Skeptic Project

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=229&id=270305#270378

Make sure you support the need to remove the current Criticisms on the Discussion Page. This is done by consensus so please log in and add to the Discussion. We cannot have these propagandists BS stay on the page. It is being used to advertise Anti-Cultist and Con. Science, two groups that have a biased vendetta and are repeatedly posting propaganda on the page.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement#Criticisms

This makes me want to get everyone I know to add to the discussion against them now, its pathetic how they just come out and say that shit.

Jeezus, these loons are so sensitive that they sound the alarm at criticism posted on Wikipedia.

There is a real world out there, people. The Internet is not real life. Why would anyone waste their time obsessing about this bullshit?

If there was real substance to TZM, a few criticisms on the wiki wouldn't matter. Obviously, they are so fragile and weak as an organization that it does.

This is exactly the point I try to make when talking about TZM in the media, if they even get to be in the media for more than a bullet point. Imagine if anyone trying to get into office went this nuts over criticisms, they'd be in the dust bin of history in no time.

Edit: This is why I often take screenshots of posts I know will be deleted from conspiracy sites.

He looks like he's from the Internet.

My most favourite post from the discussion part of the wiki page is: (In case it ever vanishes..)

I spent the entire year of 2009 traveling around the US showing the zeitgeist films, and the entire time I maintained a neutral stance on the specific points of the movement. this is documented on my non-commercial, non-affiliated website zeitgeistonwheels.com. I feel that I can offer some criticism points if there is some way that my own observations can be accepted as reference...

1. The grassroots model is poetic but as far as getting anything done or making any progress, it seems to be a hindrance. I have observed this in the Portland Oregon zeitgeist chapter, the Louisville Kentucky zeitgeist chapter, and in my own experience with the public when showing the film. People are excited to get involved, and promote the film, but at the local level there seems to be a wall blocking any action beyond that.

2. The Venus Project is a think tank type organization, they do not have the capacity, nor do they seem to want the capacity, to take action. This is from my own experience contacting Roxanne Meadows and conversing with her over a period of 6 months, showing up at their research facility in Florida offering free labor from myself and 3 other people, and then being turned away. Roxanne and Jacque both told me in person during a tour that the primary goal of the venus project right now (as of 6/13/10) was to produce a feature film targeting audiences that the documentaries missed. These films are really great, but again, the movement is preaching about action, and all that seems to be happening is talk.

I do not know if any of this could be useful, but I invite conversation about it here and at jeff@zeitgeistonwheels.com.

Its funny, the whole wikipedia thing reminds me of NET doing the same thing before TZM (It seems we keep repeating history..)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2940344/Network-of-European-Technocrats-N-E-T-Techno</p>

When I was briefly in charge (suppodly..) of PR for them, I ordered them to stop fighting on wiki about the whole thing, not that they took any notice.. (Then just what was I supposed to be in charge of then if I couldn't order people about based on 'expertise'..)

And, as you can see, if you look into it a little, you will see banned users such as Skip:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive75#User:Skipsievert_talk_page_postings

All great insights I reckon into whats wrong with organisations when people get banned, as often the banned folk are the right ones!

> it is frowned upon to edit Wikipedia articles about yourself or an organization
> you own

Its funny how one can keep repeating this to folk who just don't listen!

NET is now EOS, and are perhaps learning some lessons in the art of listening, but sadly still have a long way to go when dealing with folk who disagree with their solutions.

(Much like many organisations.)

European Organisation for Sustainability

I thought he meant "End of Story"

"What plans, or part of theirs would you say was stupid ?"

All of it. They started in 2004 and all they have to show for it is this website. These aren't plans. These are musings on the Internet. Nor are these designs. These are the results of some dude fiddling with Photoshop in his bedroom.

The Internet is great and everything but I long for the days when forums were forums and not philosophical movements.

Nanos, plans wisely come after proving that they work. There's no point in planning to build an RBE city if we haven't proven that the people will behave as predicted. If they want to discuss plans to test and analyze data to see if their predictions might come true, then that's fine.

> plans wisely come after proving that they work.

Then what becomes before the work ?

I'm confused, as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning</p>

> process of thinking about the activities required to create a desired goal on
> some scale.

As far as I can understand, plans always come first..

Then actions..

Then results..

This might be a cycle process, much like how some modern bridges are built, where they don't have a 100% plan for construction, but plan a little, build a little, plan a little more..

I once built a shed that way, starting with a bunch of wood and working it out as I went along..

> If the plan is to overthrow the monetary system, however, they may be skipping a
> few steps in the process.

Oh totally agree there!

I was particularly interested in Matts answers, as their ability to give a very common sense view on things is I find particularly valuable for research purposes to help come up with better ways to plan and fix things.

EOS does have qualified scientists..

Remember that yesterdays hippies are todays business owners, so it doesn't take a qualified scientist to come up with a plan that works..

Though I do agree that a qualified scientist is probably more able to come up with a better plan on the whole than someone who isn't. (Though judging by the number of far too academic scientists I've met, most of them couldn't balance their cheque book, let alone plan to run a community without it going bust, as they are used to being given funding, rather than earning it..)

> there is nothing anyone can say that would make me consider all this RBE stuff to
> be a worthwhile idea. This is not a serious scientific idea.

I generally agree, but..

I think there are aspects of it, which whilst idealistic, are indeed practical and doable.

Its rather a shame its difficult to debate with them on just which aspects are realistic and which are pushing the envelope a bit too far..

For example, I reckon its possible to run a community, or even the whole country on just a volunteer worker basic, being that 4% of the UK population and 6% of Germany for example already volunteer, and working out roughly that to run things as they are, we only need around 10% of workforce actually working in important jobs, so there isn't too much gap between say 6% and 10% to fill..

I reckon if you start off building a community with a 100% workforce that is working, and slowly over time, reduce the workforce numbers and allow people to be lazy, that yu can still maintain your productive output high enough to afford to keep all the lazy folk.

As I reckon an entire volunteer workforce would see an end to much of the admin paperwork that is in use today to make sure people stick to the rules, and make peoples lives easier.

What I don't agree is that it appears likely we can do without money, or that there will be abdunance for everyone, rather that we will still have money, only more of it, and people will be rationed.

TZM should just stick to, use the scientific process, and nothing more, no RBE wordings, and build from there, then I reckon far more people would take them seriously.

For example, EOS is far more serious about these things than TZM, and match very closely my thoughts on how things would probably work best.

Oh good, some nobody on the Internet has vouched for EOS.

This changes everything!