Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Alternative Medicine
- Artificial Intelligence
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ayn Rand
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Conscious Evolution
- Cosmic Heaven
- Designer Babies
- Ethical Egoism
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Speech
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- High Seas
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Longevity
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Life Extension
- Mars Colonization
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- New Utopia
- Personal Empowerment
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Private Islands
- Resource Based Economy
- Ron Paul
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Teilhard De Charden
- The Singularity
- Tor Browser
- Transhuman News
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Zeitgeist Movement
The Evolutionary Perspective
Tag Archives: movement
Posted: June 29, 2016 at 6:26 pm
Author: Edward L Winston Added: June 13, 2010 Discuss: Discuss this article.
Over the last couple of months, mainly since Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) members began trekking to our forums, I’ve gotten a lot of emails from TZM members asking me various questions. This post is to outline the topics covered in my correspondence with said members.
I’ll likely update this page as I get feedback from people.
Primarily the issues discussed are why I believe TZM will fail and why I think it’s impossible to find common ground with TZM. I want to be clear that, given a different set of circumstances which I will discuss, maybe TZM could be successful and we could find common ground, but if things don’t change, neither will my stance.
The leader of TZM, Peter Joseph, is far more damaging to his own movement than I imagine many of the hardcore members want to believe:
More could be said about Peter Joseph, and is said in later sections, but our forums are full of former TZM members who shed even more light on the emerging cult of personality around him.
The most important issue here is that Peter Joseph is the leader of TZM and his word is law, despite claiming that he doesn’t consider himself the leader, he acts unilaterally to forbid members for talking to outsiders, for example banning members who post on our forums that aren’t glorifying him.
Something that I never stop hearing is the phrase the movies aren’t the movement. This referring to the fact that the movies promote conspiracy theories, but TZM is something else entirely, and exists separately from the movement. I would believe that if not for the following issues:
A lot of people don’t like that I use foul language, but I needed to display the utter lack of compassion for other human beings TZM leadership seems to have, as well as some hardcore members. The situation in Haiti, again, is a great example of this — reading many posts on the forums from members, it’s quite clear that unless The Venus Project (TVP) is going to be the solution to the problems in Haiti, there’s no use in helping them after the earthquake there.
I get asked “well, what are YOU doing to improve the world?” by TZM members a lot. I constantly bring up that I volunteer pretty much every weekend and I donate 10% of my income to charity, and a lot of time I will donate more than that. Most come back with the fact “charity doesn’t fix the problem.” While they’re right that charity doesn’t fix the problem permanently, sitting on a forum doesn’t either — though some members have the audacity to claim that TZM is a charity, despite never lifting a finger for anyone else.
The example I use when talking to TZM members about this is:
If you saw a starving/dying man in the street, would you do something to help him, or would you say “once our movement gets to 50 million members, I’ll be able to help you, but until then, see you later!”?
That’s essentially the logic behind the leadership of TZM and what many members parrot to me, just in a much nicer way. They love talking about how many children are starving to death today, but they refuse to help them today, and instead speak of some far off future that they can’t figure out how to get to.
I know and understand that not all TZM members are like this. I’ve seen some wonderful generosity and so forth coming from members, but more often than not, these members also don’t follow Peter Joseph blindly, because the ones that do refuse to help anyone else.
Here’s a list of problems that I believe TZM has:
There could be more added here later.
I don’t really see a future for TZM outside of degrading to hardcore members. Peter Joseph talks about a new movie coming out in October of 2010 that’s going to get “millions” of new members, so essentially nearly 2 years of doing nothing but waiting for yet another film are what TZM has to show for.
I think it’s all a shame, however, because getting all of those people together could have done something, could have lead to actual success in some way, but it’s not even close to that. This hasn’t stopped members from discussing the transition to the Resource Based Economy, despite the fact they’re discussing step 10,000 when they haven’t even reached step 1 and don’t seem to want to.
At this point is essentially a way to stroke Peter Joseph’s ego rather than accomplish any goals.
Sometimes I’m asked what I’d change about TZM, in order to make it more acceptable. Well, while I don’t think most of these changes are possible due to the way TZM is run, I usually humor those who ask:
So, essentially my “5 point plan” is completely incompatible with a movement where Peter Joseph is the overlord.
Would you like to know more?
See the original post here:
Posted: June 24, 2016 at 7:34 am
Posted: March 27, 2015 at 12:51 pm
By JULIUS KAIREY
Warning: Article may contain principled defenses of free speech as well as ideas and language that may be considered offensive to some readers. Read at your own risk.
One symptom of the hypersensitivity slowly rotting away at liberal education in America is the recent push for trigger warnings. If some students get their way, objectionable material in classroom lectures, discussions and presentations would include warning messages. Giving in to such demands, schools like Oberlin College have instructed faculty to scrub their syllabuses of offensive material that does not contribute directly to the course learning goals. Like proponents of the closely-linked speech code movement, trigger warning advocates equate controversial speech with violence in order to make it seem more regulable. This is a natural extension of a worldview that instructs students to prefer intellectual safety and security over a rigorous educational experience. In this paradigm, the quest for truth is deemed less important than making sure the wrong views are not heard.
When listening to the advocates of trigger warnings attempting to make their case, the careful listener is immediately struck by their boundless capacity for self-pity. They incessantly demand that society recognize their pain and acknowledge their status as a victim. Underlying this mindset is a paranoid fear that certain privileged societal groups are out to get them. Consequently, they cry oppression while censoring the speech of others and some universities are letting them get away with it. The same organizations that once wanted to keep administrators out of the business of regulating speech are now begging, even demanding, that they intervene. To give just one example, hundreds of students and faculty at Miami University last year demanded the university cancel a scheduled speech by syndicated columnist George Will.
A safe campus is a sterile one where we would lose what makes our universities great: innovative thinking, creativity, and a willingness to boldly reach for the next frontier.
The irony of this movement is that it bases its claims on the need to protect certain minorities from discrimination. They most aggressively target speech (and speakers) deemed racist or sexist, supposedly to protect groups they consider particularly vulnerable. Yet, there is a certain bigotry inherent in their line of reasoning. Trigger warning proponents unjustly portray minorities as uniquely fragile and incapable of dealing with controversial and hotly contested issues. They are rarely asked why their own degraded perception of minorities is not tantamount to the racism they so eagerly denounce.
It should hardly be surprising that such policies end up encouraging students to frequently claim offense. The taking of offense is an entirely subjective and utterly manipulable standard, such that a student cannot be made to prove that he really is offended by something he sees or hears. By enabling students to change the behavior of others by demanding to feel safe, students are encouraged to avoid the tough issues raised in class and retreat to the comforts of identity politics and victimization theory. Students must prove themselves capable of an education that prepares them for reality.
Professors have particular cause for concern with the rising popularity of this movement. The burden will naturally fall on them to ensure that students are not triggered from the contents of their lectures and assigned readings. This is an impossible task. Faculty members cannot possibly know the varied personal experiences of each student that could cause them to find material particularly objectionable. Should they refrain from giving a hypothetical involving a house fire for fear that a student might have experienced one? How about teaching law regarding violent assault or rape? It will become increasingly difficult for professors to teach and for students to learn in a context that puts student sensibilities above a free academic environment.
It is not entirely true that trigger warning proponents want the university to closely regulate all speech. Their speech is exempted. The right not to be censored is only conferred on those with the correct ideas. It is precisely the politicization and selective application of hypersensitivity that threatens to make our universities closed to those with unpopular ideas.
Imagine the Bible with warnings like may include homophobia and novels like Huckleberry Finn with the declaration may include racism. And why not make our campus an even safer space by removing such books entirely? After all, who knows if an impressionable young freshman might one day wander into the library, only to be traumatized by these books while innocently browsing the catalog? Do his sensibilities not deserve to be protected?
Posted: March 16, 2015 at 4:52 pm
Freelee Bananas and Rizzle's tits. – FREE SPEECH
Just a response to the party last week.
By: LALALA Movement Therapy
Follow this link:
Freelee Bananas and Rizzle’s tits. – FREE SPEECH – Video
Posted: March 12, 2015 at 7:53 pm
FREE SPEECH ZONE s08e09 (3-7-15)
ALL three parts of “The Real News Network's” “How Guns Made The Civil-Rights Movement Possible”. Changed from “9/11 was an INSIDE JOB”, to commemorate the in…
See more here:
FREE SPEECH ZONE s08e09 (3-7-15) – Video
Posted: March 5, 2015 at 8:42 pm
Soros Ford Foundation Behind this New World Order Internet Censorship Movement
Posted: December 17, 2014 at 3:47 pm
I Think Outside My Box: A Movement for Artistic Expression
Street art may seem like just that, but this community-driven sculpture has become a movement for the First Amendment.
By: Skyler Bouchard
Here is the original post:
I Think Outside My Box: A Movement for Artistic Expression – Video