TZM and Joe Schmoe

How are they a solution?

Humility as a discipline/goal. (this is not me advocating, just offering a guess)

To give context to the solution I was referring to, I will quote the problem you mention.

The tabbed is TZM’s case for human unity. I agree with the train of thought, but I’ll chip in something more on the matter of motivation towards uniting humanity - Values, Care & Sincerity

[tab][size=150]THE CASE FOR HUMAN UNITY[/size]

My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.” -Thomas Paine

A critical conclusion present in the logic that defines TZM’s advocation is that human society needs to unify its economic operations and work to align with the natural dynamics of the physical world as a single species sharing one habitat if we intend to resolve problems, increase safety, increase efficiency and further prosperity. The world economic divisions we see today are not only a clear source of conflict, destabilization and exploitation, the very manner of conduct and interaction itself is also grossly inefficient in a pure economic sense, severely limiting our societal potential.

While the nation-state, competition based structure is easy to justify as a natural outgrowth of our cultural evolution given the resource scarcity inherent historically and the long history of warfare in general, it is also natural to consider that human society could very well find purpose in moving away from these modes of operation if we were to realize that it is truly to our advantage as a whole group.

As will be argued here, the detriments and inefficiencies of the current model – when compared to the benefits and solutions possible – are simply unacceptable and the efficiency and abundance possibilities, extrapolated within TZM’s advocation for a new socioeconomic system, rest, in part, on a concerted effort by the human population to work together and share resources intelligently, not restrict and fight as we do today by design.

Beyond that, the social pressures and risks now emerging today around technological warfare,
pollution, environmental destabilization and other problems show not only a logical gravitation for true global organization - they show a rational necessity – and the xenophobic and mafia-like mentality indigenous to the nation-state today, often in the form of “patriotism”, is a source of severe destabilization and inhumanity in general, not to mention, again, the substantial loss of technical efficiency.

False Divisions

As noted in prior essays, the core basis of our survival and quality of life as individuals and as a species on the planet earth revolves around our understanding of Natural Law and how it relates to our method of economy. This premise is a simple referential understanding where the physical laws of nature are considered in the context of economic efficiency, both on the human and habitat levels.

It is only logical that any species present in and reliant on the habitat in which it exists should
conform all conduct to align with the natural orders inherent to that habitat, as best they can be understood at the time. Any other orientation is irrational by definition and can only lead to

Understanding that the planet earth is a symbiotic/synergistic “System” with resources existing without nationalistic bias in all areas, coupled with the provably inherent, underlying causal scientific order that exists in many ways as a logical “guide” for the human species to align with for the greatest societal efficacy, we find that our larger context as a global society transcends virtually all notions of traditional/cultural division, including no loyalty to a country, corporation or even “political” tradition.

If an “economy” is about increasing efficiency in meeting the needs of the human population while working to further sustainability and prosperity, then our economic operations must take this into account and align with the largest natural relevant “system” that we can understand. From this perspective, the nation-state entities are clearly false, arbitrary divisions, perpetuated by cultural tradition, not logical, technical efficiency.


The broad organization of society today is based on multi-level human competition: nation-states compete against each other for economic/physical resources; corporate market entities compete for profit/market-share; and average workers compete for wage providing occupations and hence personal survival itself.

Under the surface of this competitive social ethic is a basic psychological disregard for the well- being of others and the habitat. The very nature of competition is about having advantage over others for personal gain and hence, needless to say, division & exploitation (of both human and environment) are fundamental attributes of the current social order. Virtually all so-called “corruptions” which we define as “crime” in the world today are based upon the very same mentality assumed to guide “progress” in the world through the competitive value.

It is no wonder, in fact, given this framework and ongoing shortsightedness, that various other detrimental superficial social divisions are still pervasive - such as race, religion, creed, class or xenophobic bias. This divisive baggage from early, fear-oriented stages of our cultural evolution simply has no working basis in the physical reality and serves now only to hinder progress, safety and sustainability.

Today, as will be described in later essays, the possible efficiency and abundance-producing
methods that could remove most human deprivation, increase the average standard of living
greatly and perfect public health and ecological sustainability greatly – are left unacknowledged due to the older social traditions in place, including the nation-state concept.

The fact is, there is technically only one race - the Human Race; there is only one basic habitat - Earth; and there is only one working manner of operational thought - Scientific.

Origins and Influence

Let’s quickly consider the root origins of the competitive/divisive model. Without going into too much detail, it is clear that the evolution of human society has included a history of conflict, scarcity and imbalance. While there is debate as to the nature of society during the period of time preceding the Neolithic Revolution, the earth since that time has been a battlefield wherecountless lives have been taken for the sake of competition, whether material or ideological.

This recognized pattern is so pervasive in fact that many today attribute the propensity for conflict and domination to an irreconcilable characteristic of our human nature with the conclusion that the human being is simply unable to operate in a social system that is not based upon this competitive framework and any such attempt will create vulnerability that will be exploited by one power over another, expressing this apparent competitive/dominance trait.

While the subject of human nature itself is not the direct focus of this essay, let it be
contextually stated that the “empirical power abuse” assumption has been a large part of the
defense of the competitive/divisive model, using a general broad view of history as its basis for validity. However, the specifics of the conditions in those periods, coupled with the known
flexibility of the human being are often disregarded in these assessments.

The historical patterns of conflict throughout history cannot be taken into account in isolation.
Detailed reference to the conditions and circumstances are needed. In fact, it’s likely accurate to say that the dominance/conflict propensity which is clearly a possible reaction for nearly all
humans in our need for preservation and survival in general is being provoked by social
influence more than being the source of such a reaction. When we wonder how the massive Nazi Army where able to morally justify their actions in World War II, we often forget the enormous propaganda campaign put out by that regime which worked to exploit this essentially biological vulnerability.

True ”Self-Interest”

The notion of “self-interest” is clearly inherent to the human being’s common urge to survive.
This is obvious enough and it is easy to see historically how the raw necessity of personal survival, often extending to family and then the “tribe” (local community), set the stage for the complex, divisive paradigm we exist in today. It should have been expected from the standpoint of history that vast economic theories would be based upon the notion of competition and inequality, such as in the work of Adam Smith. Considered the father of the free market, he made popular the assumption that if everyone had the ethic to look out for themselves only, the world would progress as a community.

This “Invisible Hand” notion of human progress arising from narrow personal self-interest alone might have been a workable philosophy many years ago when the simplicity of the society itself was based on everyone being a producer. However, the nature of society has changed greatly over time with population increases, entirely different role structures and exponentially advancing technology. The risks associated with this manner of thought are now proving to be more dangerous than beneficial, and the definition of “self-interest” is taking a larger context than ever before.

Is it not in your self-interest to protect and nourish the habitat that supports you? Is it not in your self-interest to take care of society as a whole, providing for its members, so that the
consequences of deprivation, such as “crime” are reduced as much as possible to ensure your
safety? Is it not self-interest to consider the consequences of imperialist wars that can breed
fierce jingoistic hatred on one side of the planet, only to have, say, a suitcase bomb explode
behind you at a restaurant as a desperate “blow-back” act of abstract retribution?

Is it not self-interest to assure all of societies’ children - not just yours - have the best upbringing and education so that your future and the future of your children can exist in a responsible, educated, and increasingly productive world? Is it not in your self-interest to make sure industry is as organized, optimized and scientifically accurate as possible, so that we do not produce shoddy, cheap technology that might perhaps cause a social problem in the future if it fails?

The bottom line is that things have changed in the world today and your “self-interest” is now
only as good as your “societal interest”. Being competitive and going out for yourself, “beating” others only has a negative consequence in the long term, for it is denying awareness of the whole system we are bound within. A cheaply made nuclear power plant in Japan might not mean much to people in America. However, if that plant was to have a large scale technical failure, the fallout and pollution might make its way over to American homes,proving that you are never safe in the long run unless you have a global consciousness.

In the end, only an earth-humankind conscious view can assure a person’s true “self-interest” in the modern world today and hence, in many ways, assure our social “evolutionary fitness” when such considerations are taken into account. The very idea of wishing to support “your country” and ignoring or even enjoying the failure of others, is a destabilizing state of affairs.


The days of practical warfare are long over. New technology on the horizon has the ability to
create weapons that will make the Atom Bomb look like a roman catapult in its destructive
power. Centuries ago, warfare could at least be minimized to the warring parties overall.

Today, the entire world is threatened. There are over 23,000 Nuclear Weapons today which could wipe out the human population many times over.

In many ways, our very social maturity is being questioned at this time. Sticks and stones as
weaponry could tolerate a great deal of human distortion and malicious intent. However, in a
world of nano-tech weapons that could be constructed in a small lab with enormous destructive power, our human “self-interest” needs to take hold and the institution of war needs to be systematically shutdown. In order to do this, nations must technically unify and share their resources and ideas, not hoard them for competitive self-betterment, which is the norm today.

Institutions like the United Nations have become complete failures in this regard because they
naturally become tools of empire building due to the underlying nature of country divisions and
the socio-economic dominance of the property/monetary/competition based system. It is not
enough to simply gather global “leaders” at a table to discuss their problems – the structure itself needs to change to support a different type of interaction between these regional “groups” where the perpetual “threat” inherent between nation-states is removed.

In the end, there is no empirical ownership of resources or ideas. Just as all ideas are serially
developed across culture through the “group mind”, the resources of the planet are equally as
transient in their function and scientifically defined as to their possible purposes. The earth is a single system, along with the laws of nature that govern it. Either human society recognizes and begins to act on this logic inherent, or we suffer in the long run.[/tab]

TZM believes that issues such as poverty, corruption, ecological collapse, war, public health crises and the like, are “symptoms” born out of an outdated social structure.

TZM’s defining goal is the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible and advanced resource management, allocation and distribution through what would be considered the scientific method of reasoning. Public and environmental health is the core priority.

If you’re really interested in what TZM advocates, please browse through this PDF file - The Zeitgeist Movement Defined -

It is a collection of essays (‘Human Unity’ being just one) which can be read individually in any order. However, latter essays may take for granted arguments made in prior essays.

If you have a question, look for a relevant essay detailing that issue. If you can’t find one, feel welcome to ask me.

I spent about an hour there. So from what I could gather, they do seem unique in that they don’t ask for monetary donations to a general fund, but make each ‘chapter’ responsible for their individual costs as they occur. Then they also rely on various organization leaders’ person financial input. That is the bright side (only in comparison to other charity based organizations), but besides the organization supposedly remaining humble financially, I’ve seen no evidence that they are humble in any other way.

The members certainly have no necessity for humility. - Which isn’t to say it would be anything other than absurd to have moral guidelines for its members, but in that, as mentioned, some of the leaders’ financial input is used, and perhaps even central, as they seemed to admit, to the organization (, they really have no firm basis in even economic humility or their supposed anti-capitalistic ideology.

TZM is not a charity organization.

It engages in charity, but this is not it’s purpose.

TZM is a sustainability advocacy group.

This is a important point.

We live in an economic structure where things still require money.

Of all the actions TZM engages in, charity, media festivals, lectures, film series, radio shows, books, websites and much more, the only thing members of TZM make any profit from is the sale of shirts, which themselves are a means of communication - furthering the objective. These sales are used to diminish the expense of all their other activities. No doubt, the sale of shirts still do not bring members into the black, just less in the red.

And as for the money spent by heads of chapters, they do that on their own volition, and the money spent doesn’t financially benefit any other member of TZM. There’s no leader given money by heads of chapters. The money goes directly from these people, to whatever it is they choose to invest in, towards the end of promoting the train of thought and values of TZM.

That being the promotion of what is considered truth.

If your point about guidelines is that no one is obligated to follow them, that is true. But to go against the guidelines is likely to undermine the principles of TZM. For example, if one is trying to profit from TZM’s material, one is tarnishing the name and philosophy of TZM.

Thus, anyone prepared to do that, isn’t really sincere to the movement and not an accurate reflection of what the movement stands for. They thereby do not represent TZM.


I’ll address your off topic criticisms, posted in my other thread, here soon.

I fixed the problem you refer to above.

Quotes from: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=186060

I wasn’t referring to living at the expense of others, I was referring to denying our company and esteem to others. In that context, not living would be the about the same as far as those others’ needs are concerned.

I don’t understand how your premises logically follow each other. But, even assuming one would need to show more value in practice for another than he has for that other in actuality, to maintain that other as he values that other, which seems absurd, many aren’t naturally valued at all, by anyone, and without people being subjected to a lifetime of indoctrination in - (as I said early) the idea that despite what innate qualities they have or qualities they earn, they have no more value than any other, and neither deserve nor should expect any more value from others - there would be none to show them the seemingly sincere that they need.

Equality is about things, people, concepts, values, etc. equating. If your concern for equality is not about how it manifests itself in everyone’s appearance or demeanor, but how people are treated by others, then that necessitates that everyone be treated equally (whether the quality of treatment be well, terrible or anywhere in between).

But what are the odds that they’ll actually override any absurdities in their ideologies and purposes?