Skeptic Project

Hello skeptics, rationalists, and critics,

I am the author of this thread: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=230&id=350893&limit=20&limitstart=40&Itemid=100114&lang=en

For over two years I have written in the forum of this movement—a reflection, not of my ardent and/or dogmatic devotion to the cause therein, but of curiosity and enjoyment. I enjoy discussions of philosophic and social depth.

I should also make it abundantly clear now that due merely to the fact that I am a member of the movement this does not imply that I am fond of the films. I am one of many people in the movement who believe the films are of a far greater detriment than an advantage. You may go so far as to say that supporting the movement necessitates support of the films, but that would serve little more than to satisfy your dispositions and would deny reality: I abhor the first film as much the next member of this forum, it is little more than a work of emotional stimulation.

I have joined this site, and intend to partake in discussion with anyone (through PMs alone) for one reason and one reason alone: Because I am a skeptic. I am a skeptic of such an extent that I understand that by placing myself in the midst of like minded individuals, and thereby preserving my beliefs, I am highly unlikely to expand the reaches of my understanding. Only by straining my beliefs, straining my perceptions of the world will I attain a superior level of wisdom—This is also the reason for which I had created the thread in TZM forum, not to advocate violence but to question its merits and consequences. For even something so fundamentally and universally detested as violence, in a movement preaching pacifism to the grandest of scales, must come under question should the organization also preserve and uphold reason as one of its foremost tenants.

I will not deny the fact that the manner in which I had written many of my posts would leave upon even the most dexterous of researchers the impression that I am inclined to violent solutions, but this is the result merely of the manner in which I had formatted the debate. To reach a sound conclusion, I took the liberty (and apparently the risk) of upholding the position of the violent—Although I do not advocate violence even remotely, under any other context than of a philosophic nature--as many other members took the overwhelmingly more common stance of the pacifists. This was merely a speculative and hypothetical discussion, one not of acts of “terrorism” or plans in support thereof; but a philosophic discussion behind the merits of committing violence should violence be committed upon a defenseless people.

Now, I am not to the remotest extent surprised that the individuals within this forum would find such pleasure in dissecting the intricacies of my posts, painting the walls of this forum with every passage in favor of violence, yet failing to mention the single instance wherein I explicitly mention that I am not advocating violence:
“My murder plans? I did not realize that speculative discussions on the legitimacy of violence necessitated also the title of "murder plans." I have no intention of killing anyone.”

Regardless of this point, I understand that I have said many very rash things, which, for what it’s worth I grant to you my apologies. Naturally, I do not suspect this apology to go far since I have quickly come to understand that the bulk of you interpret me as a sort of psychopathic terrorist bound to the extremes of radical ideology seeking only the opportunity to cause mayhem and destruction—Needless to say, this is not true. I am extreme only to the extent that pursuing harmony and global sustainability through universal unity is extreme.

I do not expect this post to relieve any of you of your dispositions. Although you claim be rationalists, hardly any of you display the characteristics of one. No rational individual would read the post of one individual, who has explicitly stated that his words are solely his own, and expand them to define the tenants of an entire organization. Nor would a rationalist interpret a speculative discussion to define a violent being, particularly when the individual in question has explicitly mentioned that he has no violent intentions. And, quite possibly of the most profound nature, a rational individual would not invest even a single moment basking in joy at the failures of another individual—Understanding that the individual who has spoken has made a mistake, the rational individual would take the liberty upon his shoulders (if driven by just and noble principles) to speak to he who has fallen and identify how he has made a mistake with the intention not only of helping the person in question but also understanding that in the process the rational individual might learn something:
“I should make it abundantly clear before I continue that I am not comfortable discussing this matter, for I am not a very violent person. But with the recent barrage of atrocity preceded by atrocity, I am weak spirited and it has generated within me a sort of fury which has compelled me to consider this option as a sort of temporary remedy to our ails. I certainly hope that everything I am about to say is utterly wrong.”

Now, feel free to react to this post as you please; for I understand that words directed at brick walls will cause more harm to he who speaks than to the wall, I am prepared to accept your wrath hoping that perhaps my words might get across, at least, to a single person.

I am not going to debate any individual in the setting of a thread. For I have sufficient experience debating this matter in a foreign thread to know that it will accomplish nothing; if you wish to speak to me, send a PM--Not that there is anything to debate, I have made a mistake I do not hesitate to admit this.

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

And I apologize once again if I have left the impression upon any of you of a violent individual. I am disinclined to the idea in any context, one would find it difficult in a prevalent social setting to find one more supportive of universal pacifism than myself.

Ron

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIoG4PlEPtY

Posting my message here so that its public and clear:

Ron,

I don't think you apprehend the seriousness of what you have done and the fundamental irresponsibility of the words you posted online. Though you may, in every possibly way, try to distance yourself from the logical extensions of your words, no such guarantee can be made for others. Let us first, and foremost, distance the discussion from your highly erroneous thinking about the "elites" and their existence as you claim it. Such old rhetoric, moving well beyond even the Hegelian outcroppings of the 19th century, are tired and divorced of sound reason and careful historical thinking. What it does highlight, however, is that while you are distancing yourself from the first film you are continuing to embrace its fundamental premises- that a separate group exists in society who consciously and monolithically strive to damage humanity. Such a world view is, again, a juvenile attempt to make sense of the world. But you have gone farther by posting about violence against these supposed elites. And while you may claim to have no intention of following through, what you have done is exposed many impressionable people who have been drawn to the Zeitgeist Movement because of the erroneous, paranoid, conspiratorial views held in the films. You have directly exposed innocent people to the possibility of violence by posting to a group that has had a history of conspiracy theorists who are not always the most stable of people. Add to this the very fact that the moderators and administrators have not come out to disassemble this post. There is a pervasive and constant disregard for possible consequences among the administrators of the forum to which you posted. Your words reflect the very irresponsibility at the core of your thinking and decision making. For this reason it is inherently clear that TZM is a continued petri dish breeding potential disaster and one that seems to be noticed by no one.

Ron, I can't add much to what Kaiser has said, except to stress that the Movement's reactions to your rantings disturb me far more than do your statements themselves.

I came across this exact same phenomenon when Douglas Mallette made his infamous "annihilate them" statements. Although he retracted those statements (somewhat half-heartedly), the reaction of other Zeitgeist members who insisted he was absolutely right, and should not have apologized at all, were far more telling than Mallette's statements themselves.

I collected some of those statements in my blog entry on that incident. (Scroll down to the Update).
http://muertos.blog.com/2011/02/13/simply-annihilate-them-the-zeitgeist-movements-disturbing-flirtation-with-advocating-violence/</p>

The point is not that there are nuts like you advocating violence in the Zeitgeist Movement. The point is that the Movement is not doing anything to stop you--and in fact encouraging further such statements.

Maybe we could look past the Loughner incident. I couldn't, but Zeitgeisters kept claiming, and keep claiming to this day, that it was isolated and not representative of the Zeitgeist Movement.

MAYBE we could look past Mallette's "annihilate them" comments. I couldn't, but he did try to retract them, and still Zeitgeisters claim the movement is not violent.

Two strikes. Guess what? You're strike three.

I don't see how the Movement can get beyond this. There are people out there on the net making hay out of your comments and they will not stop. You've been reported to the FBI. Seriously. This is now a law enforcement matter.

Do you have any understanding what you've done by making these statements?

You're writings reveal no such complex nuance in your understanding. You are culpable for anything that comes of your writing at TZM has already demonstrated itself as a place where people with deplorable judgement and views can gather and speak in such an irresponsable fashion.

I'm going to be serious now instead of posting a ridiculous autotuned youtube video. Granted, I have little to add. Kaiser and Muertos said a lot of what needed to be said.

You are drawing false parallels, for the reasons Kaiser stated in the other thread. And saying WE are flawed for having problems with someone posting about committing violence is a very weak argument, as Omni stated. This thread on TZM was not shut down for a very long time and no matter how you spin it, it's telling. Yet a thread that dared to criticize Merola would be shut down in an instant and the poster banned. Where are TZM's priorities? Apparently it is not in holding people talking about violent revolution accountable, even if it's just 'philosophical' as you claim. And as Kaiser mentioned, democracies have an accountability measure for people engaging in violence. It isn't just you. It's you and a lot of your fellow TZMers who seem quite like minded, no problems fantasizing about killing a select group of 'elites' conspiring to destroy humanity and the planet. TZM is something that is going to draw in people with a conspiratorial world view who believe that there's a group of people engineering humanity's destruction. And it's because the first movie is a conspiracy movie. Sure, there are people in it who DO mean well, and I know it, but since TVP and TZM split, the movement's been taken over by misanthropic cranks who just want the world to go to hell. And some of those misanthropes might take this stuff seriously and actually do something. What then? No matter how much you want to help people, talking about violence won't do it, much less engaging in it. Destroy a dam because it hurts the earth, even if you just talk about it? Well, destroying a dam will also flood communities, and kill or displace hundreds or thousands of innocent people. You really think THAT is going to convince people that TZM is there to help? Think again. Talking about violence against people is not something to be taken lightly, and that's that. You talked about doing something that would harm many many innocent people. And we should ignore it? Not happening.

I reported your thread to the FBI and as far as I know, I was the first to do it on this forum and others followed up. I've since provided a list of agencies in different countries to report online terror activity to. I am not ashamed of it.

^I only just now read your blog post about this. I'm so glad you got so many quotes from the thread to put in your blog post, now that it's been deleted. I wonder if anyone screenshotted the actual thread, though? I didn't...I should've though.

we could look past Mallette's "annihilate them" comments

I'm going off menu here, but I don't see the problem with Mallette's comment. The scenario is setup in a way where only terrorists, warlords and/or organized crime could fit the description and I don't think I'd mind them being "annihilated".

No rational individual would read the post of one individual, who has explicitly stated that his words are solely his own, and expand them to define the tenants of an entire organization.

The organization in this case happily accepted your words, and let's not forget that the concept of some kind of devious ruler group that keeps the monetary system in place and strives to thwart any attempt to gain grand, positive social change is a main part of TZMs ideology. It's a typical "us vs. them" concept and saying that this is completely unrelated to any violent attitude an individual member might hold is just wrong.

TZM harbors the same personification of evil that the terrorist wings of communism had, where the capitalists stopped to be mere character roles that would only cease to exist after the revolution yet always be replaced by new people until then; instead they turned them into means to speed up the revolution, to free the common people by kidnapping, terrorizing or killing their alleged slaveholders.

I'm not saying TZM or its members are going to do this, but they clearly have a channel that would make someone interested in bombing Wall Street feel accepted and understood. That in itself should be alarming enough.

Nah it doesn't. It could also apply to the FDA or law enforcement in general.

Why would law enforcement attack food farms?

Why would law enforcement attack food farms?

If they're a public health risk. This is not an absurd scenario. It happens to farmers who try and sell raw milk.

You're way too fucking worried about what we think. Coming on here and taking the time to write that long ass post that most of us didn't even read. Seriously get a fucking life.

You expect these people to act rationally when said authorities arrive?

If you answered "no," that's the problem with Mallette's statement.

I'm not blaming Mallette for anything other than making a completely boneheaded statement.

I hope we can soon move on from this subject, but I felt I couldn't let it pass without a comment on my blog. No pun intended by the phrase, but these pro-violent comments this week are absolutely beyond the pale.

http://muertos.blog.com/2011/08/17/distburbing-words-the-zeitgeist-movements-violent-undercurrents/

Nice blog entry Muertos.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2h2k2lx.jpg" />