For Those Who Were Not Able to Listen to Jan's Appearance on Z-Radio.

OFF THE WIRE
Zeitgeist Movement - some favor helmets laws and safety nanny legislation..

This afternoon I saw an internet radio show and ended up calling in and
getting into a full-fledged debate with several people.
You can download a file from

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-94503/TS-452025.mp3  
and listen in to the debate.
The debate begins at approximately 1:07:30 which is slightly
more than half-way through.
Going into the show, I thought the Zeitgeist Movement was opposed to
mandatory RFID chipping of everyone, therefore not in favor of
oligarchy, police state, and safety nannyism, and it was at one time,
but the new people coming into the movement do not recognize the
problems of oligarchy. As a result of this show, it appears there are a
number of people who do not understand the concept of individual liberty
and responsibility. However, some of them may be willing to listen.
I was badly outnumbered by proponents of the public burden theory, but
will probably debate them again.
Jan

Hi folks,
In the last Forum Digest Jan provided a link to a Z-radio broadcast, and I suspect that not many who clicked the link were able to hear Jan's contribution, as she was only permitted a word in edgewise after about half an hour into the program. I just read the New York Times while these other folks were talking in general platitudes about nothing relevant to me, or I suspect, anyone else. All that changed when Jan jumped in with two feet. At first the more specific question on helmets was met with laughter, but then as Jan persisted it dominated the remaining hour and a half of the show, and then everyone just left after Jan had to leave. Jan's initial task was working the discussion around to where motorcycle helmet laws became sufficiently relevant for these folks to argue about. Jan very deftly led them through a number of their own issues, from an previous prediction by this Z-movement that by a certain date we'd all have electronic chips planted into our bodies. That date of their prediction had passed so they edited their positions, explaining that it doesn't serve the capitalist machine to put the chips into us since there is no money in it. Then, she posited that we are generally a police state in which folks can be forced to succumb to blood tests and having catheters forced into our things to test for blood alcohol, asking whether these folks would go along with that. This is an old trial lawyer trick, to wit, leading the expert witness out to an extreme that almost everyone would agree is absurd, or in this case, painfully distasteful. They fell for it and some said that yeah, if it promotes safety then, yeah, insert the needles and catheters, with, what I would estimate would be the same effect to most listeners that a trial lawyer would want to achieve.
Now using general propositions to gradually move the discussion to helmet laws, she proposed that we live under a police state, to which they responded that this is the natural progression of capitalist society, which cause and effect assertion I think probably would also have the same effect to lose a bunch of folks, since we are certainly aware of the police states encompassed by the Communist Soviet Union. But then, having at least gained the concession that police states are not optimal, Jan finally had the opening to bring in laws that intrude upon our personal decisions, like whether bikers should be required to wear helmets. And then, Jan succeeded in turning the remainder of the show into a discussion of whether those representing the Z-movement stand for freedom to chose or in the alternative did they support the imposition of helmet laws. From my perspective this was the most extraordinary thing, given their initial reaction to the subject, and amazing to me that Jan was able to hang in there and so deftly move the subject matter from the more general ideas that they were initially discussing.
There was really only one guy who came off as an extreme safety nanny, making the societal cost arguments, conceding only that perhaps permitting bikers to shun helmets would serve the Darwinian cause of natural selection. But he was not prepared with more than conjecture, while Jan provided studies showing that helmets result in a 70 percent increase in serious spinal injuries, urging that she should be permitted her personal choice, upon considering the evidence, to make her own safety decisions. Some arguments were made by him that perhaps motorcycling in general is dangerous, but the MC of the show stepped in to acknowledge that he's a motorcyclist and values the sense of freedom he feels riding, and then pointing out that there are a lot of thrill sports, from scuba diving to sky diving, and to take the safety nanny position to the extreme, would raise the specter that all these sports should be outlawed (again the tactic of running the safety argument out to the point where I think all agree that it is absurd.)
Jan then concluded the segment, suggesting that they should consider the values of liberty and freedom, wrapping up her participation, after which the participants were at a loss to find anything else to talk about and the segment terminated.
So that was the uptake for those who became frustrated listening through some portion of the first half hour and then gave up.
Congrats Jan, particularly on your extraordinary deftness in turning this show into a biker rights forum, at least for a day.
Ray

Thanks for the feedback Ray. I'm very glad you heard the debate of me versus the general public.




For those who download the file from http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-94503/TS-452025.mp3 , you can avoid the first hour and seven minutes of whatever they are talking about by skipping ahead to approximately 1:07:30 which is slightly more than half-way through. (I haven't even listened to the first hour).

Understand that the Zeitgeist Movement has a large group of proactive idealists with intentions to define a utopian society. Many of them are actually designing new cities. I believe that individual liberty is a critical component which must be engineered into every part of their final plans or they will just be designing another social system with strict policing to make up for flaws in their original design. As to whether or not the Zeitgeist Movement will ever attract the masses, I do not know. What I do know is that some of these people now realize there is no utopia for everyone if their design depends on majority rule because with majority rule comes enforcement, leaving some people in the minority to be prey Therefore, freedom of the individual must not be callously disregarded.

The knowledge I provided is applicable in the here and now, regardless of whether the movement gains in popularity.

It began as a very hostile crowd, with 25 people in the chatroom at the time. (What you do not see is the vicious attacks from the chatroom. Those you hear in the recording pales in comparison to accusations made in the chat. However, this quickly turning around as I stood my ground, introduced some disturbing but interesting facts, and they realized my message needed to be heard. My primary intention was to convey that the RFID chips theories (as foretold by Aaron Russo) should remain a part of their dialogue. As soon as I started to speak, people started off ridiculing, being extremely hostile taking me out of context and trying to twist my words, so I had to be assertive. They accused me of making up half of what I said. None of them had ever heard of police forcing needles or catheters into people, so I had to provide that evidence. I told them search for NHTSA No Refusal Program. A doctor who did not believe me at first did a search and found out about the program, and reported back it was true. All of them, including the doctor, accused me of just making up the increase in severe neck injuries, so once again I provided a copy of the report from NY State Police to the NTSB (from the boltusa website). In this instance, assertiveness and conviction worked well. I intentionally did not dominate the entire discussion, allowing people to present their points, and this allowed them to establish exactly how the issues I brought up are relevant to their discussion. It was very important that it be them, rather than me, to determine the relevance of the information in my message.
In other words, it was exactly like someone from BOLT speaking up at a CBA/ABATE of NC* meeting in 2007 !
jan