Starting a political party

I think this is a good idea. I work in a financial institution and even there I have heard people say "money is now just holding us back and we should get rid of it". Amazing!

I have been thinking about getting into politics as a vehicle for spreading the truth but not sure how to get started.

I also think it is a good idea.

I have been put down twice for asking about a way to move toward the objective, but perhaps I will find a more open mind here.
Something progessive must happen as well as awareness building.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Indeed, I think a candidate in a local election is a very good way of getting publicity.
The media will be all over it.
In the end either the old system has to be thrown out, which will be a hard sell.
Or the new system could get voted in then dismantle the old system, perhaps easier.

> I have been put down twice for asking about a way to move toward the objective

If you hang around as long as I have you will end up being put down thousands of times

(Or even banned depending upon which forum you dare speak such anti-TZM slogans..)

>, but perhaps I will find a more open mind here.

There are a few of us, and by the looks of the main US TZM forum, actually a fair number, as it appears the wishful thinkers among us are drifting away, leaving only the hardcore practical folk behind. (Though sadly many of those are either silent, or have left themselves, not finding many with a common thought.) + (Though in the UK we appear to have less practical and a more widespread collection of other solutions, ranging from anarchy upwards, some of which in my view have merit (Such as the Socialists also intent on using the political arena to push for change.))

I might suggest as this kind of view is in what I would call the minority here, that this place merely serve as a place to bump into like minded folk, rather than a place to organise any kind of such activities which are not souly activist focused. (On the basis that it makes it hard to meet people if one gets banned, though lately there has been a better flexibility towards people of different views, so perhaps this concern is less than it used to be once.)

My impression is that as most people already live comfortable lives, they see no urgency to fix things now, and don't think that tomorrow they too may join the ranks of the homeless, and then they might have wished they could go back and change their mind about doing something sooner rather than later. (But then, to go against offical TZM policy would probably mean this site gets cut off from the offical spectrum of sites and becomes rogue..(As I hear has happened to several sites around the world that tried to move towards more practical solutions.))

I think you are right about people being comfortable not making waves.
Give them just enough, pat them on the head and tell them everything will be fine.
Most change takes place in times of upheaval.
Our biggest such time in generations is just about to fall on us.
It would be a shame to miss the opportunity.
You have me a little worried about the intolerance to pragmatism.
I like the big vision, but I am a pragmatist too.

Having taken time to reflect, perhaps a political party isn't the way to go.

political parties/people are a strange mixed bunch. being electted to do there best for the people, but get lost or greedy along the way. & this may well happen whoever gets in power -even a party of ours.
so what else can be done? or rather, what comes before politics?
some form of rules, some code of conduct (laughing as i type now, as there's already one, but not that thay follow it).
so why don't they follow it?
....it goes like this, I'm a politiction, i screw the system, see that my mates companies do rather well, you lot vote me out. Bummer, what a hardship.
There's no/zero/nilch comeuppance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Been VOTED OUT, thank you very much, you have a nice life now. FFS!!
Whats going on? if you call a plumer round becouse you've got a leak & he starts taking your windows out!!! what would happen? or you call a builder out & he starts taking your car to bits?

What i'm getting at is, you elected them because they said they'd do this n that? But thats not the case, infact the oppersite can be said in some cases.
You'd take the builder to court for taking your car to bits.
-tho having said this, i think there's some ruling that you can't take the guv to court.
that said i bet mi bottom quid it's an "Act/Statute" & not an actual Law (trying best to stick in the field of Commom Law)

so, some kind of comeuppance is needed, a chain-gang style prison term attatched.
why so severe?
well, we're not talking some fly by night plumber who does a hack job. We're talking about the HIGHESTS Jobs in the land!
If you aren't up for the job, don't step up. If you can't deliver what you're saying, again, don't step up.
If built into the job description was, stripping of wealth & a prison term if they didn't fulfil what they said they would. & also, only people who felt they could pull off what they were spouting, would consider stepping up for the jobs.
shit, vote me in. I'll charge you an extra £1 a week & within 3 years i'll give everybody clean free energy. 2-3 years after that i'll give you free food, followed by better health care & so on.

You've no idea (or maybe you have, since you're here) how much the world would change if we had an abundance of energy.
free energy is free transport once we switch to electric cars. free food...people would hardly have to work for what they needed.
-surely this is the transition. Just free energy.

Gee i strayed a bit, thanx for reading

> What i'm getting at is, you elected them because they said they'd do this n that?
> But thats not the case, infact the oppersite can be said in some cases.

Sometimes, even with the best will in the world, it can be hard for politicans to change things, especially when ever other politican might have a different idea on what the solution is!

Plus one has to work within budget..

All that being said, yes there are politicans who line their pockets, and yes this kind of corruption goes on in all areas of life.

Which is one of the reasons why I favour as much transparency as possible in peoples/politicans actions, so you can more easily spot when they are trying to scam.

I think one of the key aspects to figuring out if someone is going to be good at the job of politics is if beforehand, they have achieved something to prove their worth, something that involved working with the local community, a business, a charity, something that we can see shows us they could perhaps do the job of looking after something bigger.

Rather than just vote in anyone who has the gift of the gab..

> if we had an abundance of energy.

A reasonable thing we could do I agree, and I reckon we wouldn't even need to get into politics to make that happen!

For example, I mention here that we could start a company that provides some free power for domestic customers:

http://www.thezeitgeistmovementuk.com/forum/topic/2104

If we had political help, even perhaps our own, it would speed up the building of solutions like this. For example, the government might kindly give/sell cheap some land to build it on, which they might not overwise do if we hadn't worked so closely with them. Politics would no doubt help cut through some of the redtape we might expect any project like this would come up against, so it makes sense to me that we should get into politics, among the many other options.

Though I would suggest to keep it simple, so things like as you suggested, low cost/free energy would be a good start.

Nice idea about the energy, but where is the funding going to come from?
Solar/wind/geothermal installations take a lot of money to set up.
Know anyone with a lot of spare cash.
If I had that much spare I would certainly spend it getting my own solar power.
Information is much cheaper and easier to deliver.
How about a report of politicians business and other financial interests on the ZM site?
A bit of indirect advertising for ZM that is useful to people.

> where is the funding going to come from?

Always the number one question that

> If I had that much spare I would certainly spend it getting my own solar power.

There are a few companies offering deals where you can get it free so to speak, one I noticed for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10277544

http://www.ashadegreener.co.uk

(Because of government subsidies.)

For geothermal, the government was giving away several million last year:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/re...

But I doubt in the current spending squeeze something like that will pop up again.

Never a less, I might hazard a vague guess that government/EU loans could account for say 75% of the needed funds, with the remainder taken up by investors, who would also be the first customers. (Eg. say 1,000 people invest £2k each, and get a ration of free electric for life for their home.)

As I hear it takes far less paperwork to get EU grants if you only want 75% funding, than 100%. (This is something EOS are also looking into http://www.eoslife.eu )

Another method of funding is microfinance/credit unions. (Though the UK rather lacks many/any of these currently.)

Or the old fashioned approach of passing the hat around

(As a rough estimate, I reckon the entire collective spend of TZM on blank DVD, plane/train tickets to meetings etc. worldwide, easily exceeds $1 million, money that in my view could have been spent on practical projects that would in themselves have generated PR and at the same time, moved us forward by building something, other than adding to others pockets such as airlines and DVD producers..)

On a not so recent VTV Radio show, my question was put forward about the idea to help Fresco get off grid and help save on their electricity bills, with the view that the coming together of people into such a project would establish the infarstructure required to go on and help other TZM members do likewise.

With Fresco first as a shining example

One could perhaps imagine TZM produced solar cells and panels at low or cost price, being as I have heard that factory gate prices are 1/3 that of retail panels, that seems a lot of room to reduce the profit aspect there and allow us to go off grid cheaper than we ever thought possible.

Such solutions are not unheard of in the UK, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settle_Hydro

http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/improving-places/where-we-live/rural-ma...

http://www.settlehydro.org.uk/

Myself, I'm starting small with just a solar vehicle, as that is about all I can afford to cobble together! (With the aim to produce more vehicles after my first one.)

For clarity, i use the term energy as a unit of change.

Although i understand the reason why the ZM would consider creating a political party, i would question whether this is an effective use of energy.

A political party would require the energy provided by people in action. Change is only made by the agents of change.

My concern is, the amount of energy this task requires, would be better channelled into the innovation and manifestation of local democracies. Through these local organising democracies, the communities specific need can be harnessed as a press to the existing paradigm of democracy; which has the ability to transform money currency into a purpose. (councils, local gov. national gov.)

There are many benefits to this, one would give the energy the ability to be flexible, transferable from place to place, helping to address specific issues from community to community. Of course these community issues would have to fit within the aims and direction of the ZM.

The residual benefits of this energy input contributed by the ZM would bring about the education of individuals who are invested within the communities. Hopefully this education would provide a confidence, as being agents of change for a wider range of changes, and also bring back empowerment to those same small communities.

One of my overriding concerns of the ZM is that balance between desire, ideas for change and the skill set needed for implementation are still uneven. Utilising localised specific issues could be a good test and education for the enablers of change.

I am not intending to attack, but question, the idea of a political party. If offered the ZM as an actual political option, I would certainly consider voting for it. However, at that point, the ideas would be an option rather than a necessity.

Given options, i believe the current mindset of the electorate of most democracies, by their very nature, are dulled by ignorant self interest. Joining the political system, will not change the majority of voters. Changing communities, will. Role modelling is a skill which is incredibley powerful within the skill set needed to create change and implement a RBE, where all individuals have evidence of empowerment and not just a sense of it. Our sense can deceive.

This post may appear to dehumanize people as just energy, however, i do think once we perceive energy and as the only actual currency, the pervading value system of 'things' will continue.

Given options, i believe the current mindset of the electorate of most democracies, by their very nature, are dulled by ignorant self interest.

Bingo!!!!!!
just the kind of people i'm aiming at.
I'm offering you free energy for life, off top of your head what kind of answer am i gonna get. A lot of nodding heads, mi thinks.

Joining the political system, will not change the majority of voters. Changing communities, will.

-I feel this'd be the slow way around things, dragging our heals. While we have the oppertunity to offer something better,something tangable.

It is true that self interest dominates most behaviour. We somehow need to accommodate that.
I think both types of suggestion have advantages and problems.
Some initial thoughts on summarising them.

Public utilities:
+ People may believe if a clear benefit is offered. Utilities are a small part of the overall vision.
- People become too comfortable and never make the final transition. Credit taken by politicians. Perception of the movement is tied to utilities, so bad perception when they go wrong.

Political party:
+ Starts to take influence from the existing system, which ultimately must happen. Influence provides opportunity to start other projects, like the utilities.
- Difficult to ensure any political effort remains subordinate to the movement.

Perhaps the answer is both need to be undertaken, but not necessarily at the same time.

"I'm offering you free energy for life, off top of your head what kind of answer am i gonna get"

Whats the issue? Within a community what is there priority? Is there an action already in place?

The first action is to identify the need.

Then evaluate your energy potential and measure it against the resistance, which has become the need of the community.

Planning is action, its not head nodding, unless it tuerns into a plan to plan exercuse and stays as a theoretical principle. Action tests ideas. The evaluation of those tests, either as a qualitive or quantitive outcome must be documented. This could also be the case with the process. Activist must now become scientist.

At this time, the potential energy of the ZM is low in comparison to the resistance of change. Dont put a one lkegged man in a arse kicking contest. Choose battles wisely. This must be done in a way which only considers the energy needs and ability to disolve the resistance to change. Ideology, or the ZM priorities, should not sway the choice of where to focus energies, only the ability to dissolve resistance should guide that decision.

Know the skill set you have, what is needed, what is available. skill set is the tool box, the more precise the skills, the more precise the construct and the quicker the outcome is achieved.

Community mapping and navigating. Understand the community, its power, social and commercial structures.

As an example.

In an area there is a patch of waste land. You want to utilise that land for a purpose. What's the purpose? Land could be used to grow crops, a community garden of some kind.

Carry out a skills analysis. Strength of skill and deficits. Know your needs. Quantify energy potential. It could be there is only you who has identified the opportunity but you don't know how to grow carrots. You need a carrot grower. Community mapping indicates there is a batch of allotments, allotments are full of expert carrot growers who also have a shared value of having the opportunity to growing own food. This allotment group, whether they are an actual group or not, increases your skill set, and potential energy. Engagement is your first objective, that's is the focus of your energy.

Engage
Display your strength, which is the confidence of expertise.
Gain collaborators.
Do good by stealth.
Educate by action, proximity, influence and outcome.

A few ideas, which also raise some questions. The strength of the Zm is the concept of emergence. There is no such thing as error less learning, there is error-less implementation and this only happens after learning and modification has taken place. The internet and the connectivity of information it provides enables a lot of learning, in a short time. Feedback modifies very effectively.

Ultimately, one of the needs of the ZM is to move beyond the trying to inform by one means, education. The majority of people learn by doing. ZM activists, individuals in the community will learn action is empowerment. Once empowerment creeps into communities then the balance of dis empowerment, which people are lulled into by the existing paradigm of democracy can be rebalanced.

You can only have a RBE economy when individuals are empowered enough to understand the strength and ability to create change with their own energy resources.

Whats the issue? Within a community what is there priority? Is there an action already in place?

The first action is to identify the need.

Then evaluate your energy potential and measure it against the resistance, which has become the need of the community.

Planning is action, its not head nodding, unless it tuerns into a plan to plan exercuse and stays as a theoretical principle. Action tests ideas. The evaluation of those tests, either as a qualitive or quantitive outcome must be documented. This could also be the case with the process. Activist must now become scientist.

At this time, the potential energy of the ZM is low in comparison to the resistance of change. Dont put a one lkegged man in a arse kicking contest. Choose battles wisely. This must be done in a way which only considers the energy needs and ability to disolve the resistance to change. Ideology, or the ZM priorities, should not sway the choice of where to focus energies, only the ability to dissolve resistance should guide that decision.

Know the skill set you have, what is needed, what is available. skill set is the tool box, the more precise the skills, the more precise the construct and the quicker the outcome is achieved.

Community mapping and navigating. Understand the community, its power, social and commercial structures.

As an example.

In an area there is a patch of waste land. You want to utilise that land for a purpose. What's the purpose? Land could be used to grow crops, a community garden of some kind.

Carry out a skills analysis. Strength of skill and deficits. Know your needs. Quantify energy potential. It could be there is only you who has identified the opportunity but you don't know how to grow carrots. You need a carrot grower. Community mapping indicates there is a batch of allotments, allotments are full of expert carrot growers who also have a shared value of having the opportunity to growing own food. This allotment group, whether they are an actual group or not, increases your skill set, and potential energy. Engagement is your first objective, that's is the focus of your energy.

Engage
Display your strength, which is the confidence of expertise.
Gain collaborators.
Do good by stealth.
Educate by action, proximity, influence and outcome.

A few ideas, which also raise some questions. The strength of the Zm is the concept of emergence. There is no such thing as error less learning, there is error-less implementation and this only happens after learning and modification has taken place. The internet and the connectivity of information it provides enables a lot of learning, in a short time. Feedback modifies very effectively.

Ultimately, one of the needs of the ZM is to move beyond the trying to inform by one means, education. The majority of people learn by doing. ZM activists, individuals in the community will learn action is empowerment. Once empowerment creeps into communities then the balance of dis empowerment, which people are lulled into by the existing paradigm of democracy can be rebalanced.

You can only have a RBE economy when individuals are empowered enough to understand the strength and ability to create change with their own energy resources.

I'm on about free electrical energy & not the energy of the people.

There's one extreamly good reason why things SHOULDN'T be done locally, & thats is.... Because that's what we've done through out our history. a local commumity is mainly concerned with the area they live in -if you bought a large plot of land with trees & space for crops & some where to build houses ect. you've 200 trees say. you think great, i'll chop some down to make houses & things i need. & lets say for easy of argument that you have 100Sq miles, in area.
you chop trees, build what you need....Then if you could pick this place up & put it anywhere (&everywhere) in the world.....The planet would be dead!!!! England can't be replicated all over the world, it'd kill it.
& what you surgest is getting a SMALLER community together & using the available resourse that you have.
& that's how its been throughout history.
look at it as a larger thing, England is a community (in some sense), England is mainly interested in what's best for itself.
It might not come in my life time, but i bet all the money in the world that the world will end up with a "one world government"...It makes absolute sense, & all of history is showing this to be the case.
A RBE will never happen untill the entire world sings from the same sheet. you can't have a small community somewhere claiming to be a RBE, simply because there's no place on the earth where you can get your hands on every thing you'd need....so you have to trade & hence wouldn't be a RBE.
there's already small communities littered all over the place, & they do exactly what i said they'd do....they look at what they have & what they can use.
Short sighted & narrow minded because there usually aint no millionair how can throw loads of money to build the things you need, hence chopping trees & using what you have BEFORE you consider the impact it'll have on the world (usually speaking small communities, by there very nature are a 2fingered salute to the status quo) or in other words, they can't afford to care -i've no money, i have to chop the trees in order to build somewhere to live....is the thinking.

regards, nemo

I think this would be the wrong way.
As most of our present issues are linked with economic political corporate legislation and models we should stay away from models that encourage greed and control. It seems to bring out the worst in people.
I see the way as not engaging with the present system and building our own way or exploring new frameworks and models of being. These old ways are dying and time for new exploration using our brains to find ways to work as a community by looking at those communities that work on resource economy and applying the technology we have.

Politics is a minefield of theories, ideologies and ego's please lets not go that route before we even start.

Aquarian Starfish.

I think this would be the wrong way.
As most of our present issues are linked with economic political corporate legislation and models we should stay away from models that encourage greed and control. It seems to bring out the worst in people.
I see the way as not engaging with the present system and building our own way or exploring new frameworks and models of being. These old ways are dying and time for new exploration using our brains to find ways to work as a community by looking at those communities that work on resource economy and applying the technology we have.

Politics is a minefield of theories, ideologies and ego's please lets not go that route before we even start.

Aquarian Starfish.

"& what you surgest is getting a SMALLER community together & using the available resourse that you have.& that's how its been throughout history"

Absolutely, that is what i am suggesting.

We must work within the natural harmony of our species and its interrelation to the organism which is earth. A cell has a specific set of parameters to operate in, it is not free or able change its basic construct. We are local beings The future can only be high technology, energy efficient, localised communities, where ego is replaced by roles and responsibilities

We really do have to get over ourselves and get back to what we are.

I do not believe we are individuals who are defined by logic and from this logic will come the actions needed to create a RBE.

To my mind, we are rich complex emotional creatures who want to held by our mothers, idolise our fathers, play with our brothers and sisters and be secure enough in our environment, awareness and conciousness to know the wisdom of sharing.

The greatest resource is having a desire to share freely, not logic. Everything else will emerge from that, once that desire is unlocked. And that can only be done locally, one person at time. If people cannot transcend their egos and liberate the freedom of sharing, this system will be replaced by another system and we will never have a fully aware, whole and human system.

We must be honest about ourselves as individuals and a species and others. We must recognise the individuality of every person, not as a collective. We must know we have responsibilities beyond our own need and we must be willing to share our individuality for the evolution of the whole organism. Once those principles are in place, whenever we utilise energy as action, a better world will automatically emerge. I sincerely believe, this can only done one person at a time. That's how localised the future should be. Collaboration, co operation, integration all amounts to growth and change of the whole. If the ZM aim is to design a new earth, then its an aim i cant accept.

We can only enable a new earth to emerge.

Politics is a minefield of theories, ideologies and ego's please lets not go that route before we even start.

Aquarian Starfish.

most people fall under this misconception.
-lets see if this clears things up. Forget about ZM/VP/RBE for the moment & lets talk about the world, or this country. lets talk about people.
Talking about people, how best to organise them & what's best for the state (the group of people as a whole) falls under the term POLITICS. (please wiki it)

Please, i wish you could understand, i wish you could understand that a group of people (US) sat around talking about how best to run things is sooooooo political its untrue.
Group of people? 1) Us. 2) labour party. 3) lib party. 4) raving loony party & so on.....ARE ALL, JUST, GROUPS OF PEOPLE, ALL CHATTING THE BREAZE ABOUT HOW BEST TO DO THINGS!!
ya know, you're making differences like... an e-book is different from a paper book.
Is there a difference between two groups of people sat around talking about the state of the country? we sit around talking & lapping at the idea of wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a RBE!!!!!!
Labour party sits around talking & lapping at the idea of wouldn't it be wonderful if we could run things our/there way!!
For the love of your brain cells, what's the difference apart from context (differences in ideas)?????
Absolutly none, & talking about the state of affairs is.....Ta Daaa, called Politics (from Greek πολιτικος, [politikós]: «citizen», «civilian»), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.
How are we not??
couldn't be more that if we tried. so i just think that people need to get a grasp of that. once more people understand this, the more productive we could be.

seriously people, come on

Good point nemo.
A group can say it is not political, but that does not matter if everyone else says it is and treats it as such.
The only things that matter are how the ideas translate into practical differences.
Worrying about labels will not help.

I think you have to make a distinction between politics and the party system we live under. In the UK we tend to think of 'politics' as being the sort of debate we have here about who to vote for, whether leaders and policies are good or bad, and so forth. Call this 'party politics.' Politics, understood more generally, refers, as you say, to any approach to social organisation. So while the Movement is clearly political in nature (in the broad sense of the term), I do not believe it should get involved in party politics, either by starting a party or by backing or attempting to change an existing one. The political system we live under, the electoral system, is irredeemably tied to the market system. It is, essentially, a market system for opinion and is systemically incapable of making the kinds of changes the Movement seeks.

If you want to register your disapproval at the system, rather than a given party, the best option is to not vote. It's often said that not voting is throwing a vote away. This is not true. Not voting is a vote against the system itself. Consider what would happen if voting turnout rapidly decreased year over year; there'd be panic. It would be a clear sign that the populace has lost faith in the system as a whole rather than a given party. In this respect I think a global "don't vote" campaign run every election cycle would compliment the goals of the Movement well. Under the rules of party politics it's simply not possible to register disapproval of the system any other way. To vote for one party or another, or to start a party, is to support the current system.

It's important to realise that the electoral system is inherently opposed to any notion of the common good, and this is by design. It's an explicit tenet of liberal democracy that there can be no global agenda, only the varying interests of different individuals and identity groups. To have a goal as a society is dismissed as "totalitarianism." The electoral system, seeing only people (or groups) and their conflicting opinions, has no place for science or for applying rationality to social policy either. It's a conflict-oriented system. This is why it's the perfect compliment of the monetary-market system. The main reason I think party politics has been so successful is because it has such a powerful limiting effect on political debate. All political debate becomes about the relative merits of politicians and parties and only looks as far as the next cycle in the election process. This is an incredible narrowing of debate but serves the purpose of ensuring that nobody ever questions the system as a whole. In fact, it becomes almost impossible for people raised under party politics to even think outside the system.

We are, of course, constantly bombarded by messages telling us that if we're not inside the party system we have no "voice." It's this idea I think we'd do best to attack. Don't vote. Encourage others not to vote. Aim to reduce voter turnout as much as possible. When people discuss Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems with you, change the subject. Talk about the system as a whole and how its problems are endemic and can't be fixed from within the system. Start grass-roots campaigns to help people effected by the system outside of the system. Do so without respect for the categories the system has set up. Proudly display your lack of party affiliation.

> is systemically incapable of making the kinds of changes the Movement seeks.

That isn't true.

Look at this example of where a focused group effort with only some 13% of the voting electorate managed to achieve in getting hold of a £1 billion budget to play with.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23890393-labour-outcast-l...

That could easily be us!

> the best option is to not vote.

Then you will see no change in the people in positions of power that could help us.

> It's often said that not voting is throwing a vote away. This is not true.

It is true.

> Consider what would happen if voting turnout rapidly decreased year over year; there'd
> be panic.

What would happen if that fewer votes would get people into power, like just what happened in the above example I gave!

> To vote for one party or another, or to start a party, is to support the current system.

It is not.

> I think a global "don't vote" campaign run every election cycle would compliment the
> goals of the Movement well.

I was under the impression one of the key, or dare I say, THE key element of the movement was the appliance of science, and logical reasoning.

If by testing with voting in an improved party or candiate the situation is improved more than by not voting anyone specific in, I think we can draw the conclusion that yes, voting helps, and that not-voting doesn't.

Doing nothing is rarely productive!

One might even argue that to argue for non-voting is the kind of argument that agent provocateur's use to keep us from developing solutions and keeping us down and poor, whilst we think we are doing something.

I'm reminded of a personal experience when in college, due to the absurdly low level of voter turn out, I was the only one to vote for myself and became the student representative!

Also reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons::

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701164/synopsis

Back at the school during recess, Bart goes around the schoolyard thanking everyone for their vote. But as he makes his way around, talking to people, he discovers that no one voted and that they assumed Bart was a shoe-in for president. Bart quickly panics and realizes he must get just a few people to vote, but before he can, the end bell for recess rings, and Bart screams in horror as he realizes the time to vote is over. Back in the classroom, Martin and Wendell cheer, and Mrs.Krabappel gloats to Bart by recounting the only two votes cast, both for Martin.

The only political situations that can work are

a) A fascist dictatorship where the dictator is omnipotent, or at least very close in the practical sense.
b) A democracy based fascism, where a referendum is held on every single bill that is debated, after all merits are debated thoroughly by the technical elite - then passed out for referendum, and the result further pondered by the same elite to see if they really want to go through with it. This is of course what we have today in western cultures, and the democracy element itself really just amounts to a dictator flipping a fucking coin. If only that dictator had some god-like qualities.......... oh, see a.

Democracy could theoretically be used as a weapon of change of course, but even if we did remove all the problems caused by modern politics and elected a truly honest government, it wouldn't solve the problems that need to be solved in order to prevent human extinction. We are then left with a human race, honestly governed still praying for a miracle to come along. Is the energy expended, and more importantly the time elapsed from this exercise worth it, when we could be spending the same time and energy on developing solutions to the problems? Also, once you see that the dictatorship that is in charge right now, is not going to just let someone they haven't recruited to their own cause take over, it becomes a pointless exercise, where a power struggle would develop, and most likely civil war. This path, in my estimation, will lead to the end of our species, simply because it is not the radical change that is needed.

There are times when politics work, when debates have their valid place; right now is not the time, right now is the time for putting your mind to the problem of saving approx 6 billion lives, who will die due to incompatibility with the local environment at the time of the crash........ unless of course we come up with something REALLY quickly.

cheers
B

> once you see that the dictatorship that is in charge right now, is not going to just let someone
> they haven't recruited to their own cause take over, it becomes a pointless exercise, where a
> power struggle would develop,

All politics is about a power struggle, with the voters each holding a metaphysical bullet they hand out to who they think will do them the best good. (Note, people tend to vote for what is best for them, not what is best for everyone..)

The majority of people do not wish to be poor, so, build working examples of a better life they could have in todays system, offer them that, and I'm pretty sure they would vote for it!

> Is the energy expended, and more importantly the time elapsed from this exercise worth it,
> when we could be spending the same time and energy on developing solutions to the
> problems?

As I see it, you only devote some energy and time to politics, not all.

And that politics goes hand in hand with developing solutions.

For example, lets say you want to build a community, you will need the agreement of the local politicans for that to happen, to help the planning process, to even change regulations so you can build it in the first place!

Look at for example Earthships, now in the UK you are not allowed to build and live in these, no residental usage allowed.

If we got into politics, we could change that.

Look at how the Greens got into power in Brighton, I heard they went around to every household 3 times in a day to canvas for their vote!

Avoiding politics will just make our life harder.

It is not about this road or that road, it is about balance, a bit here, a bit there, so that all useful avenues of direction can be explored and put to work.

Rather than say, no to donations, say yes and then put them to good use!

Rather than say no to this or that, say yes, but focus its efforts on something useful!

LIke, you want to protest, then why not organise a 10km fun run, or pick up litter, mould that protest into something useful that will generate more PR, and more importantly positive PR.

You don't see a bunch of bankers protesting outside No. 10 because they don't like tax rises..

No, because they know smarter ways to get what they want.

We need to be smarter too, just watch how everyone else gets their way and copy it!

In the Western world the idea that you can either have a dictatorship or a democracy is a common one. It's based on the assumption that there are no right answers in politics. That's the importance of the rationalist/scientific worldview here. If you believe there are right answers, then there are systematic ways of discovering those right answers and there are systematic ways of confirming those right answers, and it doesn't matter who gives the order to implement (whether it's one person, an elite group, a computer or a global syndicate that represents everybody). Party politics, on the other hand, is absolutely opposed to the idea that there is any such thing as a science of social planning; it's essentially a dictatorship of majority opinion.

> essentially a dictatorship of majority opinion.

Agreed.

But, the vocal majority.

Eg. if group X speak loudly, it doesn't matter if group Y is tens or thousands of more people, its the loud group that get their way.

Thus to be heard, we need a loud voice in politics!

> Thus to be heard, we need a loud voice in politics!

The kind of voices accepted in party politics are restricted. If we were a group defined by an identity (class, ethnic, cultural, gender, sexual) we could make noise. But a group of people loudly challenging the system will be declared kooks and ignored.

> group of people loudly challenging the system will be declared kooks and ignored.

Indeed.

Which is why it pays to look sensible, such as the Greens have slowly been transforming themselves from crackpots of yesterday to quite twee and acceptable with sensible realistic and practical policies that don't really upset anyone and make sense.

Ok, so their message now isn't so ground breaking and fantastic, and their plans are small scale and tiny, but at least they are beginning to move things slowly foward.

As such, I think if we took such an approach, only with a larger canvas in mind, and like the Tories, actually built things to show people we know what we are talking about, I think we could be bigger than the Greens, and even bigger than the Tories..

It is not about this road or that road, it is about balance, a bit here, a bit there, so that all useful avenues of direction can be explored and put to work.

We need to be smarter too, just watch how everyone else gets their way and copy it!

======================================================================

Have you considered joining the Conservative Party?

All these ideas are the same as what has led us to ruin. They are inviting corruption, and if TZM actually adopted this, it would truly be the last nail in humanity's coffin.

Maybe had JF gotten the exposure, and the influential power back at the time of the Larry King show in the 70's, then this could have worked then. Now the only chance we have is revolution, or to pick up the pieces as a unit afterwards.

You talk like there is still time, but Z-Day this year will likely be the last chance to voice our concerns as a group. We are already beginning to see the end with what's going on in the Middle East. What do you think will happen if all of those nations start to implement democratic structures? Nothing will really happen, because they will still not be able to afford oil and food etc, and the process of more violence will start again.

The point is, that we are already too close to the event horizon of our own abyss, unless we can somehow break the current structure, and do it as peacefully as possible, lest we risk it all being a waste of time.

I would love it if what I was saying was not true, I would love right now to have been born in to another bygone time where life still had so much promise. I would love for my children to have been born into a world where politicians had been honorable and incorruptible, and had always done what was best for the species they were meant to serve.

They still see themselves as a better species than the rest of us.

The price of oil cannot fall, because the production yield cannot rise any longer, it can only fall. The entire worlds society, and it's primary religion money, is inseperably linked to the price of oil.

THERE CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE A RECOVERY.

Politics now, would stall us, just at the moment when we are the proverbial rabbit in the headlights. You are suggesting that we should try and debate with the approaching fender; I suggest that with what little reactions we have left, we get the fuck out of the way.

Got to agree with those against politics and starting a party. I am however up for a "DON'T VOTE" campaign, if you do this publicly and get a low turn out it will speak volumes.
If politics is going to do us any favours it could be in the form of coverage/exposure by an existing politician, Or by pubicly leaving office to join his local chapter (imagine that, highly unlikely but we can dream eh?)

Hopefully TZM can pave way for a completely new way of thinking, we as a race have outgrown these dated systems of control. If we felt it worked we wouldn't be here.

I would say the best option would be to keep moving in the direction of Peter Joseph.

It's politics that got us in the mess we are in today, not voting just creates hung parliaments and were in one now, where indecisive measures are being taken and decisions are made and then refuted.

The movement isn't about power, wealth or gaining ground it's about "living" solving "poverty" and solving the shortfall of resources. It's about getting good ideas in the populas like energy from the sun , energy from the sea and energy from the ground and wind.

The world is in chaos and it's all to do with politics and money and greedy bastards who take take take.

I joined this movement to make a difference to the poor, the planet and to our families I didn't join this movement to get into politics

If I wanted a political involvement I would join the green party the labour party the BNP the Liberals or some other ill gotten shower of knob heads, when you are a political party people hate you and we are striving for people to help, to get involved and to make a difference not to hate us.

If you are politically motivated you are not understanding the BIG PICTURE go watch all the videos again and don't get up for cups of tea or coffee because you might miss something that rings bells

It's politics that got us in the mess we are in today, not voting just creates hung parliaments and were in one now, where indecisive measures are being taken and decisions are made and then refuted.

The movement isn't about power, wealth or gaining ground it's about "living" solving "poverty" and solving the shortfall of resources. It's about getting good ideas in the populas like energy from the sun , energy from the sea and energy from the ground and wind.

The world is in chaos and it's all to do with politics and money and greedy bastards who take take take.

I joined this movement to make a difference to the poor, the planet and to our families I didn't join this movement to get into politics

If I wanted a political involvement I would join the green party the labour party the BNP the Liberals or some other ill gotten shower of knob heads, when you are a political party people hate you and we are striving for people to help, to get involved and to make a difference not to hate us.

If you are politically motivated you are not understanding the BIG PICTURE go watch all the videos again and don't get up for cups of tea or coffee because you might miss something that rings bells

& you have absolutley no grasp about what you are on about!

Answer this:
Do you seek to bring about a change in the world???

you sit around chewing the fat about how best to live in/on this planet!!
you sit around talking how best to do this or that!!!

-AS DOES ANY POLITICAL PARTY/MOVEMENT.

you associate politics with politicians. the two are vastly different & i don't think you grasp/understand this.

its not politics that got us into this mess, how old are you? maybe it was you & millions like you, that got us into this mess. -by not paying attention & letting the WRONG PEOPLE into office.
Depends on how you look at things: politics isn't wrong or fucked up, it's just the wrong people are in politics.
if you can admit that people have greedy natures, some more than others....Be it eating too many sweets, wanting to have all the toys, or wanting a stack of money.
you got to some what be able to see....that while they seem to be doing a bad job. They are, in fact, doing a very good job.
-They're very good at doing the wrong job.
& you can't really blame them for being good at making money for themselves & friends. (you learn that at an early stage in your life....the more money in your pocket, the nicer life you will have).
& lets not forget, these people was privately schooled in the 60-70's & had the retoric of money makes the world go round, stuffed down there throats at an early age.
so like i said "they are particularly good at the games they play, it just so happens that they're the wrong games to play".

Me & you talking about how best to run/organise the world...is called a political discussion.

There will always have to be leaders, people telling other people what to do. how best to go about things, from building cars to houses to whatever. -just as a skilled man would teach someone his trade.

THAT BEING THE CASE, IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF GETTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE, IN THE RIGHT JOBS/OFFICE.

If you create a ploitical party people will react with "oh it's just another bunch of people with crack pot ideas" You need vast amounts of money to run an election even local ones, so we would be going against everything we are fighting for, we would have to make mass amounts of revenue to create a paradox in which we get rid of it all again lol

Getting into politics doesn't have to mean becoming just a political party, it can mean using politics as part of the many ways one solves problems.

For example, let us say you want to give away free food, and you manage to do this successfully, so well in fact that you could do it over the entire country. Now you might then fall fowl to the Monopolies Commision objecting to that, but by being involved in politics in some way, you could successfully change that from the top down, rather than just protesting about it being changed and nothing in all likelyhood changing.

If some of us end up in political positions, or various political people listen to us, we can influence policy and legisation, much the same as everyone else does!

I would certainly agree we need to be more than just a political party.

Obviously there's no point in setting up yet another political party aiming to get into parliament on the basis of offering or "making promises" to do something for people, if only because things can't be lastingly improved for people within the present wages-money-profits system.

But I can't see how "politics" in a broader sense can be avoided. After all, to get rid of this system there'll have to be a majority in favour of doing this and this majority will have to organise itself to implement what it wants.

This could take the form of the sort of mass street demonstrations that achieved their aims in Tunisia and Egypt but, if a more or less fair voting system already exists and given mass support why not use it once that mass support materialises?

We are a long way from that at the moment but I wouldn't dogmatically rule out ever putting up candidates standing for a moneyless world.

In the meantime I agree with not voting for any of the existing parties which are useless, either by abstaining or by writing something like "I want a moneyless world" across the ballot paper.

">Obviously there's no point in setting up yet another political party aiming to get into parliament on the basis of offering or "making promises" to do something for people, if only because things can't be lastingly improved for people within the present wages-money-profits system."

What are you on about???
Slavery springs to mind -The people who were doing it didn't want it to stop, they was having a whale of a time, selling people into slavery!!
working conditions, housing conditions, NHS, the list is long of things that have improved for the people in a money based system. (get a grip/look with wider eyes)

>We are a long way from that at the moment but I wouldn't dogmatically rule out ever putting up candidates standing for a moneyless world.

there are many ways to say the same thing, even if you don't see all the ways to say it.
Just having a candidate that ran for very cheap/free energy & very cheap/free food..... would begin to bring about the change we wish to see.

You can't be as naive, as to think that offering a candidate with a policy to get rid of money...Will ever get voted in. -They'd be lost in endless debate.
Free energy & free food, leaves less to be debated over & more will actually be achieved.

>In the meantime I agree with not voting for any of the existing parties which are useless, either by abstaining or by writing something like "I want a moneyless world" across the ballot paper.

Both of these achieve NOTHING!

Not voting, is a vote for whoever is in office at the time.
& writing anything across the ballot paper nullify's your vote.
both pointless & aimless, & achieves nothing!

>But I can't see how "politics" in a broader sense can be avoided. After all, to get rid of this system there'll have to be a majority in favour of doing this and this majority will have to organise itself to implement what it wants.

That's the most honest statement you made.
In order to change things, you have to be in things. -Ipso facto.

A very silly, but easy way to explain that is: If you're not in the kitchen when the foods been made.... You get what you are given....you have NO input.
(in it to win it, springs to mind)

We are, with out a single doubt, a POLITICAL MOVEMENT!

Everything we talk about in this forum, is political.

-As i refer you to my Tag.... A group of people sat around discussing how best to run/organise things.
HOW ARE WE NOT THIS?????

Talking heads are all well and good but marches and demonstrations produce better reactions.

It's good to debate though

Well, if people are always going to be put off by the idea of a world without money then there's never going to be one.
OK then, but who should we vote for then? I agree with the American socialist Eugene Debs who once said that it's better to vote for something you want and not get than vote for something you don't want and get it.
, i.e that's a statement I, Nemo, agree with and anybody who says something I don't agree with is being dishonest.
I agree, but there's politics and politics. There's the sort of gradualist, reform-the-present system type of politics you are advocating. And there's the sort of radical politics which wants to get at the root cause of the problems facing humanity and concentrates on that, starting with spreading awareness about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wg1DNHbNU&feature=related

i quite like talking heads. lol (fitting song, road to nowhere.)

>Talking heads are all well and good but marches and demonstrations produce better reactions.

Reactions to what?

Who have we got? Who speaks for us?
After the chaos of the marches, who's standing up & speaking for our ideologies???
-a confused mass of incoherent people, who are all sing something quite the same, but clueless how to implement it.

Otherwise, in steps the Green party or the Raving loony party with there ideas....Because we have no-one who speaks for us.

America can't/wont help us, we have to help ourselves. & to that we need a chap (or chappes) who speaks for us.
can't have a million people speaking at once -nothing would get heard or done.

sending out flyers at the marches & then what?
who's the chap who's gonna stand up & lead us?

Have we spoken to the best scientific minds in the land, to see if they would be willing to take some rolls on?

Do we have a plan of action for what's about to come?
Suppose we occupy London & demand change. & suppose we get what we want. the control of England (so to speak), then what???

Remember we've only got England under our control, the rest of the world is doing as it pleases.
What do we do?
Do we make the best of what we have, use what readily available resources we we have, to the best we can???
We already know there isn't enough land in England to feed everybody who lives here.
We'd still have to buy Oil/Gas/Food/Electricity.

The only way money will disappear, is if it is fazed out.
It's the only way it can happen.

people will have to continue working until the new can be fazed in. otherwise you have a lot poor/angry people.

There needs to be much more thought about the road ahead.

Random thoughts:

Since the world is such a big place, with a lot of people claiming to rule here & there.
Why not turn England into a large company that soul interest is electricity. from producing it to laying cables & infrastructure all over the world. (you'd get little argument out of a ruler, if you was offering a cheap electrical grid/system)

That would bring the world to closer to where we wanted it to be.
(perhaps other countries could take other rolls like producing enough clean food for everyone, etc)

we've a long way to go yet.

I agree with what you are saying that's why the whole world has to do it all at the same time, this isn't a British thing it's a global event

I think it's a good idea to start a political party, just not use the Zeitgeist name.
Actually i think the best is to start applying Zeitgeist ideology everywhere with different names.

If you always use the Zeitgeist/ Venus P. names you are going to end up repeating yourself to a small defined group who was interested, but the ones, who just simply won't pay attention or have negative feelings for the organisation will never be rached.

If somebody believes only in politics, tell your ideas in the language of politics.
If somebody only listen to pub stories, then go to the pub and tell it to them when you are drunk.

just out of curiousity, has anyone heard of the british constitution group, lawful rebellion and alternative government. I feel this is a possible way for us to create our own government. What BCG are doing is amassing evidence of the corruption in our goverment for a supreme court trial. While they are doing this they are also initiating lawful rebellion.

Now lawful rebellion basically is in our magna carta article 61 which gives the rights of the people to lawfully rebel againts the corrupt government and if the queen refuses to thelp her too. From lawful rebellion an alternative government can be created.

An alternative goverment is created when 1 million people sign up to it. This body is responsible for governing its people under it's rules. So the current government will be powerless against it, they hold no jurisdiction over those people. The alternative government can create its own law enforces, courts, money everything the current government can do.

The idea is once people see how the alternative government works more and more would want to join and would be welcomed to. There are several letters needed to enter lawful rebellion but i feel it is a good tactic to use, one that could be very effective and fast. The problem is amassing one million people so again inform inform inform. What do you guys think.

Although i have been supportive in the past of a Political Party that is founded on the ideas put forward by TZM and the VP, my feeling lately has been that starting a "Party" that sits within the current political system is basically a compromise to try and further our goals.

Not neccessarily the end of the world but it is difficult to defend a movement that prportedly decries the current system while working within it. You can argue that we are "Working to bring the sytem down from within" but i think whichever way you cut it it diminishes the credibility of both the movement and the philosophy behind it.

What we need is not another minority political party jostling with the other parties for attention but something more revolutionary, something that becomes so large through public support that the existing system cannot help but be pushed aside by it.

I feel very strongly that this has to happen without engaging in the existing corrupt political system.

I agree that most of the activism has to come from outside of the corrupted system, but still the best way to deliver your ideas is to use more channels.

It doesn't have to be Zeitgeist Party, just to found one party which in ideology is close to RBE.

And even if the goal would be the cancellation of the corrupt money system, you still use this system every day. And every spent pound is some kind of vote! So during 'the transition' we shall use this system wisely. And not to be a complete outsider, because this way the movement could loose many many valuable people.
---------------
I've met a lot of people on the internet and in person who dislike/hate the Zeitgeist Movement.

Mostly because they don't know it. Or they have seen the first videos which were "too conspiracy theorist" so they don't pay attention at all, and probably they won't change their mind, unless they hear about the RBE from an other media (like Newspaper, Tv, celebrities, etc...)

And to convince them is the main goal!

Maybe you're right GM.

Its one of those issues that I seem to feel differently about depending on the time of day I think about it.

I guess I can see the logic from both sides of the argument on this one. The idea of using as many channels as possible to further the philosophy though does make a lot of practical sense.

I see what you are saying about using the money system being a form of collusion but the difference is that it is almost impossible to function in the world without engaging in the money system.

To me It's the same reason that dieting is harder than giving up smoking. At least with smoking you can just quit, you HAVE to eat at least some of the time.

Similarly, you can just completely disengage with the political process without it adversely affecting your daily life, but, so invasive is it, that you don't really have that option with the monetary system.

Chris

of which political party do you speak of that has the same virtues TZM &VP??

A compromise, you say? How did the end of slavery come about? -Was it working within the political frame at the time, oh i think (know) it was.

you say "What we need is not another minority political party jostling with the other parties for attention but something more revolutionary, something that becomes so large through public support that the existing system cannot help but be pushed aside by it."
...It's called politics baby!

you also " feel very strongly that this has to happen without engaging in the existing corrupt political system."
-Politics isn't corrupt, the current people/families who are in politics are tho. It's a rather large difference, one i hope you can grasp.

anyways, i wouldn't bother your time with this thread, three people taking a vauge interest doesn't make a party, or anything.

I fear the planet will kick us into shape before we get round to anything

I agree with Nemo. Politics is not corrupt by itself. The way how poeple shapet its fundamental rules made it ineffective.

If some day in the future a system will rise which is based on RBE there will be needed a channel to communicate what the people want. Politics could do the job if it is rewised and corrected to truly represent the need of people. Even if it takes 5000 political parties.

-----------------------------
"anyways, i wouldn't bother your time with this thread, three people taking a vauge interest doesn't make a party, or anything."

- Equal rights for women was sometime just a discussion between 2 people a few hudred years before.

I agree with me too, if you're not in the kitchen when foods been made, you'll get what you are given. -same for politics.
it really is that simple, irrelivant of you thinking it's corrupt or a waste of time....that matters not.

What are your options people??
1) form a political party (tho not a zeitgeist party -you'd just be lost in endless debate)
2) take to the streets & throw them out/demand change
3) wait for the collapse of the current system.

2&3 are pointless, people took to the streets wks ago & what happened? Camerron boldly said "we're still going to do as we please"!!

While forming a party could take time, so what, it's the only realistic option there is.
_____________

- Equal rights for women was sometime just a discussion between 2 people a few hudred years before.
I am liking this statment a lot, there could be hope for us yet.

Evolution is better than revolution in this complex world.
A political step is required before politics can be removed.

A political party which truly represents it's electors ( I know it sounds crazy....) will slowly build trust and reputation. And if that happen it could break the ignorance towards politics. (And by politics I don't mean parlamentary politics, I mean day-to-day politics which refers to our lives and issues)

In my country (Hungary) people are fed up with politics completely, which led to an even worse system than it was. No one believes in the system and even the future which causes even more problems. They think about their state as an enemy, who steals their money so everybody tries to steal money back from the government (= massive corruption).
And the worst thing is that now the people don't believe anything, don't trust anybody and completely ignorant about their surroundings (basicly everyday politics)

If a political party could rise which has trust and honor (...yeah still sounds utopia...) it could affect masses to think about their future, change habits and the most important is to give hope.

-------

If a group of people from the ZM is really committed to the cause it could slowly build a party with supporters, it could really change lives.