The Zeitgeist Movement can now boast over half a million members across over three hundred countries; in 2009 it was a quarter of a million members. Peter Joseph, the founding father of the movement, has recently released his third movie, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (as written about by Fouad Al-Noor on Wessex Scene), and in mid-March the celebration of ‘Zeitgeist Day’ will begin across the globe.

The Zeitgeist movement advocates the abandonment of currency based society in exchange for the establishment of the resource based economy first suggested by Jaques Fresco, pioneer of The Venus Project, ideological forefather to Peter Joseph and former member of the Ku Klux Klan.

This last qualification of Fresco may be deemed an irrelevant Ad Hom assault by some and there are those who will believe Fresco’s imaginative claim that his membership in the Klan (as well as the White Citizen’s Council) was part of an elaborate infiltration to convince them to change their minds about race hate.

The very least one could argue that this says about Fresco is that he has inclines towards the fanciful. Included in this notion of the resource-based economy is the jettison of private property in exchange for what Joseph refers to as ‘strategic access’ which is tantamount to communal property; democracy, which Joseph states is an illusion, in exchange for a technocracy whereby the ruling class would comprise of technical experts in control of their relevant domains; and eventually labour.

Joseph states that we are already technologically capable of the mechanisation of most jobs executed by human labour and that, due to the nature of the resource based economy, we can look forward to a world where we do not need to work, where houses are built in a single day and we can enjoy a 95 per-cent reduction in crime.

While the quixotic ideas of Joseph may still appear perturbing, they are vanilla compared with the frightening conspiracy theories that have been perpetuated by the Zeitgeist movement in the past. The very term ‘conspiracy-theory’ would have Joseph’s followers pulverising their molars, embittered that their ideas are being shrugged off as grassy knoll theories.

But neither their bruxism nor their semantic dispute can purchase legitimacy for the absurd and odious notion propagated in Zeitgeist: The Movie that not Al Qaeda but the Bush Administration had orchestrated the internationally seismic events of 9/11 to justify the invasion of the Middle East – all under the guise of a war on terror in order to accomplice economic gain. This idea is of course completely without substantiation and the attempt to absolve the true murderers of three-thousand people has been subject to much ridicule. Although he refuses an all out retraction it should come as no surprise that, with the systematic dismantling of such claims, Joseph has moved away from them and ideas such as these are absent from ‘Moving Forward’.

Joseph paints a grim and accurate picture of the perils of continued defilement of the environment and excessive consumption of natural resources. However, Joseph piggybacks this global threat with the notion that we should map out every single resource on the globe (which, of course, every effort to do so is already being made), abandon concepts of private property and then have the state distribute resources where they are needed. At one point in the film Joseph adopts mock indignation at how people could possibly brand his doctrine communism or socialism.

The lady clearly doth protest too much: whatever your stance on these two ideologies it should be clear that in fact Joseph’s Zeitgeist Movement is ideologically extremely close to both and a denial of this is unsupportable. Joseph attempts to discriminate between them by claiming that communism, like capitalism, assumes that natural resources are not finite. Not only would this claim hardly distinguish the movement from communism but it is not true. Communism and capitalism and every other economic doctrine assume the scarcity and value of some resources over others.

Similarly, Joseph preempts the ball-busting naysayers when he begrudges the label of ‘utopianism’. However, a clip of Jacques Fresco (from 1974) at one point in the movie states that in a resources based economy, “it would take ten years to transform the surface of the Earth into a second Garden of Eden”.

At the end of the film, Joseph indulges himself with a somewhat masturbatory dramatisation of the day when everybody realises he is right in perhaps the ultimate vindication. The anchor-woman announces that amongst the massive protests, “shockingly there has been no violence” and we see a board room full of three-piece cage wearing oligarchs stubbing out their cigars in despair.

Joseph claims that he can create a world without poverty, a world essentially without crime and a world without labour in which we are entirely free to pursue our destiny (Joseph has previously stated that employment is ‘forced slavery’). Whatever way you cut it – this is utopianism. Joseph completely disregards the quintessentially human properties of self-interest, desire for freedom and competitiveness in his concoction of the ideological equivalent of the delusional phenomenon Dr. Ben Goldacre describes in his book, ‘Bad Science’ as – ‘pill solves complex social problem’. It seems that in his state of denial Joseph has provided us with a rather neat summary of the Zeitgeist movement.

This utopianism is more harmful than mere wish thinking. The concept of utopia and its pursuit has been devastating throughout history. It follows almost by definition that it is near impossible to find an instance of great evil without there being an underlying paradisiacal motive. If you believe that there is a way to attain heaven on Earth for the whole of mankind then almost anything is justified in its pursuit. It is not hyperbolic to bring up at this point Stalinism, Maoism, almost all other despotisms and genocides of the twentieth-century and more recently – Jihad.

Despite my insistence that this is not hyperbole you may still feel that alluding to the greatest evils of the past century is sensationalist but, while I do not for a second suggest that we need be as concerned about the Zeitgeist movement as we do about these examples, these are the logical consequences of utopian thought. Joseph preaches that we will be delivered if we follow him and if we do not then we are destined for apocalyptic repercussions: war, poverty, starvation and the disintegration of civilization.

Amongst the detritus there are some issues we must take seriously. Environmental concern, disgust for corporate greed and the justice of property distribution are matters of incredible importance but these are far from new societal concerns and Peter Joseph’s cult has nothing to offer us with regard to their resolution.

Link to Peter Joseph’s response

Link to Samuel Gilonis’ further rejoinder

66 Comments »

Leave your response!

  • Nick Mould
    avatar

    I agree with you on this one. Zeitgeist: Addendum was very frustrating for me to watch. The first half contained many valid points and information of interest (though, as you pointed out, not unique to the film). However the film completely fell apart half way through, becoming an endorsement of the Venus Project as opposed to offering practical solutions to the problems mentioned earlier. The whole “this is not an utopia” rhetoric was laughable. For one thing, the fantasy imagined by the Venus Project is impossible with a world population the size that it is today. Jacques Fresco’s dubious past, of which I was unaware of, is very intriguing.

    In addition Peter Joseph does not come across as a good filmmaker. Though it is impossible for any documentary to not be considered propaganda, the cliched use of emotive music underlying the narrative made no attempts to hide this. Indeed, the insertions of cartoons, art-house films, the old man at the beginning (who was he? I can’t remember his name being mentioned) and George Carlin didn’t seem appropriate and also made the film longer than it needed to be, though if they were absent from the film I would probably have enjoyed them. The exception was the tedious and eye rolling finale which did nothing for me other than wanting it to end.

    Reply

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    As you know from the full version of this article that I sent you (and I am happy to send anybody else who would like to see it) I am in full agreement with you regarding the incompetence of Joseph as a documentary maker and as a propagandist. The old man at the beginning is I believe the semi-mummified and delusional remains of Jacques Fresco who now can boast 94 summers to his name.

    Glad you enjoyed the article,

    Samuel

    Reply

    Nick Mould
    avatar

    If that was Jacques Fresco at the beginning, then he made a lot more sense there than he did later. Although the story involving him being sent to his principal’s office was more than likely a fabrication, I did think the notion of pledging allegiance to the Earth rather than to one country was good. Unfortunately I imagine some people would choose to associate it with globalisation.

    Reply

    Devon Gagnon
    avatar

    - “Venus Project is impossible with a world population the size that it is today”

    No explanation of why it’s impossible, therefore making this statement irrelevant.
    – “In addition Peter Joseph does not come across as a good filmmaker. Though it is impossible for any documentary to not be considered propaganda, the cliched use of emotive music underlying the narrative made no attempts to hide this.”

    Thank you for revealing your narrow minded views on documentaries. You clearly say “All documentaries are propaganda” but in a non-nonsensical way. What a very pro-establishment thing to say, and also a very black and white statement. Documentaries are created for a million different reasons, some tell a story, some make points, some want to educate while others want to brainwash. Your type of generalization is destructive.

    All you’ve demonstrated is the ability to project opinions as fact, without any background information.

    Reply

    Nick Mould
    avatar

    Propaganda is defined as information in a form of media with the purpose of promoting an ideology.

    Surely this fits to any documentary, or for that matter, any artform to some extent? Documentaries ARE created for a million different reasons, but all of them share the viewpoint of the creators. I don’t understand how this is “proestablishment” if anything, the “establishment” are the worst offenders when it comes to propaganda.

    “No explanation of why it’s impossible, therefore making this statement irrelevant.” – And you’ve made no effort to explain why I was wrong so therefore I have nothing to argue against.

    “All you’ve demonstrated is the ability to project opinions as fact, without any background information.” I think the pot is calling the kettle black in this instance.

    Reply

  • Fouad
    avatar

    I expected a lot from this article actually and was looking forward to it. But What is written here is nothing I haven’t heard before.

    1. Regarding Fresco Being part of the Klu Klux Clan

    This is him talking about what he was doing (essentially trying to befriend and then change the KKK’s leader “Lu”‘s value system).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLwsDgj2kj8

    If you have ever heard a lecture by Fresco then you would
    understand that he is as far from racist as you can possibly be (even at a time when racism was something normal in America and when his own mother was one).

    “…The very least one could argue that this says about Fresco is that he has inclines towards the fanciful.”

    Well, you got him there I guess. I might as well give up now since you surely got the whole movement with that statement. Seriously, if someone is trying to change someone’s beliefs how would they go about doing it?

    With force?, by social rejection? No. You do it by slowly explaining to them why their beliefs may be wrong in a way that they can understand. I must say that it’s sad and pathetic that an attempt at trying to help a group of people change their racist beliefs and maybe improve their lives is looked at as “fanciful”.

    Personally, I don’t know if everything Mr. Fresco says is true, but it sure as hell makes sense and at this point there is no reason for him to lie. Even if he did lie about the KKK, it does not make his other idea’s less valid and the movement would still be unaffected.

    This particular point is so obvious that I am not even going to bother to discuss it any further.

    2. Regarding “conspiracy theories” and automation

    “While the quixotic ideas of Joseph may still appear perturbing, they are vanilla compared with the frightening conspiracy theories that have been perpetuated by the Zeitgeist movement in the past. ”

    Well first of all the “ideas” are not really Peter Joseph’s because it at this point its pretty much a common notion. If you ask any of the Engineering professors what we can do (without regard to money and loss of jobs) and how much we can automate you will be pretty shocked. Technology has now advanced far beyond simple automation machines as the electronics that controls these machines is reaching levels never even dreamt of before. If we have the technology to create microprocessors that work faster than ever before and containing 1.4 billion transistors, trust me we can automate most things.

    http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/32414.wss

    Most things that Peter Joseph states are either already in place or are being developed. Nothing he says is “amazing” or “out there”. It’s actually pretty common and anyone who works within the technology industry probably already knows about it.

    3. Socialism, Marxism, Communism etc

    “…Joseph’s Zeitgeist Movement is ideologically extremely close to both and a denial of this is unsupportable”

    I haven’t read enough about all these “isms” to completely write off differences and similarities. But having said that, who cares? Seriously, what’s this obsession with labelling it with some “ism” that is in some senses similar.

    From my understanding Marxist’s idea of utopia never did get through and communism still had government, army, labour, laws, etc

    IF The Venus Project is a “utopia” it is definitely one that is very different from any of these ism’s that you have mentioned. And even if it is similar SO WHAT? Just because one ideology is wrong in many aspects does NOT mean it’s wrong in all aspects anyway.

    What I care about is the idea’s presented by The Venus Project, which I can sum up in one line.

    “The application of the Scientific method for human concern”

    That’s it. Whatever way or form that comes out really does NOT matter. Fresco has repeatedly stated that his idea’s is not the “end all be all” of the Venus Project. He has already stated that THEY WILL go out of data like anything else and will be improved and changed. But he has tried for the past 50-60 years to create a “blue print” of what MIGHT work. He has thought about it the most logical way that he can and I personally think it’s probably the best way we can improve society. If the idea’s are not possible or needs to be changed then guess what? They will be changed. It’s is not a “cult” because there is no real “leader” and the movement will change and update with the time that it’s in. But then again the word “cult” has a few definitions and I don’t care for semantics so I will end it there.

    4. Utopia

    “Joseph claims that he can create a world without poverty, a world essentially without crime and a world without labour in which we are entirely free to pursue our destiny (Joseph has previously stated that employment is ‘forced slavery’). Whatever way you cut it – this is utopianism.”

    This is a funny one. “utopianism”. Right, if anyone aims to try to improve things as much as possible I guess we should call it “utopianism” and then disqualify their arguments. “How dare they think that things can get better?!”

    Oh and I didn’t know Peter Joseph was claiming he could create a utopia? Guess those few hundred hours of Pod casts really didn’t reflect his opinions. The fact of the matter is that he never claimed such a thing. The only thing that has been stated several times is that we all CAN create a better world if we simply change or dare I say design a society that works in a more efficient and scientific manner.

    Maybe just maybe the monetary system may be a big force in the inequality and poverty of most of the world’s population. We have had a form of monetary system for the past few thousand years, trying something different can’t do any good can it?

    5. Human Nature

    “quintessentially human properties of self-interest, desire for freedom and competitiveness”

    Right, I will not go into this one as there have been so much evidence to prove the contrary to what that statement says (except the desire for freedom) that I will stop here, just to sum the counter argument up:

    Competition, greed and any other human behaviour (or any living organism for that matter) is shaped by the environment in which it lives. If the environment does NOT re-enforce these attributes, the attributes WILL change (which is the main aim of The Venus Project). This is evolution and biology so I am sure that I don’t need to dwell on it too much.

    ” If you believe that there is a way to attain heaven on Earth for the whole of mankind then almost anything is justified in its pursuit. It is not hyperbolic to bring up at this point Stalinism, Maoism, almost all other despotisms and genocides of the twentieth-century and more recently – Jihad.”

    Well I guess according to your logic we should just forget about attempting to improve the lives of everyone on this planet (we don’t want to have genocides do we?). Yeah, let’s just let people in other countries starve while we kill the other species on the planet as well.

    I am sorry, the search of “utopia” is not necessarily a bad thing. We know we can never have a utopia, but in almost any field of science we always AIM for the “ideal”. In electronics we aim for the “ideal” operational amplifier. In physics we assume “ideal sine waves” and in any social structure we assume that “ideally people will not blow themselves up”. Of course we never get the “ideal” situation, but we may get something close? We have op amps with very near “ideal” properties. We can create almost ideal sine waves in a signal generator and out of the 6.8 Billion people on this planet, most don’t blow themselves up.

    My point is, we SHOULD aim for a “utopia” with the knowledge that we can never get there. We should always TRY to improve society as much as we possibly can. People who believe that aiming for something amazing is a “bad thing” really don’t know how we got to where we are today. What do you think Nikola Tesla aimed for? Or Thomas Edison? Or Leonardo Da Vinci? You don’t think they aimed for the “ideal”?

    6. Conclusion

    I am sorry to say that most of what you have written has almost no relation to The Venus Project, Peter Joseph, Jaque Fresco or The Zeitgeist Movement.

    A lot of your views about these things have either been misinformed or is simply a projection into what you think The Zeitgeist Movement is about. You don’t even attempt to even consider that you might actually be wrong about these things.

    Personally, as much as I responded to your points, I am sure that I will be proven wrong about many things. I am not arrogant enough to think I know a lot about the world because I don’t think anyone really does. But if there is one thing I know that The Venus Project is at least TRYING to do and what the Zeitgeist Movement is supporting is changing the environment that we all live in, in such a way that everyone’s lives can be improved and this is done by the use of science.

    Fouad.

    Reply

    Jack Jones
    avatar

    Oh goody. How soon can I move into my luxury villa, with my equally luxury 100 ft yacht moored at the bottom of my garden. Btw, if nobody’s working, who’s going to clean all the trillions of villas that we’ll all be living in and who’s going to ‘drive’ all the boats? I hope the world doesn’t tip over as everyone rushes to their villas around the coast of the Med!! Will I be able to a different colour yacht to everyone elses? I wouldn’t want to be accused of being a copy cat. Seriously, Fouad, there’s absolutely NO-WAY it would work, no matter how pleasant the fanatsy, uless we were all reduced to mindless robots,

    Reply

    Nick Mould
    avatar

    “But if there is one thing I know that The Venus Project is at least TRYING to do and what the Zeitgeist Movement is supporting is changing the environment that we all live in, in such a way that everyone’s lives can be improved and this is done by the use of science.” – Is this not what most scientists aim to do anyway? Whether their government supports or funds them is another matter.

    Reply

    Yusra
    avatar

    Robots, remember? They’ll clean the roads and drive the boats.
    They’ll be controlled by the elite-force of scientists that will pretend that people are doing what they want and society is interdependent and decisions are made by everyone because of the superior communications because we will no longer want to rule the world in this new society because human nature changes overnight and even as an electronic engineer, I will not become dictator. And even if I did, the people wouldn’t care. After all, ‘Panem et Circenses’.

    Reply

    Devon Gagnon
    avatar

    Do you guys ever get tired of not knowing what your talking about? Incorrect sarcastic remarks just makes you seem ignorant. You’re criticizing it, with information that’s not even relevant. It’s like laughing at a kid for eating chocolate ice cream when he clearly has vanilla on his cone. If you want to disagree, man, go for it, that’s encouraged; but how about actually knowing what your talking about.

    Reply

    Vortex
    avatar

    Absolutely right Devon, and over half a million people agree with you.

    Reply

    Yusra
    avatar

    I’m sorry, I’m not entirely proud of the comment. It’s what the movement looks at face-value. (and it’s quite easy to make fun of).

    Reply

    Dave C.
    avatar

    Not entirely? So which part of your hyper-fallacious comment are you still proud of?

    If the movement looks like that to you “at face value”, there’s no crime in that because nobody can be held accountable for how they perceive things. However you can be held accountable for taking a stand that your obviously skewed perception is, in fact, accurate.

    It’s not, and if you intend to disagree with the claims espoused by the movement then you should make a point to do some research on the matter so when you voice your concerns, your concerns are actually relevant.

    shane
    avatar

    Its people like you that should (when these cities get built) be given the not so pleasant jobs in order to have your share !

    shane
    avatar

    You my friend are the kind of person that gives up when he/she loses more than once at something, crosses their arms in anger and says “It’s a crap game anyway”. How can you be so sarcastic about something just because it seems impossible? If everyone thought like you we would never make advances in any field.

    Reply

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    Okay Fouad, the trousers have come off (although I really cannot promise a 1,596 word response – I was only allowed 1200 for the article).

    1. Regarding Fresco Being part of the Klu Klux Clan

    The untainted, distilled naivety required to believe Fresco’s yarn is of a quality I do not believe you can possess. Amongst his claims are that he played them an audio recording of an educated black man speaking which all of the KKK members were impressed by and then afterwards told them the orator was black. The KKK were so impressed that they renounced race-hate. This is transparent bullshit! Even if violent, racist red-necks were amenable to reason (which I strongly suspect they are not), does anybody believe that this boring display would have persuaded them? The video link you provided is one that I have seen and one that I think is linked in my article already. I strongly suggest that any who are interested watch this video and decide for themselves. You have stated that from his lectures he is clearly not a racist. This is a particularly fallacious statement as although one could be openly racist in the day he was a member of the White Citizen’s Council and the Ku Klux Klan, one cannot do this now. Anybody proselytizing for any kind of political change has a fairly obvious motive to not have people believe he was truly a member of these kinds of organisations.

    Having said that, and as I made clear in the article, this does not directly challenge the ideas of Venus Project but I think that it strongly suggests that its architect is a semi-deluded individual with a nothing less than queasy relationship with the truth and for many this might shed some light on the basis for his utopian vision of the future.

    2. Regarding “conspiracy theories” and automation

    This is simply mistaken.
    While the technical ability to create machine to automate a lot of human labour does exist – the idea that this could be put into practice is the myth. (I would like it noted here that this technology is the product of a competitive consumer capitalist society — making Joseph’s assertion that money breeds technological stagnation somewhat bemusing). The fact is that the automation of labour has been gaining momentum since the invention of the steam engine, companies that can automate – do automate, for what motive would they have (in a profit driven society) to NOT do so.

    3. Socialism, Marxism, Communism etc

    You are almost correct in your assertion that Marxism was never truly put into practice – therefore we cannot say that his utopia could not still be realised. The first half of the statement could and has been argued extensively (love or hate him – to my mind the best essay on this subject, and so many others, is written by Noam Chomsky). The second half I take issue with, Marxist ideology is simply flawed and therefore it never would be possible, as with the Venus Project, to put it into practice.

    I felt that it was particularly important to note that the Venus Project bears such a complete resemblance to the ideologies of Marxism/Communism largely because Peter Joseph goes through great lengths to persuade us that it is not true. It is also important to see that this ‘pig in lipstick’ is really nothing new, these ideas are very old and almost unanimously discredited but, credit where credit is due, Joseph has certainly done a marvellous job of dressing them up.

    I can’t see why you or Joseph or Fresco claim that this is scientific. (By the by, Marxism was regarded as the first attempt to scientifically arrange society, rightly or wrongly). If we were to use all of the scientific data available to us we would surely observe that democratic and capitalist states have always flourished in comparison to those which abandon either of these two principles and yet these are amongst the first things that Joseph would dismantle. Because Joseph praises science and provides us with lots of videos of science in practice does not, I cannot state this emphatically enough, does not make his ideology a scientific one.

    For a truly scientific view on the morality and society I can not recomend Sam Harris on The Moral Landscape (There are lectures on YouTube or he has written a thoroughly readable book on the subject).

    4. Utopia

    I think it is a shame that you seem to not have read the portion of my article on Utopianism very thoroughly. I begrudge nobody their meliorism but there is a clear distinction between those who claim that we can improve society and those who claim the ability to make it perfect. It was written clearly that the Venus Project does discuss very important global concerns: poverty, unaccountable corporatism etc. I do not deny the urgent need to resolve these issues, I simply state that Joseph, Fresco et al. have nothing to contribute.

    The only political ideologies we can dismiss out of hand are the ones that promise us an end to human suffering; In what way can the Venus Project resovle the eternal conflict between the individual rights and the good of the majority? OR the balance between liberty and freedom – two fundamentally opposed concepts. In your comment you have elevated political philosophy to the status of mathematics and electronics; a fatuous analogy indeed.

    Joseph does not simply outline a system of ideas and policies that would theoretically lead to a perfect society, he makes very specific claims just some of which I wrote about in my article (95% reduction in crime for instance). Joseph has stated that under his hand we would live in a society where 95 crimes out of 100 evaporate! This is not just aiming at an ideal this is the promise of a tangible result.

    I was particularly amused by this statement of yours:

    “Maybe just maybe the monetary system may be a big force in the inequality and poverty of most of the world’s population. We have had a form of monetary system for the past few thousand years, trying something different can’t do any good can it?”

    You suggest we dismantle all forms of currency – because we’ve already given money a shot and we should try something different to see if it will work?

    5. Human Nature

    Your knowledge of evolution seems to be slightly lacking. Organisms do not simply adapt by being put into a new environment. Natural selection is the engine for adaptation. At almost 7 billion strong the effects of natural selection are so dilute as to be non-existent the gene pool is simply too large. Even were some catastrophic event to reduce our numbers to a level where we were to begin ‘evolving’ again, you are aware that the evolutionary process works over hundreds of thousands of years, it is not an instantaneous process that happens whenver we need to adapt to a new situation – we are hard-wired to be co-operative and we are hard-wired to be self interested, any political philosophy has to take BOTH into account.

    Our competitiveness and self-interest as well as our co-operativeness and our occasional altruism are all products of evolution because they are all useful traits for us. Suggesting that people do not or should not, however philanthropic, care more about themselves than somebody they have never met is wrong, insane and somewhat masochistic.

    Reply

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    Not quite 1,596 but probably closer than is necessary…

    Reply

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    Just a brief additional point on human nature:

    Joseph claims as do you, that the human qualities of self interest and competitiveness are bred by our consumer capitalism and that they will disappear in his egalitarian paradise. He gives the example of hunter-gatherer societies in which he claims that there was no murder or theft etc.

    This point is not true; the native-American tribes, which must fit anybody’s definition of hunter gatherer, were in a state of almost perpetual warfare with one another. In order to avoid, what in Deliverance is called ‘genetic deficiency’, within the small tribes, they would regularly raid one another to abduct women and slaves. Combat between them was bloody and ubiquitous and tribes were often completely eradicated.

    Regardless, there are some crimes that were unlikely to take place in small, close-knit communities. This is not because of the lack of money but because — they are small, close-knit communities. If everybody knows everybody then it is not difficult to find out who stole your horse. If everybody knows everybody then it is not hard to find out who killed your neighbour, it is the one with the grudge. This does not eradicate greed or self interest, they are simply inflicted upon the next tribe instead of your immediate kin.

    In larger societies we do not know everybody we encounter and therefore they are better incubators for crime. Money is not the relevant factor.

    Reply

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    Now may well be over the 1600 mark.

    Reply

    Fouad
    avatar

    No. The environment defines what behaviours that particular animal will display. The genes of any animal will change according to the environment it lives in and so will it’s behaviour. That is essentially how evolution works, and it is the very reason we developed from single celled organisms living in water up to being mammals living on land. The fact of the matter is that in some hunter gatherer societies there was more scarcity than others. Of course we know that, hence the need for competition, greed etc.

    Real “Human nature” or indeed “animal nature” does not really exist. There are no “bad humans” or “good humans” there are only humans.

    If you Design a society that will reward co-operation, that has little scarcity etc those will be the values/behaviours that will be displayed by the people living there. There is no inate “human nature”

    Reply

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    The existentialist claim that their is no human nature and the claim that “genes of any animal will change according to the environment it lives in and so will it’s behaviour” are contradictory.

    The claim that there is no human nature is also meaningless — Of course we all have certain inclinations to certain behaviours, these are defined by our basic needs and desires and what constitutes ‘well being’. For example we all seek self-preservation, we all seek companionship (and those who do not are considered anomalous), we generally seek status over others (another product of our evolution from hierarchical apes), we seek sex, food and water and how many other countless things that make up ‘well being’ for humans. These drives constitute what we call human nature and denial of their existence is an extremely outdated idea that I believe died with Sartre.

    In my longer post I stated that your knowledge of evolution is lacking and this has become more evident. Simply putting an animal into a new environment will not make that animal adapt. If that animal is hard wired for a different set of conditions then it will perish in the new environment and only creatures that are are by chance suited to the new environment, at least to some extent, will survive. True adaptation happens over thousands and thousands of generations. As I discussed the human gene pool is far too large for the process of natural selection to have any effect. Were our numbers to be drastically reduced, the evolutionary changes you discuss would take an enormous length of time. A particular organism does not evolve within its own life time!

    This leads us to the conclusion that the Venus Project is incompatible with our nature, at least as it stands now.

    Reply

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    To further refute your claim that there can be no ‘animal nature'; i.e., certain types of behaviour can not be instilled in an animal by the process of evolution; consider Mudskippers:

    The Mudskippers face the problem of needing somewhere safe to lay their eggs. Living mostly in mudflats, the water is extremely oxygen poor (the eggs require an oxygenated environment) and the land is vulnerable to predators. The Mudskippers have a unique and brilliant solution, they dig U-shaped burrows into the bed of the mudflats and then by going back and forth from the surface to the den they can carry air from the surface and then exhale it into the U-shaped cavity where the gas cannot escape thus providing safety and oxygen for their eggs.

    The Mudskipper is an amphibian and is therefore what we might scientifically call, stupid. The Mudskipper has absolutely no grasp on the laws of physics, or how the lesser density of gas means it will rise above water and therefore be trapped in the ingeniously shaped burrow. The Mudskipper does not know what density or gases or any of the other complex concepts involved in such a construction are — IT HAS NO IDEA WHY IT DOES WHAT IT DOES. It is through presumably thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of years of burrowing, where successive generations of mudskipper dig their burrows slightly differently. The lineages of the mudskippers of the mudskippers who carved unsuccessful shapes in the mud have long since died out.

    Thereby a certain kind of behaviour is instilled in an organism by the process of natural selection. The Mudskipper does NOT reason out the pros and cons of various designs for the burrow and then decide based on his knowledge of his eggs need for oxygen, and his further knowledge of the lesser density of air than water that this is the best course of action.

    A human example of this might be sex: there has been at least one tribe that I have heard of which simply had not made the connection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy. They are still driven to have sex irrespective of this, because if they did not then we would of course never have heard of them!

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    All of these points were allowing you the fairly large luxury of assuming that the Zeitgeist project could ‘end scarcity’. An assumption that I think almost none would accept.

    David G
    avatar

    @ Samuel Gilonis

    Sounds like you were against the the movement and Peter’s work long before you wrote this. Given this, you likely skimmed through the vast amount of material we have online, and then cherry picked some details to be used for a series of straw man arguments that vaguely support your pre-condemned, blatant misinterpretations of the information. I thought writers like yourself were above that, but I suppose it’s never a good thing to generalize people, eh?

    Regardless, your whole article consist of dismissing us through associations, misconceptions, misinformation and spins. It has nothing to do with examining the points and functions of a Resourced Based Economy. Aside from insults and making negative associations, you never simply extrapolate on why it won’t work. Of course, to do this, you would have actually had to understand a Resource Based Economy.

    Your article is simply hateful, arrogant, and insulting… and that’s how people act when they are wanting to prove a point but can’t risk exposing their ignorance on the matter at hand.

    What stuns me most though, is that you concede and agree with the grim picture of the global state of affairs that Peter and the movement articulates… yet you don’t give the solution that we advocate an honest examination. The property solution, the money solution, the distribution solutions, the labor solutions… these all have a scientific reasoning for them, that you don’t have in communism or any other ism. Stop letting your fears and bias cloud your examination… just examine the information for what it is and try to logically deduct if it could or could work.
    .

    Fouad
    avatar

    There is no point in carrying this conversation as we will probably never agree. I am no biologist, but from what I have understood about evolution and natural selection (by reading few of Richard Dawkin’s books, and listening to his lectures on the subject) I understood that evolution CAN work pretty fast and animals DO adapt pretty quickly to their new environment. They do NOT always take thousands of years and one example of this is when Belayev was able to breed foxes in such a way that they turned tame and very dog like.

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

    (A more detailed description can be found in Richard Dawkins – “The Greatest Show on Earth”, page 71-76)

    Also, the idea of The Venus Project is to SLOWLY change people’s behaviours and values by changing their environment. And if it took 10 generations to essentially change foxes into dogs (obviously not completely, but change their behaviour and even appearance significantly) then what can we do in 100 years?

    If you decrease scarcity (whatever way you do it) then you will decrease competition, crime and inequality.

    Anyway, you probably think that TVP are talking about completely getting rid of competition, corruption, jealousy etc easily and quickly. I’m pretty sure we can’t get rid of these behaviours, though we can decease their frequency. In a world with less scarcity there will undoubtedly be less crime because of an increase in equality.

    Please read:

    http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

    and

    http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/What_Causes_Crime.pdf

    Which is the research done on the subject.

    Anyway, this will be my last comment on this article as I don’t think we will reach any sort of resolution. .

    Anonyous
    avatar

    Has there ever been a test to isolate a mudskipper from birth and see if its capable of doing anything?

    shane
    avatar

    “put an animal in a different environment and it wont adapt” I don’t know where you get this information from? Animals can adapt pretty quickly. How many monkeys can click a button to be rewarded for food or even through thought power alon, control a mechanical arm to bring them food? watch a few more documentaries on animals adapting to their new environment before making these statments

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    My knowledge of evolutionary biology is only that of a layman but I would still put it toe to toe with yours. You have put quotation marks around words that I have not written in a particularly pathetic attempt at calumny.

  • Henry C Taylor
    avatar

    Lol at Fouad’s pending 1,596 word comment.

    Reply

    Fouad
    avatar

    lol yeah sorry, got carried away!

    Reply

  • That’s not my name.
    avatar

    Terribly researched article.
    Maybe a job swap with someone at Fox? (don’t get your hopes up though) x

    Reply

  • Ryan S
    avatar

    If the Zeitgeist Movement delivers a Utopia…and the definition of a Utopia is “An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects” then sign me up. I don’t know about you but i’d rather enjoy a world without starvation, rampant crime and useless occupations which offer no societal contribution. The Zeitgeist Movement understands that the current monetary/market based system only works with cyclical consumption. The Earth contains a finite amount of resources to “fuel” the earth so we need to strategically implement a system which allows humans to inhabit this planet as long as we possibly can. The current system breeds overproduction, waste and pollution which does not take into account any means of sustainability. Shouldn’t our overall goal be to extend the life of Earth as long as we possibly can? Inevitably our planet will die someday but it should be our goal to extend its life as long as we possibly can. The ONLY way we can accomplish this is to strategically use the Earth’s resources to eliminate waste and pollution, which will invariably limit our time here. The Zeitgeist Movement proposes methods to lengthen the life of Earth, in turn the life of humans, while providing a more enriching, healthy and rewarding life for all. When it comes down to it I’d rather be a Utopianist than a Capitalist, Socialist or Communist.

    Reply

  • AndresD
    avatar

    Friends,
    I just had the pleasure of reading a new hit piece against The Movement by a man named Samuel Gilonis of Wessexscene.co.uk and felt the need to highlight some aspects of this creative article since we can expect them to reoccur. Many might remember that I did a radio show in part on what I call “The Circus” and this article is another great case in point. I, once again, love the [strawman] and [prima facie] associations created.

    http://www.wessexscene.co.uk/features/2011/02/21/the-cult-of-zeitgeist/

    The article is entitled “The Cult of Zeitgeist”… yes I know, originality seems very distant these days. The projected insult “cult” [strawman] is, of course, the last bastion of the ignorant and frustrated who have no capacity/interest to address any relevant points related to the affairs of any organization. While I would concede that early religious doctrines which exist today could define “cultish” tendencies in a traditional sense given that they are based on a static frame of reference and blind commitment, it still does not alter the need to actually examine the tenets and notions of any group. Nothing can be taken at face value. It takes time and energy to learn and sadly the current system breeds a form of self-serving, kneejerk bias where it becomes more expedient to quickly dismiss based on prior assumptions/identifications rather than actually take the time to objectively consider the data points presented.

    So, let’s take a moment and examine Samuels supporting arguments regarding this “Cult” known as The Zeitgeist Movement. Does he have any?

    The first highlight is the implication that Jacque Fresco is a Racist [prima facie]. He doesn’t say this outright, of course, for even Samual is smart enough to know what “libel” is – but what would propaganda be without subtly? The trick with these writers is the broad picture they choose to paint as they diligently avoid all areas, which are actually relevant.

    >”…first suggested by Jaques Fresco, pioneer of The Venus Project, ideological forefather to Peter Joseph and former member of the Ku Klux Klan.”

    Out of the entire history of Jacque fresco as an engineer; as a city planner; author; as an inventor and someone was numerous patents and very unique life experiences –it’s nothing but amusing to see the tremendous bias of this individual to simply derail fresco as a possible racist.

    Even more base, after making this loaded statement, he then re-qualifies it in the next paragraph by referring to the very factual reality that Jacque Fresco joined a regional KKK group and DISMANTLED IT… as an “imaginative claim.” How convenient.

    But wait it gets better… in fact, it’s difficult to point out the different angles of cognitive distortions present throughout this entire article because they are so numerous.

    >”democracy, which Joseph states is an illusion, in exchange for a technocracy whereby the ruling class would comprise of technical experts in control of their relevant domains; and eventually labour.”

    You will notice, that he goes after the word “democracy” knowing that it is a cherished understanding/concept throughout the world culture. It would seem very disconcerting to many who do not understand the premise of what we refer to with respect to our criticisms of the current model – and the complete failure of democracy today which is the correct context – that anyone who doesn’t believe (or considers an “illusion”) in “democracy” as we know it must be against freedom or the like. Sam appears to enjoy this kind of misleading rhetoric, as the article proves.

    And, of course we have the “technocracy” where the “ruling class”[strawman] would comprise the technical experts and control.” This is one of his most common projections against The Movement that we have seen. Nowhere in our literature do we speak of such a narrow, dictatorial thing. We seek a medium that provides the ability for each human to interface with “government” – effectively becoming the government itself. This can be done.

    >While the quixotic ideas of Joseph may still appear perturbing, they are vanilla compared with the frightening conspiracy theories that have been perpetuated by the Zeitgeist movement in the past. The very term ‘conspiracy-theory’ would have Joseph’s followers pulverising their molars, embittered that their ideas are being shrugged off as grassy knoll theories.”But their semantic dispute cannot purchase legitimacy for the absurd and odious notion propagated in Zeitgeist: The Movie that not Al Qaeda but the Bush Administration had orchestrated the internationally seismic events of 9/11 to justify the invasion of the Middle East – all under the guise of a war on terror in order to accomplice economic gain. This idea is of course completely without substantiation and the attempt to absolve the true murderers of three-thousand people has been subject to much ridicule.”

    And what does this have to do with TZM? [strawman] and [prima facie] I know you really wish that TZM promoted such “controversial “themes but I’m sorry to say you have no evidence for this.
    I have made dozens of films with various points in my past. Let’s say I made a film about aliens… does that mean we are an “alien” movement. My filmmaking interests have nothing to do with TZM directly just as your hobbies likely have nothing to do with writing for the Wessex Scene. The next Zeitgeist could be about skateboarding or row-boats.

    And then we have:

    >”Although he refuses an all out retraction it should come as no surprise that, with the systematic dismantling of such claims, Joseph has moved away from them and ideas such as these are absent from ‘Moving Forward’.”

    Good One – I never retracted anything – even in part – and I even updated my first film to provide more clarity of my concern (along with millions of others) about that event and produced over 100 pages on it in a free companion guide. And even more importantly, once again, it has nothing to do with TZM. If it did, you would see such interests reflected in our literature. Do you?

    And the punch line of the whole paragraph:

    >”Joseph has moved away from them and ideas such as these are absent from ‘Moving Forward’.””Joseph’s Zeitgeist Movement [LOL- it’s mine?] is ideologically extremely close to both and a denial of this is unsupportable. Joseph attempts to discriminate between them by claiming that communism, like capitalism, assumes that natural resources are not finite. Not only would this claim hardly distinguish the movement from communism but it is not true. Communism and capitalism and every other economic doctrine assume the scarcity and value of some resources over others.”

    Again, nice try. a Resource-Based Economy is based upon using the scientific method for the evaluation of relevant resources and rather than using money as the medium which decides the movement of resources we base our decisions upon what science has to say about proper extraction, design and distribution with the ultimate goal of preservation, efficiency and sustainability. All conclusions made by the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project are arrived at through the simple rationale of what the most intelligent form of management of Earth’s resources might be. Only then can we have a solid, sustainably basis for social organization.

    People can continue to project their prima facie, weak minded association that a Resource-Based Economy is simply recycled Marxism or Communism but any real critical reflection on the materials will show otherwise. As far as the statement that all economic doctrines assume scarcity and value of some resources over others- yes, this is obviously true but there is absolutely no physical referent or scientific evaluation in how resources are managed on this planet. Resource management today exists based on arbitrary demand of the population under the religious guise of the so-called free market and hence the “invisible hand” to work everything out. This is a disaster in the making and the failing world you see around you is the result.

    Now- for one of my favorites:

    >”At the end of the film, Joseph indulges himself with a dramatisation of the day when everybody realises he is right in perhaps the ultimate vindication.”Joseph claims that he can create a world without poverty, a world essentially without crime and a world without labour in which we are entirely free to pursue our destiny (Joseph has previously stated that employment is ‘forced slavery’). Whatever way you cut it – this is utopianism.”

    Utopianism? What does that even mean? Does that provide any real information about anything? Can’t people ask questions anymore? This painfully blinded assumption continues in the following paragraphs by then deciding that :

    >”utopianism is more harmful than mere wish thinking. The concept of utopia and its pursuit has been devastating throughout history. It follows almost by definition that it is near impossible to find an instance of great evil without there being an underlying paradisiacal motive.”

    So- realizing that there is enough food to go around to feed all human beings on this planet is dangerous? By what definition is this utopianism you speak of? The bottom line here is that it is a common practice for any group that wants to achieve a better society to be labeled Utopianistic. It is a pathetic cop-out and a denial of wanting to help solve world problems in an actually effective way. It’s deeply sad to see the cynicism out there today. In fact, the more optimistic a group tries to be in seeing a positive future for the world- the more attacked they seem to become.

    Here is another gem:

    >”these are the logical consequences of utopian thought. Joseph preaches that we will be delivered if we follow him and if we do not then we are destined for apocalyptic repercussions: war, poverty, starvation and the disintegration of civilization.”

    Just fantastic again. I hate to break it to Samuel but nothing I/Fresco am saying hasn’t been said 1000 times over by other critical social thinkers throughout the past century. His framing of me in this “Jim Jones” light is quite amazing and highly irresponsible as a journalist. It would be quite comedic if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    And for the record: Following = Failure. We need “learners” and “thinkers” and to be such is to not “follow” anyone or take anything at face value. That would define a thinking society, which we do not have and Samuel Gilonis is a case in point.

    ~Peter Joseph; Feb 25th 2011

    Reply

  • Devon Gagnon
    avatar

    Someone’s used the movements popularity to try and get some attention. Bravo. You know, the problem with articles like this is #1, you’re trying to hard to demonize the targeted organization. No group, even ones as brash as Scientology, or religion itself, is “all bad”. The opportunities to label Jacques, Peter, the movement, it’s members, that you never seem to miss makes it obvious that this isn’t so much what you believe the movement is or isn’t, but an attempt to simply cause buzz for your no name article through controversy. It’s not that your getting jaques involvement with the KKK, or Peter’s motives with his movies accidentally wrong through lack of research, it’s that your purposely spin doctoring the information to start a dialogue between three sides of people. Those who agree with us, those who don’t, and those who aren’t aware. Your article creates straw men at every turn, purposely to confuse your readers, it’s disgusting really, how desperate you are. Peter has, in any case, addressed this pitiful article all the same, and after reading his post, you can read it to see what the opposite of ignorance looks like.

    Reply

  • someone who thinks
    avatar

    wow… just wow. I thought this was a joke when i first read it, it was so blatantly false and ridicules.

    Reply

  • Phillips
    avatar

    On what I just read all I can think of is a couple of quotes:

    “Arrogance diminishes wisdom” Arabian Proverb.

    When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities. David Hume

    Reply

  • tlw
    avatar

    Apparently it hard for people to look at things objectively and consider things to test for themselves. This article states that Jacque Fresco entered the KKK to help them realize how wrong they were about blacks which was a success. As for talking about being a Utopia, consider 10 years ago or 20 or 100 or 1000 years ago and just look at how much more technologically advance we have become, I can be sure someone back then would think what we have now was “utopian” but it wasn’t obviously because things will continue to change based on our own understandings a “utopia” is only a figment of our own imagination…there was and never will be a utopia. TVP simply shows a much better way of handling how we interact with our world and no it does not justify any kind of actions like stalinism did…that just doesn’t make sense to equate 2 completely different things…

    Reply

  • Name
    avatar

    Cult to what?To a susteinable world?Well that is pretty good idea for a cult,compared with the money cult in witch we all live today.Get out your head from your ass.

    Reply

    Talking is not enough
    avatar

    Peter Joseph commented on his facebook about this article and almost immediately his minions came here in force to protect him and the message…

    Cultish like, uneducated in economics or politics or philosophy… that think they found the answer in the envelope.. called Resource Based Economy.

    Typical MTV generation… Pfff

    Reply

    Phillips
    avatar

    I am summoned by my master to post a respond or face backlash from my cultist leader…. I am a robot though how can I… feel…. fear of a…. backlash. working….. working… failure…. failure… shutdown in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1….. *

    Reply

    Phillips
    avatar

    All his minions?? Really though?? Anything useful to say on the topic? How about a discussion? Anything other than silly talk. Are you a scared of a better world?

    Reply

    Steve Shay
    avatar

    The comments by these “zeitgeists” are funny. Its quite obvious about 35 of them got some kind of online beacon call from Peter Joseph and they all gathered up to do their typical cult denial routine.

    Reply

  • BruceyG
    avatar

    Peter Joseph has personally responded to this article, please read before posting: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=186428538062251&id=100000999466069

    Peace and Love

    Reply

  • Dennis Yee Avatar
    avatar

    bla bla bla

    Reply

  • Andrew
    avatar

    You got owned by Peter Joseph, thanks for the advertisment even if you didn’t mean it, you’re helping us out big time by writing crap like that.

    Reply

  • nuttyprofessor
    avatar

    This article was lame. it was pure opinion. no journalism here.

    Reply

  • T.J.
    avatar

    I am very disappointed in this article. I have found more actions to change the subject then there was to address any actual issue. This article from an informational stand point was extremely biased and very unprofessional from that stand point. It would seem that it is more of a biased rebuttal from a debate than anything. I afterward searched more on this article and found that Peter Joseph has issued a rebuttal of his own to this article and can be found on his facebook page directly through this link https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=186428538062251&id=100000999466069 . In closing I expected more from this writer and am disappointed in the method he displays his opinion.

    Reply

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    I haven’t the time to respond to all of these comments but this one angered me slightly.

    Given that (from ip address) you hail from Canada, I thing it is probable that you had never read any of my articles published in this small university newspaper and therefore I highly doubt that you had *any* expectations from *this* writer. I suspect you are one of many Zeitgeist groupies (we have them commenting from everywhere from Slovenia to Vienna to Canada – all corners) who has read Joseph’s commentary and then has come to bombard this article. I ask you to at least do this honestly and not frame your comment as though you were a student here with an objective stance on the issue.

    I also refer to you to my rebuttal of his rebuttal.

    http://www.wessexscene.co.uk/features/2011/02/26/damn-everything-but-the-circus-a-response-to-peter-joseph/

    Reply

  • Hightower
    avatar

    Technology holds great promise for us all and it can actually free us all from labor. So why wouldn’t we want this? I’m not going to sit around and be bored, I’ll still have to many things to do (things that I like) when I don’t have to work anymore.

    The problem is that human consciousness as a whole is not mature enough for us all to come together. We don’t trust each other and that’s why we will never have a better world for all. And you can say what you want but the monetary system does cause us to distrust each other on some level.

    So I believe that it’s a good thing that we look at our global problems from a totally different perspective. That’s the scientific way: if something doesn’t work quite right you go and look for solutions. I’m not saying that The Venus Project is the solution right now, but we can all talk about this possible solution in an adult fashion and this article seems to be a little condescending and doesn’t really address the key points of a Resource Based Economy.

    Reply

    shane
    avatar

    How can these discussions take place? People like the author will always dismiss let alone the rich, powerful people. Why? Because your effectively saying to them your house should be taken off you and possesions, then new housing will be built for you but for the greater good they will be apartment like, you wont have one yacht but everyone will have access to 100 yachts, you won’t have one garden but acces to many larger gardens… this seems stupid to them but actually it is the best for everyone. some people will have less than they do now, but that is because the world needs leveling out to a middle ground, why should 1% of the world hold 40% of the resourse/ wealth/

    Reply

    Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    First of all you are mistaking a rejection of this pseudo-scientific NWO band for a rejection of equality as an admirable goal. You have written me five separate comments so I assume you want more of a response. There is really not one new idea in all of TZM resources. The critique of the monetary economy is old and mostly plagiarised off of people like Sir Richard Acland (as is the idea of renaming socialism ‘common ownership’), member of Common Wealth, Forward March et al. The idea that democracy is a total sham and that eventually a totalitarian socialist state would wither away is straight from Karl M. All of the rest is a rather insipid paté of HG Wells, Noam Chomsky, Qaddafi and Lysenko. I hope that does something towards showing you that there is nothing new, and there are no unexamined ideas that these people are flogging.

    As for the idea of this cosy state-controlled life. Wherever these sort of ideas have been put into practice one of two possible outcomes has been inevitable. Either the people in control are benign and the state does start to wither away in which case it is swallowed whole by capitalists and things to revert to the way they were (see Anarcho-Syndicalists at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War) or the state protects itself from this by becoming totalitarian. The problem is that these sort of things usually become dictatorships (your point that “Its people like you that should (when these cities get built) be given the not so pleasant jobs in order to have your share !” reveals the disturbing attraction of this organisation for you and others) given that the state assumes the power to control all industry but if they do not then they will not survive.

    It seems to be a common argument amongst your likes that the impossibility of the project is in no way a weakness of the argument and that anybody who argues this is a sulking pessimist.

    Reply

  • Samuel Gilonis
    avatar

    Good grief man, get a grip!

    Reply

  • Fouad
    avatar

    Seriously, caps lock…oh and stop being ignorant as well. I support TZM, but your comment inst really showing any kind of intelligence and has a religious tone to it.

    Not nice.

    Reply

  • Nafeson
    avatar

    You lot are actually diseased – zeitgeist is trying to help the worl – you stupid fools! Your kids are going to live the SHITTEST life ever if the system doesn’t change – your words in this article just show the lack of love you have for your fellow human being and if you don’t care about that, then think of your children. I feel overly sorry for you

    Reply

  • CJK
    avatar

    I first would like to thank you for entertaining me for the last few minutes. This article is absolutely laughable. Not only does it breathe ridiculousness, but it is laced with strawman arguments.

    A cult? Really? THAT is your argument? I would truly like for you to come on a radio show and discuss the Movement, as well as resource based economy.

    I am often caught throwing poop at such writers, but I figured this time I would try to educate you instead.

    Reply

  • Marco
    avatar

    “The cult of zeitgeist.” What about “The cult of the banksters?”

    Reply

  • Harry Sand
    avatar

    Jacque Fresco is no racist.

    I think you are not doing justice to someone who’ve actually awakened hundreds and thousands of people around the world to other possibilities. Yes, a resource based economy is hard to imagine, but to claim that Jacque Fresco is a racist is far fetched. You obviously does not know much about the man, and try to grab a straw only to damage him. I have met mr. Fresco my self and interviewed him over the course of two hours. In addition I have heard him speak on several occasions, and I’ve read his books and essays.

    He is for sure no racist. Quite the contrary. His own claim that he joined the Ku Klux Klan to convince them otherwise I have no trouble believing. He is a man to do just that. Why should a man who have dedicated his life to new inventions, a just world for everyone, the end of war, criminality and poverty be a racist in the midst of it all?! That doesn’t make sense, and your claim that he is only proves that you are a straw man trying to spread false information to confuse the public, like you guys have always done.

    I do agree, though, that Peter Joseph and The Venus Project far from has all the answers. What they have done, though, is to open a lot of people eyes and bring them together.

    And money and ownership is of course not the problem itself. What is the problem is the MINDSET OF HUMANITY. The mindset that believes we are separate, that we have to fend for ourselves, that we have to ‘earn a living’, that we are not worthy, that we are not equal, that someone are better than someone else, and so on.

    When this mindset is turned upside down (which is what is happening as we speak, if you haven’t noticed), then money, property, banks and ownership can start to dissolve all by it self, since there won’t be any real need for it in a world where everything is shared and given.

    Namaste

    Reply

  • bobby
    avatar

    The issue I have always had and continue to discuss with people trying to do something positive for their community is that there seem to be people who don’t want to help others or make life better for anyone. What change can possibly happen if this segment of society is say 5% or larger? Maybe we should just gradually evolve and let things move at the slow pace they have always moved. For example slavery still exists today.

    Reply

  • shane
    avatar

    I just think you don’t have belief that humans can actualy live in harmony like this. At the end of the day there is NO need for money – People didnt used to work 75% of their adult lives in order to survive. Even if you wanted to stop working today and grow your own food you couldnt because you would still need to pay tax. How would you do that if you didnt work for them somehow? And you dont class it as modern slavery? You seem to be one of these people who given the choice would not want to live this way because it would mean people were equal and youd have to get rid of your “well earned” assetts?

    Reply

    Jack Jones
    avatar

    And lazy, undeserved people like you would gain those “well earned” assetts that you didn’t earn, eh? Nice!

    Reply

  • Tsara
    avatar

    It is very strange that a man with Turkish parents joined the KKK. Not likely, the KKK is about WHITE power. Although they are very stupid as a whole I suppose a Turkish man could hide under a white sheet, join the mob and string up and whip poor black people. Come on.. He had long talks with them? Trying to change them to not hate. Dig a little deeper into American History.. during the time old boy bravely claims he was a member.. the hate extended all the way to Alaska. Where Alaskan Natives were being discriminated in the same way. A man that looks like him, would never had been able to do much but hope to God (oops he dont do any God either) that his cap dont fly off while he’s running from setting fire to a cross to bully & scare some poor family of color. It wouldnt surprize me if even old Jac added that tidbit himself to make him look like a man who long ago, may or may not have been apart of something negative and figured it out and changed for the better. Slow-clap… you creepy dinasour. All I know is this link has been over taken with the members.. they are trying to act as if they are indifferent and just stumbling across “The Z satan Movement” But they are not smart enough to control their contempt for anyone that dare speaks against their master. Like a apt pupil u tear entire article apart working your way slowly from top to bottom. Like your master, you have a reason for every negative thing. You are to obvious because all the “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” its clear ur vultures trying to dominate the internet. Like stink on ….! Droids! Creepy creepy cult.. How sad to not feel your opinion matters. That if a man was locked away from everything, seeing nobody, talking to nobody, no music, nothing but stone. He says that person couldnt be creative. How the hell does he know exactly? Where do they have someone locked up or did to observe this fact. I just do not buy any of this bull..I am not sure how anyone could. The movement better get crackin up here in Alaska.. we are a big state and most Alaskans can survive most anything. Living off the land. We love our guns! No way, no how!

    Reply