but Jacque Fresco was. Instantly and overnight TZM changed into existing for the sole purpose of advocating Jacque Frescos ideas. This is why the forums were a constant battle between those wanting to promote fringe ideas and those wanting to promote The Venus Project. This schism has never been resolved and I doubt it can ever be resolved due to Zeitgeist: The Movie being TZM's greatest recruitment tool, which Peter Joseph Merola has admitted to on more than one occasion. This was the reason why, despite constant requests from members to do so, he refused to distance TZM from the first film. He never did distance himself from that film, but instead doubled down on it by working with notorious pseudo-historian Acharya S (D.M. Murdock) to prop up the questionable material in Zeitgeist: The Movie with more questionable material from Acharya S. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The current system is doomed no matter what. Really how so? Just because you say it's so doesnt mean it's so. There is no RBE to be done on one's own, except of what we all grew up in - a family, that's a RBE we can manage. What we really need is an equivalent of NASA. NASA researches the ways of living in the worst places, like the orbit, Moon or Mars. That is not wise. We need to know more about how to live in a better place - on Earth. We need to use the same methods of researching materials, self-erecting mass-produced city structures with stuff built in and so on. We already did that with all kinds of technologies, we crammed two dozen of various media devices into one small smartphone. We must do the same with industry and housing. Ok so go make your RBE I won't stop you. I don't say I like that Joseph does, but apparently he had some rules and they violated them. He should have just ask them and negotiate about the rules, but well, he didn't. Apparently he doesn't know the principles of non-violent communication. Again, this sucks, but there is the ugly truth, that even people at the front of social innovation are imperfect and have personal flaws and make mistakes. Why do you think I am here? I see a Stefan's flaw in thinking that I think is really ruining his show and making him enemies left and right (actually, only left). I will start condemning people when I will be as productive and hard-working as them 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. orginally posted here. http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5519/australian-tzm-member-david-zwolski-upsets-the-leaders-of-tz/#0 1. Peter Joseph was the first person to give David the information about How TVP was making $180,000, yet when David makes a debunking article on TVP Peter demands for it to be ripped own . Why Would Peter give information to such a individual yet demand him to rip it down in a attempt to save face with TVP? a. Peter giving David the information at which David used in writing the debunking article of TVP on Oct 17, 2012 2. Spirit Of The Times Magazine TVP debunk article November 2012 a. Debunking the Venus Project By David Zwolski Made 3. TVP responds to Spirit Of The Times Magazine TVP debunk article December 4, 2012 a. TVP Response to TVP Debunk article 4. Peter gets others within TZM to intimidate Kari and David into taking down the TVP article. First instance where Peter demands the Australian chapter to take down the TVP debunk article on Dec 5, 2012. Some more prominent TZM members are in this e-mail which besides Peter are Brandy Hume and Ben McLeish which respond and seemed to be primed by Peter to support taking down the TVP debunk article. a. TZM community intimidation on Kari and David to take down article 5. Kari and David agree to take down the article but of course that wasn't good enough for Peter. How dare the Australian chapter have a meeting with the Australian chapter to VOTE on if they should keep the magazine and that article on the site. This also shows that Peter is the leader of TZM and does call the shots if you do not toe the line then your out. This happened on Dec 8, 2012. a. Australian chapter Agree to take down article but that is not good enough for Peter Joseph 6. Emergency Australian chapter Meeting held on Dec 8, 2012, about Peters ultimatum to remove the article or Australian chapter loses official status. Audio format of Australia chapters emergency meeting with important time stamps as well as .pdf of the meeting is within this document. The audio is of poor quality but it can still be understood. a. Emergency Australian chapter Meeting 7. Peter Joseph says for the Australian chapter to take down their DVD section which promotes Peter's TZM movies I, II, and III. Peter uses his Gentle Machine Productions company to force to legally intimidate them to take down the DVD section. Also including some extra information on how Peter makes his money as well as tax statement information. a. Peter orders Australian chapter to take down the DVD section containing his work on it on Dec 19, 2012 8. Kari explains what she was doing when collecting contact information from a trello board. Kari talks about how the Australian chapter has now been effectively cut off from TZM. She then ties up loose ends and will contact Peter to remove her zeitgeist.com email address. a. Kari Mcgregor ties up loose ends and requests her zeitgeist.com e-mail be removed on Dec 20, 2012
Armitage Posted November 18, 2013 Posted November 18, 2013 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 rational 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 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, that wasn't good enough for PEter, Peter was upset they didn't take it down immediately and instead conduct a vote 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. Yeah, these accounts sound bad - they sound very human. Peter Joseph sounds almost like a capitalist, doesn't he? Well, I'm not in contact with TZM or anyone. I just understand the organism-like economy of TVP and I think it's important that other people understand it as well. TVP seems very common sense to me, but our current system and all cultural values go against common sense, and so TVP is extremely difficult to understand right. I don't think it's a sect, i think it's a new school of thought - an "intellectual sect", so it's academically and socially legitimate Well, not less legitimate than Keynesianism or monetarism or any other school of thought. I am glad that science and economy thus become matters of public discussion, they ought to, compared to the crap we face in media all the time! All schools of thought until today were either intellectually bankrupt or corrupt to preserve the current system at all costs. Fresco experienced the 1929 crisis on his own skin and the WW2 as well - and so far we've done nothing, absolutely nothing to solve the root causes of these disasters. I am seriously concerned that the war may be a method of "venting the steam" or destroying the surplus economic prosperity that get produced due to automation, which however can not be sold, because people don't have money, because machines don't return money back into the economy. So war is a way to burn the wheat or sugar as they used to do in 19th century and it's a way for young men to find employment. USA has been since WW2 almost constantly in war, only Clinton era was perhaps a brief respite, but he was taken down quickly. If that is how the current economy works, then we're still eyeballs-deep in shit, we are still one foot in war all the time. I mean, you, Americans. I'm from Europe and we've got the same problems here, only we don't invade other countries. Not militarily, only economically. So I think the objections of TVP to the current system are extremely serious and can not be easily dismissed. Really how so? Just because you say it's so doesnt mean it's so. Every time a businessinvests into automation and does not create as many jobs, he breaks the system, he takes away purchasing power from people who are supposed to buy the product, so he is less likely to sell it. Yet he has to do it, or someone else will and lose in market competition. Job creation rate stagnates, unemployment goes up, production goes up as well. No matter what we do, there will be masses of people with little or no access to money and they will bring down the system, even if the business somehow figures out how to sell the products, which I doubt. Ok so go make your RBE I won't stop you. It is very important that you understand that RBE is not a magical cornucopia, nor a competitive system. It is determined by what resources, science and energy we have, only arranged and used differently than in capitalism or market. With resources and energy accessible to an average citizen, the RBE we can have is simply a family household. So there is no such thing as "your RBE" or "my RBE", it must include all four sectors of economy, so it's best done at the very least on national scale, better on multi-national, continental or global. You don't need to stop me, the fact that I am not a continental industry stops me by itself. I won't stop you from building your own small scale home RBE (family household) either. If you want to look at how a RBE might look today at a municipality scale, read B.F. Skinner's Walden Two. If you want to know how could it have been like at the end of 19th century, read Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward. If you'd like to see the future RBE, aimed at elimination of human labor, read Kenneth S. Keyes' Looking Forward. This article, debunking TVP has some flaws. I'll try to explain. The first serious one I've noticed is the fallacy that TVP equals or depends on any particular technology or piece of science. This is not so. It's simply a method of using any resources, technologies, etc, directly and scientifically to solve problems. Again, it's important. Another bad attempt at debunking is Jevon's paradox. Yes, more efficient technology increases consumption. But why is that so? Is it in the conditions of capitalism, of scarcity, competition, poverty ever looming around? Economy, where people have little security, little freedom and no goal in life, except accumulate more and more money, so that perhaps one day they might buy some of these? No wonder then that consumption increases any time. If Jevon's paradox says anything, it says that capitalism and consumerism can waste any newly gained capacity. TVP does not waste. Anything produced in TVP is built to last, to be updated, shared and eventually recycled. The all-recyclable world is merely a storage of resources, something that capitalism claims to have in economic growth, but which was never actually true. Resources used without a specific purpose are not growth, they are waste. Arranging the economy around human preference is a bad idea. Preference is not a purpose, it's opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. Opinions are like assholes, we all have them and they are all full of shit. You should be afraid of opinions, they abuse people who hold them and everyone around. What are the needs? The author says TVP does not use Maslow's pyramid, but a current standard of living. That is a flat out untruth. TVP uses the Capability approach. As for the energy sources, we can use any, but only under TVP we can transit to renewables without being slowed down by vested interests of energy business or by lack of monetary capital. Fresco for example describes geothermal energy from the sea vents. Of course all mass-produced dwellings would come out of factory covered in photovoltaic panels. TVP means the end of waste of resources in form of consumerism, war, and eventually heat loss from badly isolated buildings... However, TVP can not and will not suggest any specific solution - this is not what TVP is about, Fresco is not here to do the scientists' job, anything he says has to be verified by scientists. The point is, there is no evidence capitalism can do any better energy-wise, on the contrary, capitalism is the cause of Jevon's paradox and global waste. Rare earth elements or other scarce materials would be distributed according to a statistical survey of where can they make the most impact, according to a statistical study, empirical knowledge... Imagine if all interested parties could at most pay exactly the same amount of money - or had no money at all. How do you then decide? Statistical survey... I find this kind of hypocrisy unbelievable, market does not care for people who have no money, they are dependent on charity. A good system would not need any charity! Who has less money, has to bite the bullet and shut up. As for things like healthcare, the method I remember from Walden Two, they just train more doctors and give them shorter hours, so they're not overworked. Also, the doctors are more motivated to invent preventive measures and preventive social programs, so their workload goes down. In the current system, if workload goes down, people get fired or get less money. TVP is literally the most ambitious socio-industrial project on the planet, it is society 2.0, economy 2.0, industry 2.0. Which means a self-taught engineer can not pull it off by himself and two people can not raise money on it. Public relations and propagation counts more than anything else. Public awareness - Matrix-like notoriety is a must. Fresco and Roxanne are convinced that they need a major motion picture and professional propagation materials, online game, web magazine and so on - and so they have a team to work on these and other projects. I think the major expense is now - besides the digitalization of Fresco's blueprints, is the screenplay for the major film, prepared by a professional screenplay writer. I think they even considered Roland Emmerich as a director for the film itself, if a sponsor shows up. This is of course all a preparation. The actual testing city will be more similar to a NASA facility for Earth, or a part of Silicon Valley. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think tens or hundreds of thousand dollars play any role here... In country, where almost half of budget goes on war and only a small fraction to NASA... Please be serious. Fresco has relatively little to do with technology, it goes forward too fast for him to keep the models up with current materials. His main contribution is things like life style and environment design, education methods, school curricula... however, someone brought up in the style of TVP would not have a good life today. People today are unsane, all the ideologies and conventions make them behave in a way that a strictly rational person could not fit in.
Recommended Posts