Former POC lays out his TVP criticism

A Vegan reflects on the Zeitgeist Movement

Ha, found an old photo.

Here's me trying to recruit people to renowned conspiracy group "The Zeitgeist Movement" in my conspiracy days.

Classic pic.twitter.com/fvvW12LHDj

— Skeptic Of The North (@SkepticOf) April 11, 2022

No, it was pouring down if memory serves me lol.

— Skeptic Of The North (@SkepticOf) April 11, 2022

The Zeitgeist Movement criticize Peter Joseph

The Zeitgeist Movement's death explained

And 90 days later#TheZeitgeistMovement #PeterJoseph #TZM #NLRBE #interreflections pic.twitter.com/z5fM5M4TV7

— Rebuking RBE Myths (@MythsRbe) March 16, 2020

Libertarian Socialist Rants defines the Zeitgeist Movement

lol, 'Liz' tells us how it is. #TZM #RBE #Zeitgeist #PostScarcity pic.twitter.com/K2Y477MY

— The JimJesus 🤘🏴💰🍕 (@JimJesus) March 28, 2012

Global Redesign Institute criticism

What happened to the Global Redesign Institute? from r/TZM

 

 

Just checking, you're that guy that did those internet films full of factual holes and flaws 15 years ago and hasn't done anything since, right?

— Ouroboros (@0urobro) March 24, 2022

And yet it's still true.

— Ouroboros (@0urobro) March 24, 2022

Do you enjoy yours?

— Ouroboros (@0urobro) March 24, 2022

Cry harder pic.twitter.com/7ZQZiHhR9K

— Full Digital Jacket (@Satoshi2k21) March 24, 2022

You sound a little rattled, why is that?

— Full Digital Jacket (@Satoshi2k21) March 24, 2022

You sound very immature for someone who’s directed at least one semi commendable film.

— Full Digital Jacket (@Satoshi2k21) March 24, 2022

Oh Jesus says the director of one ok film calling everyone stupid who doesn’t agree with his ridiculous take about Bitcoin when if anyone should know better then it should be this guy when it comes to the perils of the fractional reserve central banking system. Get a grip he says pic.twitter.com/CiC2cBvY2v

— Full Digital Jacket (@Satoshi2k21) March 24, 2022

Elaborate on the abstract delusion please

— Full Digital Jacket (@Satoshi2k21) March 24, 2022

There’s only ever going to be 21 million Bitcoin Peter.

No delusion.

Just a hard capped digital asset that’s never existed before in recorded human history.

True scarcity.

Don’t let your anger fool you, read up wise up you’ll see.

21 million Peter.

— Full Digital Jacket (@Satoshi2k21) March 24, 2022

21 million coins! Why not 10 million? Why not 40 million?

I could literally create a program right now and develop a currency with whatever arbitrary value of static volume.
Completely meaningless and useless

— Peter Joseph (@ZeitgeistFilm) March 24, 2022

That’s one million times larger than the computer they haven’t produced yet, that we know of. pic.twitter.com/w33Hia1usn

— Full Digital Jacket (@Satoshi2k21) March 24, 2022

Peter Joseph talks about suing Critics

Even the GCA questions Gilbert Ismail's role

The Zeitgeist Movement "Rational Consensus" challenged

"Rational Consensus"

Rational Consensus is not to be confused with the historically failed traditional Mob Rule Democratic Process of "one person - one vote". TZM does not condone total, open mob rule democracy as it is based on the faulty assumption that each participating party is educated enough to make the most intellectually appropriate, unbiased decision.

Proper Decision Making has nothing to do with the interests of a group of people, nor the interests of a single person. Proper Decision Making is a purely technical process of logical assessment of a given set of variables and hence can only be based on upon tangible, technical referents - not abject, unsupported mass value opinion, which is what the pure democratic theory erroneously assumes holds integrity. In other words, each argument of a given member must be logically supported by an external referent/set of external referents – clearly reasoned in communication to support the conclusion given. The manifestation of this reasoning could be called a "Case".

Using the example of a Chapter scenario: When a conflict of agreement occurs between the group, the process of Rational Consensus is commenced which requires each conflicting party to present their Case to everyone else. This Case must consist of technically reasoned factors/instances/examples which can be evaluated outside of the expression of the person who is presenting the problem. In other words, insinuation, assumptions and predispositions have no value. If the argument cannot be quantified in some manner - it isn't valid as an argument.

Let's assume a Member has a problem with a Coordinator's actions and would like to see the removal of that Coordinator. Let's assume the Case reasoning is that the Coordinator is not properly representing the interests/ideas of the majority of the group.

In this scenario, a set of technical examples would need to be provided by which the group itself can review. Then a rational "democratic" consensus is made within that group based solely upon the evidence presented - not the expression of any persons themselves. Now, while this process is simple and direct enough - resembling traditional democracy - the decision can still be overridden in the event the conclusions made are suspect as to their technical reasoning by the next tier degree in the Chapter Structure. This extended evaluation is there to protect from erroneous conclusions made by a possibly un-knowledgeable or biased Chapter Membership.

In other words, for example, the removal of a State Chapter Coordinator, while meeting Rational Consensus in the respective Chapter, might still need to meet Rational Consensus on the State Tier on the Structure. [ie. Consensus by all 50 states] to protect against erroneous or biased group decisions or even infiltrations by 3rd parties with the intent of problem generation. Since these situations are very rare and occur usually within very small, lower tier Chapters, the factors which comprise such an intervention naturally exist on a per case basis.

As an aside, it is important to point out that there is nothing to gain personally by being a Coordinator of any Chapter or Team in and of itself. Abuse of this position offers nothing in self-interest return, except perhaps Ego Satisfaction. There is no pay and typically it is a higher stress position due to the responsibility inherent. Many who come from the hyper-democratic conditioning assume that mass consensus is the only thing we can trust while the individual is not trust worthy at all. This cynical view needs to be adjusted to understand that in an environment where a person cannot find reward for their narrow self-interest, they will have no reason typically to perpetuate that narrow self-interest. This is one of the core reasons, as an aside, The Movement operates without money overall - as money always sets the stage for corruption on a basic level, as history has shown.

TZM UK Chapter admits to "Verbal Masturbation"

William Gazecki on Jacque Fresco

"It’s a 'lack of professional engagement', William Gazecki who in 2006 completed Future by Design, a feature-length profile of Jacque Fresco says, that has hurt Fresco the most. “The real missing link in Jacque’s world is having put Jacque to work,” Gazecki says, “[It’s] exemplified when people say: ‘Well, show me some buildings he’s built. And I don’t mean the domes out in Venus. I mean, let’s see an office building, let’s see a manufacturing plant, let’s see a circular city.’ And that’s where he should have been 30 years ago. He should have been applying his work, in the real world … [but] he’s not a collaborator, and I think that’s why he’s never had great public achievements.”

Gazecki Commentary

These comments from Gazecki are more suited to the "Influence" section. The use of Gazecki's quotes in the way it currently presented is not very encyclopedic. It reads more like a newspaper. Perhaps these quotes should be summed up and paraphrased?--Biophily (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Earl King, you keep moving the paragraph. It belongs better to the "Influence" subsection because Gazecki is explaining why Fresco has not been a large influence in architecture and society in general. Just because you want to strike the reader immediately with a negative sentiment does not make it the proper place for that paragraph. It's better to move it to the "Influence" subsection, and have the lead sentences of the criticism section be neither criticism nor praise. BLP's require balance, unlike other types of articles.--Biophily (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. You also used a false edit summary in the process of reverting. You also created a very funny sounding section called theoretical criticism and that is too odd a way to present things. You removed Gazecki's comment from the actual critical section where it belonged. It is a powerful and succinct statement about Fresco and unlike most of the fluff now in that section and honorific blessing type of material, it presents a different and direct view of Fresco from someone who made a film about him and knew him intimately because of that. So, burying information at the bottom in a badly phrased topic heading that has nothing to do with the critical value of what Gazecki said seems wrong for the article. It is a continuance of your former editing style which is not neutral. You removed and buried the information also twice with false edit summaries. You reverted this three times including your first revert. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Edward L. Winston's Zeitgeist critique