Form 990-EZ for period ending December
Showing posts with label NPO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NPO. Show all posts
Monday, December 31, 2018
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Giovanna Marino's resignation letter
"Dear friends and volunteers of the Zeitgeist Movement of all around the world,
After 4 and a half years of shared work with you, over two years of helping Global Chapters Administration (GCA), I have reached the point of leaving the movement for the reasons that you will read further down. I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for your dedication and for the contribution that each of you has given in Italy and in the other national chapters.
Voluntary actions that we have done together have been a great opportunity for my personal human and spiritual growth and I hope it has been the same for you. But now I've come to a point where I can no longer continue as this would require that I was lying and hiding of data and facts concerning all. Therefore, in the spirit of transparency and coherency, I'm here with this document of mine to communicate truthfulness and with liberty the causes that have led me to this decision yet too long meditated.
I want to emphasize that many within the movement are geniune people and have great generosity and true commitment, while just a few are those who unfortunately have deviated from the original intent and sadly are the ones who have the power to manage TZM. I do not let myself run, I use my critical thinking and am consistent with what I say, do and think. As a result I can not promote the name of the Movement anymore.
(In bold and italicized are Giovanna's comments about the June International Chapter Meeting of this year)
Possibility of reading the new Non-Profit Association Charter: DENIED
Although, there have been numerous requests to read the new Non-Profit Association Charter, this has not been possible. In addition, members of the Greek chapter and others who have requested it, have been mocked and were told that there was no reason to ask this kind of transparency, as you hear in the recording of the international meeting of June 29, 2016.
- Approximately 33:00, the NPO discussion starts
- Approximatelty 43:50, Franky says it is not possible to achieve efficient communication and reach everyone, but that anyone can participate in meetings and ask questions, but the questions can not be done through documents or google.group because this means destroying the public image.
(Pity that he missed that the Greek chapter hasd disclosed his google.doc only through google.group dedicated exclusively to national coord. therefore not in public, and shame that there was no answer. Why does a movement like TZM is not able to make efficient communication and why certain information is not made public in particular when asked during the meetings?) (and by the way, Franky is allowed to say this means destroying the public image while I have been accused of being violent when I said that some statements on GMOs etc can split the movement. - Double standard?)
- Approximately 47:00, Jeorge criticizes the fact that there are people criticizing despite the fact that components of the NPO are senior members of the movement and also says it is good cleaning up of those who continue to criticize even if TZM is getting smaller and smaller and that there is no transparency issue.
(If seniority of service is an absolute value for TZM then TZM is a gerontocracy)
Cleaning up and reducing the movement to only a bunch of people who adhere without questioning or objecting is a very preventive prerequisite for any development and in particular contradictory for a movement that aims to change the world by reaching a "critical mass." The lack of listening is a lack of will to communicate)
- Approximately 51:00, the Greek chapter yet raises doubts and asks details about the NPO and was asked why the Greek chapter asks the association details as TZM is not democratic ...
(Yes, pity there is no capability to respond to simple requests of acknowledging of mechanisms of the NPO, as a body CREATED SPECIFICALLY for TZM)
- Approximately 55:34, Teemu says that for him there are no problem for the fact that it does not know who is in the NPO and, as regards to the transparency, he says in his chapter everything is transparent. Even Franky says in his chapter everything is transparent.
(Pity no one explains why there is no transparency on NPO and in any cases, this is not a relevant answer. If someone is not interested in having this information, that should not be an excuse to silence those who request the information)
Others add their views by saying that it's not a problem of TZM transparency, but lack of confidence by whom calls for transparency. Franky gives the example of Peter asking if people want to know his insurance number, and concludes that those who want more information should take it upon themselves to inquire!
(Pity nobody says where to find such information. It's not even a matter of trust, the matter is not sharing the Charter of the NPO that is hidden and replaced with a false response on the lack of trust)
- Approximately 1:03:13, Victor says that people who want transparency are people who want to know everything, and that this is not sustainable.
(Sustainable?? What kind of concept is this?? Not sustainable asking to read the Chart of the NPO made for TZM?)
He continues: "If you are in a team then you know what happens at that team, otherwise you'll know just what you're told."
(Much like the State broadcaster of all dictatorships, isn't it?)
And Jeorge adds that people who complain are those who are not connected.
(Unbelievable hearing such declaration, as if it was a crime to ask to know and by the way, although I had been connected with the GCA, I have not been revealed such information despite having requested for it)
- Approximately 1:05:49, Gilbert justifies that the GCA meetings are closed to prevent interference and waste of time and that in any case he understands the frustration of the Greek chapter and that the issues should be discussed openly whether they exist.
(Pity that in this case the problem exists, being placed openly, but no one bothers to clarify it)
- Approximately 1:08:10, Jason Lord says it's just a question of who wants to take control and that anyone who is volunteering does not have any kind of control and that no one has one vote in the Movement.
(Definitely those who have a greater knowledge may have some kind of control. So is there the fear of losing control of TZM by senior members? Wasn't it a leaderness, horizontal, transparent movement?)
- Approximately 1:10:51, Gilbert says there are active chapters that do not participate in international meetings in order not to be bored by the constant demands for transparency.
(I'd like to know who these chapters are and anyway that's another excuse for not responding)
- Approximately 1:20:30, Franky concludes that TZM is always there after seven years with no information and that, if there are things that do not work, people are asked to participate in the team where such discussions are done and to stop complaining loudly. He also stresses that there is a lot of good people leaving the movement because there are too many protests.
(If you merely respond by giving the correct information, there would not be all these complaints, and people would not leave TZM. Instead, people leave because they find themselves in a sectarian group. In addition, even though I was part of the GCA for two and a half years, I had no such information, although requested in April 2015, and even if there had been information, these have not been shared with me)
Suggested reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Lack of transparency on the role and composition of TZM Global and interaction between GCA and TZM Global
- Approximately 1:28:32, what is TZM global?
Gilbert says it is the administration of the movement in the sense of the actual administering of things that happen in the movement such as chapters forming, website editing... it is a web/physical team, the back office without any involvement in the day-by-day activism.
(I'd like to know who are these who administer the movement and anyway that's another general answer to avoid giving specific information on the NPO)
About the GCA, Gilbert says that it serves the chapters.... also to solve problems in executing their activism, guidance, questions, assisting if there is any question ... and mediating when there is a problem within a chapter, between chapters .... and in most extreme cases, the GCA also moderate a chapter in a sense that we establish that a chapter is not functioning properly and then we take steps to make sure that it does.
(Easier said than done: see the Chapter USA problem further down)
- Approximately 1:31:30, how are decisions made in the GCA??
Gilbert answers that the GCA has never had a problem to make decision .... with rational consensus .... they discuss what would be the most logical outcome .... that it has never been a problem and .... that we hadn't the need to follow a protocol, but just to discuss.
(Here too, easier said than done: see Matt's video issue and my removal from GCA)
Victor said that sometimes it is not easy because of the emotional thing
(Another excuse to eliminate the confrontation with conflicting ideas. The comment referred to me as my logical speeches were downgraded to "emotional" because I insisted in discussing some ideas that were not taken into account, just like what happens with the Greek chapter that asks for information on the Statute of the Association)
- Approximately 1:40:53, Reba Melfa criticizes the Greek chapter that does not know where to go and find information that everyone knows
(Except for the Articles of Association, eh?)
And have not had a good education for the fact that the Greek chapter makes certain questions.
(Another way of avoiding the answer and at the same time blaming others for not having adequate training, shame that Reba Melfa has forgotten that the Greek chapter was recently one of the most connected chapters as it has organized the Global Z-Day in Athens). Reba Melfa responds this way because I had criticized her own methods to raise new chapters to the rank of official as different from that used by the GCA to formalize all new chapters worldwide.
See USA chapter problem
Shortly we will have to attend 6-month courses as in TVP to officially public speaking of concepts that are written on the book "TZM defined". Will volunteers also be asked to perform a tests in addition to an evaluation interview? What are the criteria? How is this procedure performed? Does it work on sympathies, ad personam, or with rational consensus? But if, in the case of Reba Melfa, the coordinator who decides is thr only one, therefore with whom will she achieve the rational consensus?)
Lack of transparency in the relationship between TZM and NPO
Approximately 1:57:00, Gilbert talks about the new site and request information to Jason Lord who answered about the NPO that projects are on hold until they will not know what happens with the resources
(Money?)
And the times...
(In practice, no concrete information revealed)
They have to discuss
(Who?)
About what they can do and what to do.......
Gilbert says that in the future, it would be good to meet with Jason Lord, with the national coordinators and the GCA, and with some representatives of the NPO to make sure everyone is sure what happens etc. etc. with regard to the website.
(Nice plans, pity that soon after Jason responds....)
Jason Lord responds: "... the NPO is a separate entity that does not relate to others and operates at its discretion, although listening to the needs of the movement ... and that could have ongoing projects to help the chapters, but everything will depend on what the NPO will do in the future and that they are all there to help and better serve the movement on the Public Relation's point of view, but also from the functional point of view. They are assessing what has worked in the past and that we need to know that who is part of the NPOs are former members of TZM and so they know. "
(What a consistency: one says one thing and soon after the other denies it)
Gilbert adds that he did speak with Peter who said that the NPO will NOT be disconnected from TZM and his activism. Also they discussed the possibility of GCA of being a liaison (connection) between the NPO and the activist part of TZM to discuss the needs and requirements ....
But Jason Lord continues changing the subject by saying that all this noise and clamor of the last month should be tackled by Gilbert with the participation of Reba Melfa in order to create coordinators who know the information.
(See US chapter problem)
(What to say!! when some people create an association, the aim should be at least clear to members and if even Gilbert, Peter and Jason Lord do not agree on the function of NPO despite months that the Non-profit is already operating, I wonder how one manages to be informed about the NPO functions in connection with the TZM when i t is not posible to read the Charter of the NPO that sadly remains secret.)
Lack of transparency in the Giovanna Marino removal from GCA
Approximately 1:46:50, Gilbert does not want to give information about the fact that I have been removed from the GCA a part from saying that relations in the GCA have deteriorated in recent months, and that with the latest communication events it has worsened .... it seems that even some administrators do not want to communicate.
(Obviously without specifying who - this also indicates the lack of transparency among the interrelationships between the members of the GCA).
Teemu says my discussions were not constructive and that he would have written something about it.
(Teemu has only recently joined the GCA and knows nothing of any prior discussion unless someone has reported him his personal impression on me. Teemu has only read some unrelated comment on Whatsup and instead of writing something he could have talked directly with me, couldn't he? Perhaps problems can't be previously discussed in a meeting? What makes Teemu afraid of not being able to talk openly with me and what does prevent him to talk with the team in my presence?)
Gilbert concludes that this is the result of accumulated frustration and that we've all talked a lot especially on the communication style to use, being us in the GCA....
(As if it was rather elegant to give a psychological opinion in public on a person not attending the discussion. See further down how Gilbert and Nelson talk about TZM members in private)
Non-Violent Communication? WOW!
The decision of my removal was taken without any discussion and based on Reba Melfa's and Victor's personal interpretation of one of my replies in an email of Coord. National google.group where Jason Lord told me that I could ignore his reply and I responded that he could ignore TZM request for transparency. Reba Melfa accused me to be "hostile, selfish, and detrimental to TZM and that I have assassinated Jason" - How sweet, she knows exactly how to speak in a non violent way! doesn't she? But of course, she can!
Regarding the communicative relationships "worsened" between me and the members of GCA, this has been caused by the lack of listening to some of my rational and logical views, lack of listening by the other "elder" members in the GCA, especially Gilbert Ismail, Victor Nelson who yet have not recognized the lack of quality and amazing verbal violence used by Matt in his video, nor the unsatisfactory handling of issues such as GMOs and vaccines in an article of the Greek magazine translated into English where they mocked those who have different ideas.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TXjEWA95g-Ol8DyitxL8AgQkEbdkB6pxPpEAw7CFm1k/edit
Moreover, it has never seriously been considered solving the US controversy.
After months and months of total absence of Reba Melfa for personal reasons, the GCA had established a new co-coordination for USA and at the technical meeting for the passage of positions, Jason Lord and Reba Melfa showed up saying that they could not be done because Reba is his (Jason's) friend and coordination must remain exclusively to her (Reba). Nelson, Victor and Gilbert, despite having agreed on the new co-coordination, have done nothing to change the situation, leaving the decision to Jason Lord and refused to support the decision taken within the very same GCA. I worked for months without having a shred of results. Also being later invited by Nelson and Gilbert not to talk to anyone about these facts and that it wasn't my business anymore, otherwise I would be kicked out of the GCA. I call this blackmailing!
Reba Melfa decides what are the US national chapters of which doesn't reveal any details to anyone. Someone created a USA FB group because Reba Melfa does not like FB, However she was invited as admin and Reba Melfa popped up, changed the group's name into "Unofficial" and then left the group because she does not care about the request of US chapters. But for her personal business she uses Facebook without problems.
New York State coordinators seeking official status have been ignored without any sort of process of appeal or mediation by the GCA (a part from my efforts). Nor has there been any sort of communication that application has been rejected. Again, they have been simply ignored. And I know of other cases like this one.
This is Nelson consideration about TZM members: "These people want to participate in every movie script or have the alternative to chose the course (a) or (b) of their elementary school" example: "the old dinosaurs fuuuu stupid points horzontal" in structure and leaderness"
And Gilbert said to me: "Will you be next in line to make the mistake that values pertinent to an NLRBE must be applied to movement coordination? ........ you fulfill a different role. A people manager...."
So to say, should I act like a movement manager? Sorry, I do not consider myself a person who manages the movement nor I want to be such and certainly do not want to even share my activities with people who believe they manage the movement members without applying the values of NLRBE.
Lack of transparency in the management of the USA chapters
Several months ago, I raised the issue that there was an inconsistency in the structure of the chapters as the United States of America is conceived as a single state and not a federation of states, while the European Communities is not regarded as a single unity. Consequently, the individual US states are considered sub-chapters and not National chapters, while in Europe each state is considered state with its own management of the chapter.
The State coordinators of the US are thus excluded, for example from the international google group and their names have NEVER been shared with the GCA despite several times requested to the US coordinator, Reba Melfa. Consequently, the chapters in the US are excluded from the global communication, and communication between national coordinators.
Why the USA chapters are not in trello? Do we have access to those data? What if unlucky Reba Melfa leaves? Is there a back up somewhere? 2 nov 2014 alle 16:37. There was no way of being able to reach a decision on the matter because it involved the sharing of coordinator USA Reba Melfa's powers. The US coordinator Reba Melfa uses different methods to manage USA chapters than those of the GCA to promote a new national coordinator because according to Jason Lord "been that people are hiding another agenda"
.............
Another agenda? Maybe could it be saving the world from madness, fear and violence and lack of transparency?
Lack of transparency in the reconstruction of the facts and in the resolution of the Matt Berkowitz's case
- Approximately 1:13:51, Jason Lord says that the official material of the movement is "obvious" and does not require official status, the important thing is that it works as a communication.
(That is, after all of the discussions about the control over communication, Jason Lord suddenly decides that everyone does as s/he pleases, whatever works?)
Then Gilbert explains to Jason Lord that the problem arises from Matt Berkowitz's video and it would be better to remain as neutral as possible and see the holistic side. Then Teemu says that Matt's video is good and that he would like to spread it as TZM material.
At the time, I created this document on Matt Berkowitz issue.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SDqezEmSubmBMGsu4jHcf-WOjEK-p-drinKp69H3dTI/edit
(You can find Matt's video transcription here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C0AApOblFA27MkC2T4rSq8IiUUESCpAhdR_4Cb_Ases/edit# )
It was not possible to determine why the GCA members wanted this document to remain a secret. Is it that deep down they want to re-evaluate Matt's video? Have not being clear in public about these facts. November 2015, the Greek chapter came out with an English version of a magazine issue that publishes in Greek. In this, there were many speeches pro GMO and pro vaccines. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0By_H2-1yWMCOSl8zNDVwTFNJMms
Only after my protests, it has been archived and replaced with another number. Certainly many didn't like that and sadly they were the very same people who unfortunately have not yet understood.....
In this other document (following link below) you can read my objections on the violent language used in the video that no one in the GCA wanted to acknowledge until at some point Peter Joseph did made the final decision to remove the video from the Official YouTube channel
Matt's video violent language
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TXjEWA95g-Ol8DyitxL8AgQkEbdkB6pxPpEAw7CFm1k/edit
In the following two years despite various discussions and even though I had explained why there should not be certain insults, the problem has reappeared and even now there are national coordinators who would like to re-propose the same video not understanding what all this is about. Unfortunately those who would like to use this video does not understand that insulting people is not coherent with the Non-Violent Communication promoted by the movement.
Some members of GCA have accused me of having a violent language because I reiterated that the TZM does not take part in certain scientific debates to avoid splitting the movement in half. If they only knew what damage GMO create....
To conclude:
"The application of the scientific method for social concern"?
All I hear is demagogy and rhetoric.
The Zeitgeist Movement basic concepts are ideas that can not be harnessed nor labelled or patented. Ideas are flying and overcoming boundaries, barriers and levels of civilizations.
I will take my ideas, which also include many promoted by Zeitgeist, beyond the boundaries of this movement in order to actually see a real change in the real life of each one of us starting immediately.
Life is the very same moment in which you are alive. The next moment could not evolve. So I live this amazing adventure free from any rhetoric and manipulation, trying intensely to avoid the violence that ignoring the existence dignity prevents human beings to live in complete freedom and harmony with the Earth.
Ciao ciao!
;o)
If anyone would like to understand or inquire more, please do contact me.
You know my emai! ;o)
Apologies for the English faults."
After 4 and a half years of shared work with you, over two years of helping Global Chapters Administration (GCA), I have reached the point of leaving the movement for the reasons that you will read further down. I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for your dedication and for the contribution that each of you has given in Italy and in the other national chapters.
Voluntary actions that we have done together have been a great opportunity for my personal human and spiritual growth and I hope it has been the same for you. But now I've come to a point where I can no longer continue as this would require that I was lying and hiding of data and facts concerning all. Therefore, in the spirit of transparency and coherency, I'm here with this document of mine to communicate truthfulness and with liberty the causes that have led me to this decision yet too long meditated.
I want to emphasize that many within the movement are geniune people and have great generosity and true commitment, while just a few are those who unfortunately have deviated from the original intent and sadly are the ones who have the power to manage TZM. I do not let myself run, I use my critical thinking and am consistent with what I say, do and think. As a result I can not promote the name of the Movement anymore.
(In bold and italicized are Giovanna's comments about the June International Chapter Meeting of this year)
Possibility of reading the new Non-Profit Association Charter: DENIED
Although, there have been numerous requests to read the new Non-Profit Association Charter, this has not been possible. In addition, members of the Greek chapter and others who have requested it, have been mocked and were told that there was no reason to ask this kind of transparency, as you hear in the recording of the international meeting of June 29, 2016.
- Approximately 33:00, the NPO discussion starts
- Approximatelty 43:50, Franky says it is not possible to achieve efficient communication and reach everyone, but that anyone can participate in meetings and ask questions, but the questions can not be done through documents or google.group because this means destroying the public image.
(Pity that he missed that the Greek chapter hasd disclosed his google.doc only through google.group dedicated exclusively to national coord. therefore not in public, and shame that there was no answer. Why does a movement like TZM is not able to make efficient communication and why certain information is not made public in particular when asked during the meetings?) (and by the way, Franky is allowed to say this means destroying the public image while I have been accused of being violent when I said that some statements on GMOs etc can split the movement. - Double standard?)
- Approximately 47:00, Jeorge criticizes the fact that there are people criticizing despite the fact that components of the NPO are senior members of the movement and also says it is good cleaning up of those who continue to criticize even if TZM is getting smaller and smaller and that there is no transparency issue.
(If seniority of service is an absolute value for TZM then TZM is a gerontocracy)
Cleaning up and reducing the movement to only a bunch of people who adhere without questioning or objecting is a very preventive prerequisite for any development and in particular contradictory for a movement that aims to change the world by reaching a "critical mass." The lack of listening is a lack of will to communicate)
- Approximately 51:00, the Greek chapter yet raises doubts and asks details about the NPO and was asked why the Greek chapter asks the association details as TZM is not democratic ...
(Yes, pity there is no capability to respond to simple requests of acknowledging of mechanisms of the NPO, as a body CREATED SPECIFICALLY for TZM)
- Approximately 55:34, Teemu says that for him there are no problem for the fact that it does not know who is in the NPO and, as regards to the transparency, he says in his chapter everything is transparent. Even Franky says in his chapter everything is transparent.
(Pity no one explains why there is no transparency on NPO and in any cases, this is not a relevant answer. If someone is not interested in having this information, that should not be an excuse to silence those who request the information)
Others add their views by saying that it's not a problem of TZM transparency, but lack of confidence by whom calls for transparency. Franky gives the example of Peter asking if people want to know his insurance number, and concludes that those who want more information should take it upon themselves to inquire!
(Pity nobody says where to find such information. It's not even a matter of trust, the matter is not sharing the Charter of the NPO that is hidden and replaced with a false response on the lack of trust)
- Approximately 1:03:13, Victor says that people who want transparency are people who want to know everything, and that this is not sustainable.
(Sustainable?? What kind of concept is this?? Not sustainable asking to read the Chart of the NPO made for TZM?)
He continues: "If you are in a team then you know what happens at that team, otherwise you'll know just what you're told."
(Much like the State broadcaster of all dictatorships, isn't it?)
And Jeorge adds that people who complain are those who are not connected.
(Unbelievable hearing such declaration, as if it was a crime to ask to know and by the way, although I had been connected with the GCA, I have not been revealed such information despite having requested for it)
- Approximately 1:05:49, Gilbert justifies that the GCA meetings are closed to prevent interference and waste of time and that in any case he understands the frustration of the Greek chapter and that the issues should be discussed openly whether they exist.
(Pity that in this case the problem exists, being placed openly, but no one bothers to clarify it)
- Approximately 1:08:10, Jason Lord says it's just a question of who wants to take control and that anyone who is volunteering does not have any kind of control and that no one has one vote in the Movement.
(Definitely those who have a greater knowledge may have some kind of control. So is there the fear of losing control of TZM by senior members? Wasn't it a leaderness, horizontal, transparent movement?)
- Approximately 1:10:51, Gilbert says there are active chapters that do not participate in international meetings in order not to be bored by the constant demands for transparency.
(I'd like to know who these chapters are and anyway that's another excuse for not responding)
- Approximately 1:20:30, Franky concludes that TZM is always there after seven years with no information and that, if there are things that do not work, people are asked to participate in the team where such discussions are done and to stop complaining loudly. He also stresses that there is a lot of good people leaving the movement because there are too many protests.
(If you merely respond by giving the correct information, there would not be all these complaints, and people would not leave TZM. Instead, people leave because they find themselves in a sectarian group. In addition, even though I was part of the GCA for two and a half years, I had no such information, although requested in April 2015, and even if there had been information, these have not been shared with me)
Suggested reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Lack of transparency on the role and composition of TZM Global and interaction between GCA and TZM Global
- Approximately 1:28:32, what is TZM global?
Gilbert says it is the administration of the movement in the sense of the actual administering of things that happen in the movement such as chapters forming, website editing... it is a web/physical team, the back office without any involvement in the day-by-day activism.
(I'd like to know who are these who administer the movement and anyway that's another general answer to avoid giving specific information on the NPO)
About the GCA, Gilbert says that it serves the chapters.... also to solve problems in executing their activism, guidance, questions, assisting if there is any question ... and mediating when there is a problem within a chapter, between chapters .... and in most extreme cases, the GCA also moderate a chapter in a sense that we establish that a chapter is not functioning properly and then we take steps to make sure that it does.
(Easier said than done: see the Chapter USA problem further down)
- Approximately 1:31:30, how are decisions made in the GCA??
Gilbert answers that the GCA has never had a problem to make decision .... with rational consensus .... they discuss what would be the most logical outcome .... that it has never been a problem and .... that we hadn't the need to follow a protocol, but just to discuss.
(Here too, easier said than done: see Matt's video issue and my removal from GCA)
Victor said that sometimes it is not easy because of the emotional thing
(Another excuse to eliminate the confrontation with conflicting ideas. The comment referred to me as my logical speeches were downgraded to "emotional" because I insisted in discussing some ideas that were not taken into account, just like what happens with the Greek chapter that asks for information on the Statute of the Association)
- Approximately 1:40:53, Reba Melfa criticizes the Greek chapter that does not know where to go and find information that everyone knows
(Except for the Articles of Association, eh?)
And have not had a good education for the fact that the Greek chapter makes certain questions.
(Another way of avoiding the answer and at the same time blaming others for not having adequate training, shame that Reba Melfa has forgotten that the Greek chapter was recently one of the most connected chapters as it has organized the Global Z-Day in Athens). Reba Melfa responds this way because I had criticized her own methods to raise new chapters to the rank of official as different from that used by the GCA to formalize all new chapters worldwide.
See USA chapter problem
Shortly we will have to attend 6-month courses as in TVP to officially public speaking of concepts that are written on the book "TZM defined". Will volunteers also be asked to perform a tests in addition to an evaluation interview? What are the criteria? How is this procedure performed? Does it work on sympathies, ad personam, or with rational consensus? But if, in the case of Reba Melfa, the coordinator who decides is thr only one, therefore with whom will she achieve the rational consensus?)
Lack of transparency in the relationship between TZM and NPO
Approximately 1:57:00, Gilbert talks about the new site and request information to Jason Lord who answered about the NPO that projects are on hold until they will not know what happens with the resources
(Money?)
And the times...
(In practice, no concrete information revealed)
They have to discuss
(Who?)
About what they can do and what to do.......
Gilbert says that in the future, it would be good to meet with Jason Lord, with the national coordinators and the GCA, and with some representatives of the NPO to make sure everyone is sure what happens etc. etc. with regard to the website.
(Nice plans, pity that soon after Jason responds....)
Jason Lord responds: "... the NPO is a separate entity that does not relate to others and operates at its discretion, although listening to the needs of the movement ... and that could have ongoing projects to help the chapters, but everything will depend on what the NPO will do in the future and that they are all there to help and better serve the movement on the Public Relation's point of view, but also from the functional point of view. They are assessing what has worked in the past and that we need to know that who is part of the NPOs are former members of TZM and so they know. "
(What a consistency: one says one thing and soon after the other denies it)
Gilbert adds that he did speak with Peter who said that the NPO will NOT be disconnected from TZM and his activism. Also they discussed the possibility of GCA of being a liaison (connection) between the NPO and the activist part of TZM to discuss the needs and requirements ....
But Jason Lord continues changing the subject by saying that all this noise and clamor of the last month should be tackled by Gilbert with the participation of Reba Melfa in order to create coordinators who know the information.
(See US chapter problem)
(What to say!! when some people create an association, the aim should be at least clear to members and if even Gilbert, Peter and Jason Lord do not agree on the function of NPO despite months that the Non-profit is already operating, I wonder how one manages to be informed about the NPO functions in connection with the TZM when i t is not posible to read the Charter of the NPO that sadly remains secret.)
Lack of transparency in the Giovanna Marino removal from GCA
Approximately 1:46:50, Gilbert does not want to give information about the fact that I have been removed from the GCA a part from saying that relations in the GCA have deteriorated in recent months, and that with the latest communication events it has worsened .... it seems that even some administrators do not want to communicate.
(Obviously without specifying who - this also indicates the lack of transparency among the interrelationships between the members of the GCA).
Teemu says my discussions were not constructive and that he would have written something about it.
(Teemu has only recently joined the GCA and knows nothing of any prior discussion unless someone has reported him his personal impression on me. Teemu has only read some unrelated comment on Whatsup and instead of writing something he could have talked directly with me, couldn't he? Perhaps problems can't be previously discussed in a meeting? What makes Teemu afraid of not being able to talk openly with me and what does prevent him to talk with the team in my presence?)
Gilbert concludes that this is the result of accumulated frustration and that we've all talked a lot especially on the communication style to use, being us in the GCA....
(As if it was rather elegant to give a psychological opinion in public on a person not attending the discussion. See further down how Gilbert and Nelson talk about TZM members in private)
Non-Violent Communication? WOW!
The decision of my removal was taken without any discussion and based on Reba Melfa's and Victor's personal interpretation of one of my replies in an email of Coord. National google.group where Jason Lord told me that I could ignore his reply and I responded that he could ignore TZM request for transparency. Reba Melfa accused me to be "hostile, selfish, and detrimental to TZM and that I have assassinated Jason" - How sweet, she knows exactly how to speak in a non violent way! doesn't she? But of course, she can!
Regarding the communicative relationships "worsened" between me and the members of GCA, this has been caused by the lack of listening to some of my rational and logical views, lack of listening by the other "elder" members in the GCA, especially Gilbert Ismail, Victor Nelson who yet have not recognized the lack of quality and amazing verbal violence used by Matt in his video, nor the unsatisfactory handling of issues such as GMOs and vaccines in an article of the Greek magazine translated into English where they mocked those who have different ideas.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TXjEWA95g-Ol8DyitxL8AgQkEbdkB6pxPpEAw7CFm1k/edit
Moreover, it has never seriously been considered solving the US controversy.
After months and months of total absence of Reba Melfa for personal reasons, the GCA had established a new co-coordination for USA and at the technical meeting for the passage of positions, Jason Lord and Reba Melfa showed up saying that they could not be done because Reba is his (Jason's) friend and coordination must remain exclusively to her (Reba). Nelson, Victor and Gilbert, despite having agreed on the new co-coordination, have done nothing to change the situation, leaving the decision to Jason Lord and refused to support the decision taken within the very same GCA. I worked for months without having a shred of results. Also being later invited by Nelson and Gilbert not to talk to anyone about these facts and that it wasn't my business anymore, otherwise I would be kicked out of the GCA. I call this blackmailing!
Reba Melfa decides what are the US national chapters of which doesn't reveal any details to anyone. Someone created a USA FB group because Reba Melfa does not like FB, However she was invited as admin and Reba Melfa popped up, changed the group's name into "Unofficial" and then left the group because she does not care about the request of US chapters. But for her personal business she uses Facebook without problems.
New York State coordinators seeking official status have been ignored without any sort of process of appeal or mediation by the GCA (a part from my efforts). Nor has there been any sort of communication that application has been rejected. Again, they have been simply ignored. And I know of other cases like this one.
This is Nelson consideration about TZM members: "These people want to participate in every movie script or have the alternative to chose the course (a) or (b) of their elementary school" example: "the old dinosaurs fuuuu stupid points horzontal" in structure and leaderness"
And Gilbert said to me: "Will you be next in line to make the mistake that values pertinent to an NLRBE must be applied to movement coordination? ........ you fulfill a different role. A people manager...."
Lack of transparency in the management of the USA chapters
Several months ago, I raised the issue that there was an inconsistency in the structure of the chapters as the United States of America is conceived as a single state and not a federation of states, while the European Communities is not regarded as a single unity. Consequently, the individual US states are considered sub-chapters and not National chapters, while in Europe each state is considered state with its own management of the chapter.
The State coordinators of the US are thus excluded, for example from the international google group and their names have NEVER been shared with the GCA despite several times requested to the US coordinator, Reba Melfa. Consequently, the chapters in the US are excluded from the global communication, and communication between national coordinators.
Why the USA chapters are not in trello? Do we have access to those data? What if unlucky Reba Melfa leaves? Is there a back up somewhere? 2 nov 2014 alle 16:37. There was no way of being able to reach a decision on the matter because it involved the sharing of coordinator USA Reba Melfa's powers. The US coordinator Reba Melfa uses different methods to manage USA chapters than those of the GCA to promote a new national coordinator because according to Jason Lord "been that people are hiding another agenda"
.............
Another agenda? Maybe could it be saving the world from madness, fear and violence and lack of transparency?
Lack of transparency in the reconstruction of the facts and in the resolution of the Matt Berkowitz's case
- Approximately 1:13:51, Jason Lord says that the official material of the movement is "obvious" and does not require official status, the important thing is that it works as a communication.
(That is, after all of the discussions about the control over communication, Jason Lord suddenly decides that everyone does as s/he pleases, whatever works?)
Then Gilbert explains to Jason Lord that the problem arises from Matt Berkowitz's video and it would be better to remain as neutral as possible and see the holistic side. Then Teemu says that Matt's video is good and that he would like to spread it as TZM material.
At the time, I created this document on Matt Berkowitz issue.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SDqezEmSubmBMGsu4jHcf-WOjEK-p-drinKp69H3dTI/edit
(You can find Matt's video transcription here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C0AApOblFA27MkC2T4rSq8IiUUESCpAhdR_4Cb_Ases/edit# )
It was not possible to determine why the GCA members wanted this document to remain a secret. Is it that deep down they want to re-evaluate Matt's video? Have not being clear in public about these facts. November 2015, the Greek chapter came out with an English version of a magazine issue that publishes in Greek. In this, there were many speeches pro GMO and pro vaccines. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0By_H2-1yWMCOSl8zNDVwTFNJMms
Only after my protests, it has been archived and replaced with another number. Certainly many didn't like that and sadly they were the very same people who unfortunately have not yet understood.....
In this other document (following link below) you can read my objections on the violent language used in the video that no one in the GCA wanted to acknowledge until at some point Peter Joseph did made the final decision to remove the video from the Official YouTube channel
Matt's video violent language
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TXjEWA95g-Ol8DyitxL8AgQkEbdkB6pxPpEAw7CFm1k/edit
In the following two years despite various discussions and even though I had explained why there should not be certain insults, the problem has reappeared and even now there are national coordinators who would like to re-propose the same video not understanding what all this is about. Unfortunately those who would like to use this video does not understand that insulting people is not coherent with the Non-Violent Communication promoted by the movement.
Some members of GCA have accused me of having a violent language because I reiterated that the TZM does not take part in certain scientific debates to avoid splitting the movement in half. If they only knew what damage GMO create....
To conclude:
"The application of the scientific method for social concern"?
All I hear is demagogy and rhetoric.
The Zeitgeist Movement basic concepts are ideas that can not be harnessed nor labelled or patented. Ideas are flying and overcoming boundaries, barriers and levels of civilizations.
I will take my ideas, which also include many promoted by Zeitgeist, beyond the boundaries of this movement in order to actually see a real change in the real life of each one of us starting immediately.
Life is the very same moment in which you are alive. The next moment could not evolve. So I live this amazing adventure free from any rhetoric and manipulation, trying intensely to avoid the violence that ignoring the existence dignity prevents human beings to live in complete freedom and harmony with the Earth.
Ciao ciao!
;o)
If anyone would like to understand or inquire more, please do contact me.
You know my emai! ;o)
Apologies for the English faults."
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Another Charles Robinson-like interview
A new interview to be published soon in a German Arts Magazine. Not sure if they will put it all in so I will just post the whole thing here, now. ~p
(1)What is the Zeitgeist movement and what does it hope to achieve?
-I suppose TZM is a few things, depending on what aspect one chooses to emphasize.
On the broad scale is it a sustainability movement. In this, we understand the importance of environmental sustainability and how it relates to social sustainability. Long story short, you cannot have social sustainability (i.e. social stability) without environmental sustainability. If we experience massive resource shortages throughout the world, we can rest assured that it will create social destabilization as a consequence. Therefore, habitat integrity precedes societal integrity.
On the other hand, TZM is a civil rights movement. While we do not embrace or promote any existing political structure as a means to an end, one could (perhaps) use the word "populist" to express the Movement’s interest to help the vast majority of the world – a majority that should now rise up and realize the state of their oppression and counter the dramatic amount of unnecessary suffering and structural violence endured – all resulting from the current socioeconomic system.
TZM does not blame specific people, groups or “political” policy. At the root of the problem is the system of economics itself. Namely, market capitalism. However, it is worth noting that capitalism is also a symptom of a deeper sociological disorder regarding how we view the world and how we view each other. Our culture has evolved within an archaic and fearful worldview based on scarcity, with our most primitive reactions constantly ‘pinged’ or excited by the negative stress of our environment. This has manifest the capitalist model as a natural consequence and, as of now, we are in a nasty feedback loop which keep humanity in a violent cycle of primitive reactions of fear and greed… slowly pushing everything towards collapse.
So, to stop the cycle and create a more humane value system and appropriate approach to our social management, we first need to remove the system that is reinforcing it – what is creating the destructive feedback loop. The vast majority of the world’s problems are not going to be resolved or even slowed by current “establishment” oriented attempts at change. It’s all just noise. Trivial in the long term. Only when a new, intelligent socioeconomic system is installed that relevant long-term change will commence. We title this new system a "Natural Law, Resource-Based Economy”.
This worldview essentially began in the early 19th century with a man named John Etzler who is currently condemned by history as the first “Technological Utopianist”. While there are some problems with Etzler’s early, primitive vision (his main thesis was written in 1833), the basic framework of what he noticed – the intelligent use of technology; aligning with natural law forces; and the raising of humanity to a new level beyond merely working for money and the inherent slavery that it is - has been embraced by many since that time, extending the logic. This includes thinkers/institutions such as R. Buckminster Fuller, Technocracy Inc., Jacque Fresco and many others.
Furthermore, while The Zeitgeist Movement exists as a grassroots, chapter connected global network, it is also an emerging 501(c)(3) nonprofit working within the United States. This tax-exempt NPO helps larger order actions of the global movement, such as major event, press relations, media productions and the like.
(2) The Zeitgeist film began as an artistic performance rather than a documentary per se... what do you think is more effective in terms of creating an impact on the audience (artistic performance vs. documentary paradigm?)
-I'm not sure if there is a clean answer to that question. Each approach has an effect in different ways, depending on the nature of the viewer. My first film was created as an emotionally driven aesthetic piece that worked to generate critical thought in an extreme, abstract way. This work was done with heavy gesture and over-simplified statements to create a broad worldview. However, gesture aside, it is also likely the most sourced documentary in filmmaking history. I am unaware of any film that has detailed everything in such great scrutiny as I later did in the 200+ page book written to support the claims made. I state that because even 8 years later there is a vast condemnation of the piece in certain circles, with endless propaganda and derisive association – mostly based upon an uneducated and unenlightened sense of artistic express and mixed genre style.
So, I hence believe a combination of art and science; of gesture and academic rigor, is key. It is a balance. In fact, this is probably truer than ever given how saturated media has become in the modern day. The very act of getting anyone to pay attention to anything out there requires some type of aesthetic persuasion that invariably must be somewhat entertaining rather than coldly intellectual. That is my view, at least.
(3) Do you think that being able to participate in activism is a luxury, to a certain extent? For example, if I have to struggle to work a mindless job 10 hours a day just to feed my family of 6, do I have the same opportunity to take an interest in changing the system as someone with more time and resources? Or is it a 'with privilege comes responsibility' kind of thing?
-A natural consequence of the economic structure and resulting incentive system is that people become locked into a feedback loop of narrow self-interest. People are not trained by the very nature of this society to care about anyone else but themselves and their ”tribe”, and the pressures – the structural coercion – that are built in to the system reinforces that need for apathy and hence the disregard of one’s external surroundings. This relates to both people and the habitat, in fact.
So, in that respect, for people to really care about the well being of others or to pay attention to what is really happening in the political sphere – one has to be able to distract themselves from their general survival for a moment. This is easier said than done. While, of course, we all realize that our existences relate to the systems around us such as the political and economic system – it is still extremely difficult to have time given all of the survival pressures to actually do anything about what is going on. And , sadly enough, most of the little things people do who think they are doing something… are actually pointless in the long run as, once again, they do not address the system problem.
I would also say that people have been bought off in this society, even if poor. One of the negative benefits of technological development in the current material culture is the vanity and bizarre fetishes that have been created surrounding superficial devices/gadgetry. The thought of people losing access to these fetishes keeps them more in line with establishment values, just like how the rich would obviously rather keep their great wealth. Needless to say, to ‘rock the boat’ puts in danger one’s stability. The feedback loop continues.
However, to answer your question "with privilege comes responsibility" I suppose I agree in theory but at the same time most who achieve a state of true financial privilege have usually been indoctrinated into being satisfied by the system since the system has accommodated them. Coupled with the inherent narcissism and self-interest that the system compounds, again “pinging” primal human fears and generating greed - more often than not those who do reach a state of "privilege" tend to be even more fearful of rocking the boat. Rather, they pretend. They start trusts and become “philanthropists” – which is probably the most offensive word in the culture today, if you think about how it is used.
So, back to my original point, there are system pressures on many levels that deter people from challenging the status quo. I would state that the most common deterrent is the general destitution and stress perpetuated by the social structure itself that restricts one's capacity to even pay attention to anything outside of one's personal survival. It is too inconvenient and risky.
I will also add that education is also a huge factor. Just like in abject slave times it was illegal in some regions for slaves to be literate – there is a natural propensity to avoid quality education for the masses because there is no advantage to freethinking individuals when the overarching aspect of the socioeconomic system is self-preservation and not progress.
(4) It's kind of ironic that you started out working in advertising and independent equity trading (or maybe it's exactly as it should have been). Did you always have an ideological stance against the system, but kind of went along to survive, or was it precisely these professions that lead you to dedicate your life to activism?
-While my critics seem confused by such associations, I would defend them as revealing how close I have been to the worst aspects of the social structure and how that has affected me. You have to be very close to such structural despotism and exploitation to really get a true sense, just like you really cannot understand the horrors of war unless you've seen someone killed directly next to you in real life.
In my early development, all I cared about was the art of classical and modern music. I closed myself off from reality just like many others do and, as per my introverted character; I preferred to develop myself in a very disciplined and detached way. It wasn't until the cold reality of having to survive as an adult did I begin to analyze the world around me. I ended up in advertising because it was the only thing my limited skill set would allow me to do, keeping some decent standard of living.
I moved to equity trading because it is the only occupation in existence with no boss and no employees. I wanted out of the corporate hierarchy. So, I see myself as having been pushed along the rails of the natural, structural coercion that is the socioeconomic complex. Coincidentally and virtually by accident (it seems), this path led me to where I am today.
(5) Talk to me about the power of filmmaking. Do you consider filmmaking the most effective medium to incite social change?
-Well, shocking to many as it might be, I don't particularly like the art of filmmaking compared to other art forms. I will not go on a tangent about that. I will state that within the spectrum of multimedia production, the film tradition has a tremendously large influence on culture today. When you see, say, the Academy Awards and all these huge directors and famous actors sitting in a single room – you are really seeing the most influential people on the planet. When it comes to people's values, these people have more power than the political establishment and the religious establishment. So, realizing this, and also thinking back on the bizarre success of my first film/performance piece Zeitgeist, I engage this art form with a kind of strategy to, again, play both sides - the art and the science of communication and expression.
So, to answer your question, I think it is a very effective medium but filmmaking is really comprised of multiple mediums. I would still suggest music has a longer-term, stronger power in some value shifting ways - but music also presents more ambiguity.
(6) Are there any particular artists or activists that you admire/like?
-Perhaps the greatest intellectual and artistic influence I have had, more from the standpoint of theory, was a man named Iannis Xenakis. He was a 20th century composer that dealt with various abstract ideas regarding aesthetics and how to represent intellectual systems with sound and form. John Cage was another important influence in the way he broke the separations of music and everyday life. As far as film, I'm not really much of a film buff. I create my films from an intuitive standpoint with very little reference to anything that I've seen.
Honestly, I create films from a musical standpoint. Music and the aural quality of the film comes first in style and form. My new film trilogy, "InterReflections” will be a vast exploration of this personal style. Musical phrasing is superior to filmic phrasing and I apply it as such.
As far as activists, I hate to split hairs but I would first object to the idea itself. I understand what you mean but this is worth pointing out. I honestly don't like the blanket term “activist” as it assumes the activity is irrespective of cause. A person might wish to change some aspect of society and therefore they are to be an activist in that context (so one can be an economic activist or an environmental activist, etc). However, to be an activist assumes such a category of function is inherently real. I find that annoying.
In theory, I hope one day there is no such thing as an “activist”. Perhaps, we will have a social system that prefers and directly facilitates actual intelligent change in a fluid way and the idea of needing an external entity that has to work against the establishment, as the term "activist" really denotes, will be a thing of the past.
That said – while I admire those working for relevant change, I also hold a great deal of contempt/frustration at this stage given how impotent, off-focus and commodified “activism” has become. I hate to say this publicly but everywhere I look these days I see popular “activists” doing little more than yelling at the wind, selling an identity for income and working to self-promote. I see communities created that are more about angst driven ceremony, catharsis and sociality then about true social change, challenge, problem solving and forward thinking.
It isn't that such people/groups are not dedicated and sincere – it is first that they take a narrow, “localized” view rather than a system’s view, while the sickness of the market system and its need for income gets the best of them. Over time, many great people of conscience turn their battle into a career and usually that is the end of it as they then begin to limit their debate in order to keep income and identity in line.
It is, once again, part of the feedback loop that keeps the current order in place. Today, being an “activist” is a pop culture idea, like being a circus performer. People spend billions a year on “activist media” and there is a massive sales industry for it.
In the end, the only people I truly respect anymore are those who take a "systems" perspective and realize that no real change is going to happen by talking about this or that new government policy or corruption or war or economic blight… It’s mostly all trivial. There is nothing new anymore. It is the same cycle of system output despotism, fraud, inhumanity and war. It isn’t going to change by talking about it directly, without the system context.
In other words, the only true activism relevant in the world today is the kind that will work to shut down market capitalism and replace it with an intelligent and sane economic model – a model that will then bring out the best of humanity – not the worst, which is what it does today. All other points of focus are really a waste of time. And I mean that sincerely.
(7) Do you truly think, in the bottom of your heart, that humans are capable of transitioning to this post-scarcity society that you are proposing? If so, how come we haven't already?
-Not only am I convinced that the very foundation of our human nature is primed for this type of society given the incredible public health revelations regarding how negative the current model is to our physical and psychological well-being – I believe once a small version of this type of world is created and shown – people will flock to it at an exponential rate.
Why? Firstly, because 99% of the world’s population is being screwed. It isn't just a well-being issue – it is a dignity and pride issue at this stage. Principle. Our social nature doesn’t like to get jerked around. We have an inherent sense of justice, just as our primate ancestors have proven in various anthropological studies. Sadly, most do not even understand how badly they are getting screwed and how the system is literally killing them slowly by its structural violence – not to mention the insane wealth inequity that is another level of an emerging public health crisis.
However, the main challenge is getting people to realize that the alternative is real and can be done. The reason we have not been able to make this change is because the pressures of the current structure are so severe. This change is a complete shift of everything in the social order. Therefore, my estimation is that some country will begin the transition. The fruits of this country are shown to the world and I then believe there will be a chain reaction. The Empire will fight it - but all empires fail eventually.
The main great catalyst will be the emerging trend towards localization of all production. With the advent of 3-D printing, zero marginal cost and nanotechnology, coupled with the ability to automate labor, we are seeing a massive economic transformation. Capital goods are becoming consumer goods while labor power is being built into consumer goods/capital goods through automation.
In other words, very soon in the future, due to the advancement of technology, a modern city will be able to grow all of its own food and essentially do all of its own production for the entire population without ever needing to import anything but perhaps some raw materials. Over time, due to the ability of emerging nanotechnology, the importing of raw materials will also be greatly slowed if not eliminated as a necessity.
In the end, you will have almost pure localization and hence decentralization. Once this happens the structural pressure to maintain associations in globalization – which is and always has been the new colonialism – will come to an end. BTW, I’m not saying detachment is economically ideal – I’m saying it is a transitional step.
As we approach 2030/2040, which will be virtually apocalyptic based on the negative trends at hand assuming no changes – this will also be the same time that we will be able to break free and societies will be able to work on their own without having to submit to larger order governmental or transnational interests (as the march of exponential technological growth continues to improve).
This isn’t to say the world no longer works together – it would have to in the end as it would be most optimized for efficient economic calculation/resource management – but normal everyday living would not have a heavy reliance on such global interaction. As the old saying goes “think globally, act locally.”
More on this – can be found in the book “The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" which is available free on our website and is in print form at cost.
(8) Your mom was a social worker, your dad was a mailman. There is no apparent connection to arts/filmmaking from your family side. How did you get involved with music/arts and who supported you in this?
-Well, there are different degrees of artistic interests in my family and extended family. But, as far as my development, my parents were exceptionally supportive in whatever I wanted to do. There was very little coercion in my upbringing and a great deal of trust. Unlike many traditional approaches to child raising, I support the idea that children are designed by evolution to learn just as much on their own as they require guidance from those older. There is a balance and independence is just as important as social trust and feelings of support and security.
As far as my musical interests, I couldn't tell you where they originated. I would be seen around my house banging on pots and pans and I believe I took my first snare drum lesson when I was about seven. From there, I was accepted into a college conservatory for music at the age of 13 (which oddly had an academic program for my age) and remained there until high school graduation. I then moved to New York to go to college and dropped out after two years realizing the debt I was incurring was not appropriate for the type of life in music I was intending. I was a modern solo classical percussionist which, thinking back on it, is just about as ridiculous as you can possibly get as far as making a living 
(9) Internet and technology definitely helped you reach millions of people; what is your message to all the artists out there that want to bring positive impact with their art, and reach as many people as possible, but that do not know where to start, how to proceed?
-Honestly, I wish I had relevant advice. The difference between today and the year 2007 (year of Zeitgeist) is that today everyone has the ability to make a movie. Obviously, I think this is a great thing but at the same time it creates saturation when it comes to one finding time to watch so many good productions. This is particularly a problem when it comes to documentary. I, for example, receive many emails with many fine documentaries and I simply do not have time to watch all of them. There are not enough hours in the day. I strongly doubt the viral nature of my first film would have been as strong if it was released today.
However, I will say this: stylistic and intellectual progress is about honesty when creative. If you look carefully at modern society, in all fields, people actually consciously adhere to some degree of tradition when they are communicating. When I made, for example, Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, I did so with a more traditional documentary focus in style. While I would never change these films, I do feel it extended beyond my comfort zone.
Zeitgeist, the original film - on the other hand - came from a completely different place. I didn't care how it changed other people's views. I didn't care if it had any impact or not. I saw it as a personal expression. And, I think what that means is that to truly break through and bring people to a new place and hence maybe even spark high levels of attention one needs to run the risk of being absolutely honest. Sad to say, it's almost impossible for people to be absolutely honest because we are deeply social organisms and we always look at our actions through the view of others.
Regardless, my core advice is to produce what YOU want to see and if your feelings and observations have merit – it just might strike a chord that went unnoticed before in others.
(10) TZM’s ultimate mission is the installation of a new socio-economic model based upon technically responsible resource management, allocation and design through what would be considered the scientific method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions. What’s the role of artists in this rather technical approach?
-It is unfortunate that the arts and the sciences appear detached. The reality is that our everyday viewing of the world and the very process of the way we change, invent and embrace our inherent human ingenuity - is first artistic. Science doesn't have any real novel leads. Science is a verification/analysis process mostly and this explains why so many scientific breakthroughs are achieved by accident. One could argue that humans can't actually invent anything - we can only deductively analyze phenomenon around us as we perform different experiments, seeking a lucky combo. Therefore, we have to have a creative expectation. We have to have a hypothesis and a hypothesis is invariably a creative deduction or inference – an experiment.
So, there is no purely “technical approach” as the arts and the sciences are part of the same system - of creative ingenuity and problem solving. As far as pop culture art, as per the more traditional definition of “art”, I could only expect it to flourish in a way unimaginable.
First, the polluting monetary influence is gone. No more contrived artists looking to manipulate prior trends to sell something. This means the artist will be much more pure in his/her intentions from the start. There would be no real reason to create anything otherwise unless you loved doing it. Money pollutes everything.
Second, the stress relief coming from the basic nature of the new social system and the free-time realized would set the stage for an explosion of human creativity on all levels. Just imagine all the wasted minds working at fast food restaurants today who might have a propensity for great contribution in our ‘Group Mind’ societal-creative apparatus… but have never been given a chance to realize it or participate. Millions if not billions of lost minds are toiling in market BS roles trying to just live, polluted by modern culture.
Anyway, creative thinking and the act of creation itself would be the new norm of human consciousness, I think. It would be profound.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)