Clash of the Old and the New

Reproduced below after the jump is a message sent to several members of the Zeitgeist Movement at both the state, national and global levels of organization that has arisen as part of an ongoing discussion and conflict about the impact of an individual on the Illinois chapter and how they relate or do not relate to what the Movement is about. This is going to be one of many future discussions and arguments of how we are going to come to define our emergent organization and how those who have been organizing at the global and national levels will try to manage the way we do so. I believe that this is a fascinating look into how we will be resolving issues in our own organization and the lessons we learn from it going forward will be valuable. The author of the message has posted it to the global movement website forums and I encourage you to engage in the discussion that happens there if you are so inclined. These events will occur in the future and it is important to be transparent within the Movement so that we can all learn from this discussion and others like it. We cannot help but have some of the old ways of thinking and managing intruding upon the new and emergent reality that we hope to create, and these clashes are going to be dominant throughout the transition. Thank you for your time and attention.

Jen & ZM Community,

Over the last few weeks we have spoken extensively about my questions and concerns regarding “Collaboration” and “Transparency” within various aspects of TZM. In your e-mail thread to IL coordinators Dave and Angela, you subsequently wrote that I am a Non-Supporter of TZM, that I seek a “more democratic” approach, and you also make claims as to my true unspoken intentions with TZM. Despite my vast differences in opinion to your descriptions of my word choice, intentions, or mind set, I must say that I still appreciate your feedback tremendously, and I remain optimistic that the integrity of our movement’s ideologies will prevail over the unscientific and unquestionable authoritarian modus operandi TZM may be inadvertently putting into practice. The following are some clarifications and questions I would like to bring to your attention and the greater ZM community.

First, you state as a matter of “fact” that I am NOT a supporter of TZM. As we discussed, and perhaps even agreed upon, everyone has their own understanding of TZM and we choose to participate in whichever manners we find comfortable. TZM has various definitions even within ZM literature and media. No one person has read every post, met every member, or attended every event. Nor would such a person know everything about the movement because it’s a dynamic movement comprised of no less than hundreds of thousands of people. I told you that I want to see a RBE as much as anyone else. I agree with the ZM jargon of applying the scientific method whenever possible, I agree that a healthier RBE culture will cure scores of social pathologies. I agree that the best ideas should move forward. I agree when Peter Joseph says, “I am not the movement, you are the movement.” Although I may not share your exact perspective on TZM nor agree with all ZM decision making processes, I wholeheartedly want to see a RBE succeed as soon as possible, and I think TZM is our best chance.

Unfortunately, when I expressed some of these thoughts to you, you replied by inviting me to find a movement more inline with my ideals or come to “agreement” with the direction of TZM as is. You made it clear that the TZM chapters are free to do whatever we want as long as it pertains exclusively to activism and that all other decisions (ie. the direction of the movement) are off limits, but good ideas may be passed along via the coordinator tiers. To this point I disagreed by stating that I felt I had a third option: to make an effort to closer align ZM’s decision making procedures with the fundamental ideologies of the movement. This is likely the root from which our difference of opinion stems. I see TZM is an ever-changing phenomenon comprised of the people who believe in it, support it, and act to see it become a reality. The media and literature tools are integral guides to shaping our perspectives and informing others but they are not unquestionable dogma which members must “agree” to without exception nor do I believe that any single member is infallible or beyond reproach. Contradictions to preexisting ZM literature and media pop up every week in the form of newsletters, posts, and audio visual recordings. I find it silly to demand members must accept ZM rhetoric without question or critical thought in order to be regarded a “supporter with a legitimate understanding”. Aren’t those methods of censorship and control the exact type of oppression we are diametrically opposed to? Aren’t we striving to achieve the best possible solutions considering all information available?

Your e-mail also claims, “…[Tizoc] does not have nor does he seek a legitimate understanding of the Venus Project.” I can appreciate the fact that there are countless aspects of TVP that I am not aware of, but what are you referring to specifically? Also, why would you say that I do not seek a “legitimate” understanding? Over the last few weeks I have spent several hours a day seeking a greater understanding of TZM and TVP. What do you mean by “legitimate”?

Third, you state, “…[Tizoc] desires for us to implement a more democratic structure that supports a focus on upholding the US Constitution and actively opposing the “Illuminati” as part of activism.” I must make it clear that I have never, to this day, used the word “democracy” in describing what I would like to see from TZM. The two words I have used, perhaps 50 times, in recent communications with you (Jen Wilding) were ” Collaboration” and “Transparency”. Over Team Speak a few weeks ago I conveyed my concern about the lack of Collaboration and Transparency when it came to Z3. Below I share that concern (for everyone else not privy to our conversation) as merely one of countless examples in which I feel TZM could move closer to our ideals when it comes to making significant decisions.

Let it be known that I have absolutely no critique over the contents of the pending Z3 film. It may put both Citizen Kane and Z1 to shame or be an unmitigated disaster. Either way I have no knowledge of what is said in the script, what images are used, or what are the various tones conveyed in the film. Unfortunately neither does over 99.9% of the Zeitgeist Movement, yet the higher tier coordinators are encouraging the lower tier chapter coordinators and in turn, TZM chapters are promoting a film virtually none of the members have seen nor are we allowed to see. It is effectively and apparently a sweeping systematic faith based initiative for all complicit coordinators except the Global Coordinator. Isn’t this another instance of the organized faith based mentality we are against? To a large extent coordinators and members are responsible for the contents of this film we are promoting. Is it not irresponsible to promote a film that you have never seen? What, Jen, in Z3 do you support?

I recognize that this film is privately owned and privately funded so the owner of the film does not have to Collaborate nor be Transparent in its creation, but the owner of film happens to be the highest ranking authority in TZM, founder of TZM, and the Global Coordinator who has worked tirelessly over Team Speak International meetings among various other ZM outlets to have sub-coordinators promote the release of his film as smoothly and as much as possible. Wouldn’t a more responsible approach be to offer the film for everyone’s personal review and let them do with it as they wish? Or, if the filmmaker feels confident this could be a tremendous tool for TZM then open the process to the movement so that the best available ideas can rise to the top for an improved and collective effort that the movement can promote with informed vigor.

I stated that I was not making the case for Z3 to be open for immediate review, however, I did mention that I would like us to take steps towards greater Collaboration and Transparency to be considered for similar large ZM efforts like a possible Z4. For the record, there is perhaps nothing that Peter Joseph does better than make viral documentaries so if the making of these films were to be integrated with a more ZM structure then I would hope and expect that Peter Joseph would be the first person on that Interdisciplinary Team as he has proven to be no less than brilliant at putting together a powerful documentary.

Before I end, it should be noted that my comments regarding the “Constitution” and “Illuminati” have been taken out of context from a three hour conversation. After our extensive talks, feedback from Peter Joseph, various ZM literatures & media, and speaking with other local and non local ZM members I have a greater understanding of the Internal Structure of TZM, how decisions are arrived at, and other relevant ZM dynamics. This is neither the time nor the manner in which I want to introduce nor discuss those ideas to the greater ZM audience. If, however, given the opportunity to share those thoughts with TZM that would be done through the approved information transfer nodes (a.k.a. coordinators) and ideally via Rational Consensus all along the way.

Finally, I don’t feel that any of my questions or concerns warrant being banned from the collective TZM or TVP efforts nor should I be denied the ability to engage in Collaborative efforts for arriving at Rational Consensus because of my aforementioned questions and opinions.

Respectfully,
Tizoc

P.S. Please do not take offense to my use of the words “hierarchy”, “tier”, and “authority”. I am comfortable with the idea that some forms of hierarchy are necessary to run the ZM but I am making a wholehearted effort to incorporate as much Collaboration and Transparency as possible. After all, we are supposed to be a holographic movement where the best ideas move forward.

P.P.S. This e-mail thread has been shared with parties familiar with the topic, posted on TZM IL forum, and the global forum in the name of transparency and collaboration as my ideas are submitted for constructive criticism from the entire ZM community.