Sunday, September 12, 2010

The Zeitgeist Movement: Cancel Your Membership. Renew Your Leadership.

For those of you who have been following The Venus Project Challenge on YouTube, you may have noticed that I rarely do Video Responses. One of the reasons for this, is that it would take an insurmountable amount of time and patience to respond to everyone, especially if it's actually going to serve a worthwhile purpose - that is, to answer valid questions, correct any disinformation, and try to get people to understand - rather than just to "retaliate" against naysayers. In some cases the disinformation is just so obscure that it is not even worth refuting, and we can only hope that anyone with half a brain, that's new to the Movement, won't be bothered with it. In those cases, I feel it's a more productive use of my time to just keep making new videos addressing legitimate concerns.

However, in light of my very first Video Response, I was asked to share my thoughts and ideas for promoting the virtues of patience and understanding in our overall responses.

First, I'd like to mention that in his Video Response to TheLegalImmigrant05, Neanderthalcouzin became my role model for exhibiting the patience it takes to articulate the tenets of a Resource-Based Economy, even in response to what most of us would consider an infuriating, or perhaps laughable, objection.

However, the reason I decided to finally do a Video Response is because I knew exactly where this certain naysayer, amongst others, was coming from. This was another person with severe misunderstandings who, understandably, had been told to "do more research." Unfortunately, that response doesn't work, and I'm beginning to find that it's counterproductive. It's lazy. It's often a valid criticism, and perfectly good advice, but in order for it to have any meaning or any effect, it has to come with an explanation. Granted, the person in question is presumably "lazy" for not doing the research, but we are supposed to be the leaders here. If you know how to counter the arguments made against The Venus Project, then do so on your own. Explain it in your own words as best as you can, and list the sources yourself. (i.e. links, articles, videos etc.) That's the best you can do. If they don't acknowledge your answer(s), then that's on them, but at least they can't accuse you of being dogmatic and avoiding the question(s).

When we come across those who blatantly misconstrue the fundamentals of a Resource-Based Economy, they have either A) Done the research and still don't get it, or B) Haven't, and probably are not going to do the research, at least not without you holding their hand. Therefore, the canned response of telling someone to "do more research," just sounds like a cop-out answer to cover up the fact that you, yourself cannot explain it properly. They get the sense that we think we are just "so enlightened that we cannot be bothered with such silly questions or objections," and this hurts the Movement. I say call their bluff, and answer the damn question or objection, right then and there. Don't rely on other people or other writings to do it.

To be quite honest, I think this Movement would already be light-years ahead if every single member took it upon themselves, in every situation, to answer every question or concern to the best of their ability. (Of course we have to use our own judgement and know where to draw the line between answering legitimate questions and responding to endless trolling...) But the point is, we're getting into dangerous territory if we hear a question or concern that we genuinely can't answer, and just argue anyway because we believe so strongly in The Venus Project. If you don't know the answer, find it. We don't need to rely strictly on TVP or TZM materials; there are plenty of sources out there. This level of knowledge and participation would ultimately require, and therefore naturally develop, a more thorough understanding of the material within the organization itself, rather than just regurgitation, and as a result it would accurately portray us as the much more mature and intellectual Movement that we are, as opposed to the accused "cult."

It is absolutely critical that if we are going to suggest to someone that they do more research, we take it upon ourselves to back it up.

i.e.

"I disagree that humans are naturally greedy, or that they naturally prefer competition. X and Y studies show that we are naturally wired for empathy and cooperation, but this has been stifled due to scarcity. Look at these [sources: links, articles, videos, etc.] and tell me what you think. Also, can you point me to some studies that show humans are naturally selfish?"

Not "clearly you need to do more research."

Or

"Actually, I think you have misunderstood the economic structure of a RBE. It is not the same as using 'money, gold, silver, or bananas,' because there is an element of abundance involved. Therefore, trade and private 'property' are not necessary. I think you will find that [this] segment of Peter Joseph's lecture explains this quite well, at -:--. Here are some other [sources: links, videos, etc.] that explain it as well. What do you think of what Jacque said about a systems approach in the last paragraph?"

Not "if you think a RBE is the same as a monetary system, you obviously haven't done any research."

I feel that this is a powerful approach for at least two reasons: 1) It genuinely answers the question(s) and/or concern(s), if the person is genuinely asking, and it opens a new line of discussion. 2) If they're not genuinely asking and just being an argumentative douche, you will immediately be able to tell when they respond with something like "Human desire will always be unlimited," or "It doesn't matter how you organize the system because central or planned economies always fail," without addressing a single one of your statements or sources, in which case you don't need to waste your time. (See the video below for clarification on the difference between #1 and #2.) It's a win-win situation; you either A) Answer the question satisfactorily and continue the discussion, or B) Patiently and intelligently determine that the person does not actually want to hear the answer. In contrast, when you simply lead with "do more research," you skip both A and B, and end up with C) Not answering the question - which gives them an easy out, that you don't know wtf you're talking about.

In short, I think the more knowledge you have, the more patience you have. It's frustrating not to be able to answer questions and objections, especially when you know there's an answer, but maybe you can't formulate it well. (i.e. You know you heard Peter say it somewhere, but you don't know where, and you can't remember exactly what he said.) That doesn't work. Learn it yourself. Otherwise it becomes a dangerous crutch to say "do research," and it's very easy to get angry and impatient with people. On the other hand, it's very liberating to be able to effectively address objections, as in Neanderthalcouzin's response. At the very least, it reinforces your own understanding, even if no one's listening. I always try to respond to people with open-ended answers - an explanation, followed by a question which encourages them to either elaborate on, or at least question, the legitimacy of their position. Even in the Challenge when I refer people to the FAQ, I still try to point them to specific ones, and ask them what they think of it. I try not to assume that that's the answer, and that's the end of it. We often get so used to hearing the same old objections that we might be too quick to tell someone to "do more research," or "read the FAQ." Careful. Make sure that that's actually what needs to happen, and on top of that, don't be afraid to offer your help.

If we expect to see any kind of realistic change in society, we owe it to ourselves to become subject matter experts in the methodology that will bring this change about. This way, the next time someone asks if you're a "member" of The Zeitgeist Movement, you can confidently say "No... I am The Zeitgeist Movement."
(Added January 6, 2011)

Share

13 comments:

  1. Yes--we do need to be knowledgeable--I have watched all vids/lectures with PJ and most of Jacque's as well--every member should do that. But I look at this like I used to look at the "gospel" back in my Christian days--and that is this: we just need to get the message out before it is too late. venusfreedom ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great blog Brandy, another valuable contribution from you.

    I absolutely agree that it's just not enough to tell people to 'do more research'. I also see part of the responsibility of members is to know the limits of their own understandings, and that means that if they can't back up what they are saying then maybe they shouldn't be engaging in too many discussions about the movement at all - sometimes not adding to the noise aids our communication efforts best!
    The material provided by TZM and TVP should really only be the starting point for our own research, I see it as a life long process of learning, whether that's learning about an RBE, human behaviour and society or just learning how to communicate!

    Great ending: "This way, the next time someone asks if you're a "member" of The Zeitgeist Movement, you can confidently say "No... I am The Zeitgeist Movement."
    :)

    Athene

    ReplyDelete
  3. What is the plan of TVP for transition between monetary system and RBE? When will the transition begin in the knowledgeable and informed opinion of TVP supporters and TVP itself which is Jacque and Roxanne?

    Agape

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Agape

    The Venus Project website FAQ #15 is a quite possible, but hypothetical transition plan. One of the reasons it is hypothetical is that you'll notice it begins with "After agreement is attained by nations to move toward unification and sharing of the earth's resources..." It is impossible to predict if and when the nations will agree to do this, so the plan itself, as well as the timeframe, must remain hypothetical. You'll notice that it is then followed by "a global survey of available resources, technical personnel, production plants, arable land etc. has to be done to provide us with sufficient information in order to ascertain the parameters of social design." In other words, in order to implement a 'global' Resource-Based Economy, we would need a 'global' inventory of resources, including 'participation' as a resource.

    Another possibility is that much of the population would provide for themselves, and others, during the transition, if enough people were to contribute open-source information, in the efforts of preserving self-sufficiency, and sustainability. (For an example of this theory, go to http://www.adciv.org/post-scarcity and read the section titled 'How Do We Get From Here to There?')

    The bottom line is, we cannot say for certain how the transition WILL happen, or WHEN it will happen, because there are too many unknown variables at this time. If this sounds like an undreasonable answer, consider this unreasonable request: I ask you to show me your Football strategy, right now... only you don't know how many players you will have; you can estimate, but you don't even know what positions they play. In fact, you don't even know if they want to play. You also don't know who you're playing against, or how many players they will have. You don't know where you will be able to hold practice. You've asked several schools to volunteer their football fields, but they haven't gotten back to you yet... Then I say, "Too bad. Show me every possible strategy for every possible combination of variables..." Good luck. The point is, you may know EXACTLY how to play football, and you know that it is perfectly POSSIBLE to play football. You know that footballs exist, players exist, and fields exist. You know that with those resources, and the right cooperation, you can play football. Now you just have to ask people to play. With that in mind, we know we have the resources for an RBE - all we need is the cooperation in order to develop a more detailed strategy.

    #11 on my 'Frequently Asked Questions' blog also offers some insight as to why we can't speak for others and say 'when' the transition will take place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fantastic post... Having been a member and in a constant position of duty to express the tenants of the movement at every opportunity a lot of what I see in the movement itself is simply people getting together to discuss cool buildings and a future and "what Peter said" as opposed to taking the information and making it their own... I see a fundamental issue in being that the tasks of being an adult and being able to make intelligent decisions on our own is something that is at a real scarcity. We are simply told and buy into shit as a result of that someone in authority said it was a good idea... Not realizing that we become our own authority... Take a look at adults anymore spouting off some shit about "well we have to follow the rules" without ever realizing that we are the makers of these things and we can change them or even choose to not follow them whenever we want... I see the problem as people going "religion is bullshit! I am not going to blindly follow something anymore! I am going to join the zeitgeist movement and do whatever Peter Joseph says instead!".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Brandy. In my experience the crux of the problem lies in that some people are so conditioned in our current capitalistic ways that they immediately go on tilt like a pinball machine when they hear something like the Venus Project. Explaining it to them with patience and a lot of knowledge is one thing, but the other person must have the willingness to listen and comprehend the information as well. Sadly, in some cases there's none of that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Ed V.

    "Explaining it to them with patience and a lot of knowledge is one thing, but the other person must have the willingness to listen and comprehend the information as well."

    I totally agree. That's where B comes in; let it go if they don't have the patience to listen, or to check out your sources. But in order to know that they are not listening, you have to have at least TRIED to explain it. The frustrating part is, it is even harder to explain something in detail, in writing, (chats, blogs, YouTube comments, Facebook, etc.) than it is to do it in person, or on TeamSpeak, etc. BUT - in my opinion, it is even more important to be thorough in writing, because that is what OTHERS will come across and read later on! We are leaving a "trail" or our "footprint" so-to-speak. Somebody else may come along later and read your answer, and agree with it, and then send you a message asking more questions. (This has happened to me many times.) The problem is many people don't even TRY to explain it at all, leaving a string of comments that say "you're an idiot. do more research. get a life. etc" which makes us look bad, and just creates more work for those of us that 'are' going around answering questions thoroughly. Some people have had genuine questions and have just been shooed away with anger, or with a "holier than thou" attitude. If we do that, we will never gain supporters, much less 'informed' supporters, at a fast enough rate.

    No one said this would be easy, but if we think the hardest thing in the world is just "explaining this to people," then we've got another thing comin'! LOL ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Brandy, here's my attempt at explaining matters to one of the more vocal critics of TZM and TVP, a guy named Muertos who runs a blog and forum (Conspiracy Science) filled with critique.
    http://planbfromthebacardiroom.blogspot.com/2010/10/tzm-recipe-for-disaster.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeaaaa man! Zeitgeist movement =)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Keep up the good work, Brandy :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I love this! Its nice to see other bloggers becoming the movement

    http://zeitard.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete