ALB wrote: Brian wrote: the

November 8, 2011 at 10:53 pm #86687

Participant

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

the “Mission Statement” issued by Peter Joseph without any consultation with the chapters.

Peter Joseph may have issued this statement but it is difficult to believe that he actually wrote since he is normally more articulate than that while the statement is very badly written.In one part it states:

Quote:

The Movement also recognizes the need for transitional Reform techniques, along with direct Community Support. For instance, while “Monetary Reform” itself is not an end solution proposed by The Movement, the merit of such legislative approaches are still considered valid in the context of transition and temporal integrity.

So they support some kind of “Monetary Reform” (without specifying which) but does anybody know what “temporal integrity” means?

From what I can gather the methodolgy used for the mission statement was: Peter Joseph wrote the draft which was then passed to Ben McLeish for amendments and additions who then passed it to Ray (Gman) – whose the Linguistic Team coordinator – for proofreading and also further amendments and additions who then returned it to Peter Joseph for final approval. Such a methodology is fraught with difficulties in maintaining the style of language used and the flow of the text. Knowing Ray (Gman) and the way he works I would guess he was very tempted to re-write the whole statement but knowing this would entail a confrontation with PJ’s ego he done the next best thing and avoided the problem of semantics and ego by attempting to clarify the text.It didn’t work. However the whole subject of issuing a “Mission Statement” can cause multiple problems in a voluntary organisation. Firstly, the use of the term “Mission” has religious overtones and implies an attempt to directly convert the reader rather than the reader going through a process of self-conversion. Secondly, a “Mission Statement” is usually associated with corporate policy which has a legal entity, whereas TZM is in actual fact a volunteer organisation and an unincorporated association which has no legal entity. However, PJ has registered TZM under corporate US law to establish personal ownership of the global site and ts 3. Which may explain why the title “Mission Statement” was used and also his ego?The implications of taking this legal entity action are obvious and once the followers of TZM understand what they actually entail all hell is going to break loose!The third problem with the statement is its far too long and consequently fails to mention in brief details the conditions and circumstances of capitalism and the tools which will be utilised to bring about the proposals for change. Far better if a “Statement of Intent” or a “Working Purpose” consisting of a paragraph had been written up which could have then gone out for consultation to the chapters. This process curtails the problems with semantics, contradictions and disagreement.Ray (Gman) and myself have had some discussion over the term “temporal integrity” but never came to any firm conclusions regarding its meaning, other that is only PJ seems to know. Whether or not Ray (Gman) garners sufficient courage to request an explanation from PJ remains to be seen. But again knowing how Ray (Gman) works he’s just waiting for the opportunity.My best take on the term is that you suspend your integrity to see you through a transitionary period.