Sunday, February 27, 2011

Peter Joseph doesn't get an Oscar

Will Dr. Peter Joseph Merola King Esquire Dictator win the academy award?




Monday, February 21, 2011

The Cult of Zeitgeist



Enjoying "The Circus" - Meet Samuel Gilonis
Jaques Fresco
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 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. 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 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 Samuel Gilonis’ further rejoinder

Damn Everything But The Circus! A Response To Peter Joseph


Peter Joseph doing what he does best: sitting still quietly.
Last night (or perhaps during his daytime) the beloved leader and patriarch of the Zeitgeist Movement condescended to respond to my recent article, ‘The Cult of Zeitgeist’, in what was a rather disappointingly insipid response entitled ‘Enjoying “The Circus” – Meet Samuel Gilonis’. Joseph first takes issues with my labeling of TZM as a ‘cult’. While I may concede a certain lack of originality – The fact that calling TZM a cult has become old hat does not speak entirely against me – The word was not chose merely to slur or to strawman Peter’s thoughts; observing Zeitgeist and the Venus Project and watching their films you should not fail to see the quasi-religious structure. We have an impending apocalypse lest we change our sinful ways, we are promised utopia if we do change them, we have a wise old man and a young prophet (a father, a son – we are just one short of a trinity!), we have the dismantlement of previous religions and, perhaps most importantly, the requisite of faith. The Venus Project/TZM operates with the faith that there will be a day of reckoning whereby all of the globes peoples rise up as one. It requires faith to believe that we are all actually so good, and the noxious, corrupting power of monetary miasma is so great, that if we exorcise money from our society we will see a 95% reduction in crime (as claimed in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward).
It may appear inimical to not wanting to appear cultish that Peter’s followers have descended from all corners of globe to criticise my article like flies on an extremely well written and factually accurate shit (for lack of a more succinct or self-aggrandising simile). They have attacked it with every jot of the fury of a Scientologist exercising the ‘Suppressive Person Doctrine’ or the Islamist attacking a Danish cartoon. They have also, however, completely ignored the much more flattering article regarding their cause written by my colleague Fouad Al-Noor, Peter’s resident vicar on Wessex Scene. It was a member of TZM that brought up Scientology but I am now reluctant to relinquish such a fitting analogy for their behaviour; it speaks volumes to me that these people (Peter included), armed with their rather anodyne critiques, care vastly more about suppressing thought contrary to their own than they do discussing their ideas with those who endorse them. While I commend Peter for addressing criticism he could have easily ignored; his infantile cherry picking, his pitiful reasoning and his cowardly evasion of the more important issues are all beneath our disdain.
This leads me onto Peter’s next point which is that I called Fresco a racist:
The first highlight is the implication that Jacque Fresco is a Racist [sic][prima facie]. He doesn’t say this outright, of course, for even Samual [sic]is smart enough to know what “libel” is – but what would propaganda be without subtly? ;) [sic] The trick with these writers is the broad picture they choose to paint as they diligently avoid all areas, [sic] which are actually relevant.
We must ignore Peter’s peculiar grasp of grammar, his inability to spell and the cringing use of a winking emoticon to look at true issue: Peter, through his nauseating appeal to defamatory laws, has made his position on the freedom speech abundantly clear here, as have the asinine calls of his followers for me to be charged with slander (learn the difference between libel and slander – then bring it on). I have not skirted around libel laws to say what I said as I shall now demonstrate:
Jacque Fresco is a deluded and devious mummy who is almost certainly lying about his involvement with the KKK and White Citizen’s Council.
I hope that has made my position on Peter’s comrade clear enough. The real reason for my qualification of what I wrote in that article, as is quite clear, is that Fresco’s possible racism is not particularly relevant to the ideas of TZM but I think many would agree that the confused and fanciful justification for his actions which is indicative of Fresco’s over-active imagination — is relevant. Having said that, I am not entirely sure that it isirrelevant that Fresco was a member of the KKK and the WCC – if, as any mammal with a semblance of rational and independent thought is able to see, Fresco is a bullshit merchant; he should be denounced as one (note I do not call for him to be charged with slander or any other such absurd measures, all I require is his ignominy).
Peter now moves onto democracy. He claims that democracy has become an illusion and a ‘complete failure’. This is true to some extent and nowhere more so than in the US. Professor Noam Chomsky has observed amongst others that the gap between US policy and US public opinion has never been as pronounced as it is today. Peter follows this with the absolute non-sequitur that we should therefore abandon democracy! Why should we not attempt to improve our democracy instead? Democracy, with all of its flaws, is the only true justice.
We seek a medium that provides the ability for each human to interface with “government” – effectively becoming the government itself. This can be done.
The fact that Peter states that they are ‘seeking a medium’ suggests that in fact – this cannot be done. The promise of the eventual abolition of the state is also further proof that the ‘Movement’ is a shameless plagiarism of Marx (rather than the shameless plagiarism of Plato’s Republic that many of Joseph’s flock must think that TZM is when they call it a technocracy).
Now for my favourite part of Peter’s response: Peter claims that the conspiracy theories that he has propagated are in no way linked to the Zeitgeist Movement. This could only hold water if he had not espoused them in a documentary called ZEITGEIST: THE MOVIE.
I am fascinated to hear that he hasn’t moved away from his paranoid and masochistic delusions – In researching the article I happen to know that he is aware of the http://conspiracyscience.com/ website which does a good job in debunking his piffle. He could also look into any one of a thousand other sources which examine every claim he makes regarding 9/11 – and why they are false! The fact is that these conspiracy theories are very much a part of TZM as Peter needs to exculpate the true terrorists in order to breed paranoid vitriol against the status quo. While this may seem a purely American concern these issues are relevant to the UK as well, although perhaps not on the same scale: 24 per cent of British Muslims believe that the British Government was involved in the 7/7 bombings according to a 2007 poll of 500 Muslims by GFK NOP.
Zeitgeist as described by Peter in this response is a rather inane mixture of platitude and sanctimony. We can implement technology to eliminate scarcity – SHOULD read – ‘We should aim to implement technology to reduce scarcity as much as possible’. This is obviously already in practice! Under what Joseph sneeringly calls; cannibalised from Adam Smith, the ‘Invisible Hand’; the mechanisation of labour is transparently already a momentous force as observed in his own films when he discusses how labour has moved from industry to the service trade. This is a direct consequence of consumer-capitalism! As are the countless forms of technology Joseph claims would be implemented by TZM – all were pioneered and will be implemented under a free enterprise, democratic society.
He also claims that we should locate and work out a way to economise all of the resources on the planet. Of course! And every effort to locate them is already being made. Why not simply advocate being more conservative with global resources? This has absolutely nothing to do with the monetary system and there is no need for an upheaval of every aspect of society but Peter Joseph insists that there is because, as we can see from the masturbatory dramatisation in ZMF of the day he is ‘proved right’, he harbours an obsession for this revolution and the rapture that will come with it for him.
Joseph continues to fatuously deny the fraternity between his ideas and Marxist ones and then in mock indignation asks, what do I even mean by Utopianism!? As I have stated in a response to Fouad; I begrudge nobody their meliorism but Joseph goes further. He does not simply claim that we should try to improve some certain areas; he does not even lay out a single specific manifesto of how any of this would truly be put into practice. He does however make extremely specific claims of results such as a 95% crime reduction, an end to poverty and an end to war if we implemented the Zeitgeist Movement’s ideas. He makes promises of a world so wholly perfect if we follow his instruction that, as I wrote in my article, we should be concerned about the effect that these vacuous promises will have on those who truly believe them.
Joseph finishes his rebuttal with, “We need “learners” and “thinkers” and to be such is to not “follow” anyone or take anything at face value.” This is a sentiment I could not agree with more. Scepticism is of the upmost import and I urge all to watch the Zeitgeist Movies (although they are tediously long), read/watch Peter Joseph on 9/11, read the inane ramblings of Fresco but do so with a sceptical mind and an independence of thought. If you do so you will see TZM and The Venus Project for what they are: a tapestry of platitudes, conspiracy theories and hollow promises. I leave you with the belief that Capitalism, personal liberty and property rights are the only truly revolutionary ideology comrades!
Samuel Gilonis
_________________________________________________________
Damn everything but the circus!
…damn everything that is grim, dull,
motionless, unrisking, inward turning,
damn everything that won’t get into the
circle, that won’t enjoy, that won’t throw
its heart into the tension, surprise, fear
and delight of the circus, the round
world, the full existence…
E.E. Cummings

Monday, February 14, 2011

The Atheist Experience on the Zeitgeist Sequels

 A few words about the Zeitgeist sequels

Our opinion of the movie Zeitgeist should be pretty well known by now. It is an extremely bad and tedious bit of filmmaking, and the scholarship in it is awful, and we disagree with all of parts 2 and 3, as well as nearly all of part 1. And if you need a reminder about why, here are three sites dealing, respectively, with the claims that:
Now that that's out of the way, let me share a few recent emails.

2/11/11
I was wondering if you guys were aware of the (second) sequel to that terrible film, Zeitgeist, and if you plan on talking about it any time soon. If you've done it recently, I apologize for spamming you... I haven't had the opportunity to watch the last few episodes just yet. I've just started watching the sequel on YouTube (so you don't have to do any googling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&feature=feedlik), and in the first 10 minutes they started harping on how Biology is wrong because there's such a thing as epigenetics. Sounds like more relatively well-informed stupidity to me. I only watch it for the same reason I saw Expelled and What The Bleep Do We Know !!!111!? My hopes for humanity diminish proportionally.

1/28/11
by the way you sould look the new film " zeitgeist Moving Forward " where we see how
[long list of names with irrelevant credentials]
...etc and of course Peter Joseph

describe that our current system breeds insanity

and i hope you dont act emotional about the word zeitgeist because

" Zeitgeist moving forward " is not like the first film

1/25/11
I am a member of The Zeitgeist Movement and would love to get your feedback on what the movement is advocating. I have searched high and low for evidence that the concepts of this movement are falsifiable, but have yet to find any information doing so. I’m not sure as to whether or not you are aware of the difference between The Zeitgeist films and the Movement, but there is certainly an expressed difference.

11/29/10
Also, your host insistently bash the Zeitgeist movement and 911 truth. This really baffles me because the Zeitgeist Movement is a just secular movement that advocates the scientific method for social concern (doing away with corrupt monetary capitalism that allows children to go hunger)

Yes, okay, we get it. We heard you. Thanks. The guy who made Zeitgeist has made another movie-- actually TWO other movies now -- and they cover different topics than the original movie. Lastly, this message is from a comment on a Facebook link I shared that relates to Medicare. Though the commenter doesn't mention Zeitgeist directly, he did bring up the theme of the last two movies.

The better solution than social services is a Resource Based Economy and the elimination of the monetary system altogether. We cannot possible print enough money to solve all of our problems and we certainly cannot save our way to the needed solutions through austerity measures. The 'bottom line' is that money is THE constraint on human progress (well, that and cultural conditioning).

So, okay, I've finally decided I need to respond to this steady stream of emails, if only so I can have something to link in the future.

I have not watched the new movies, as I greatly prefer to do actual reading over sitting through talking heads. I have set it aside as something I might watch. After all, I suffered through What the Bleep Do We Know? and I guess I can get around to this one too, eventually. From what I understand, Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (which I shall henceforth refer to as ZA/ZMF because I hate typing) are mostly focused on popularizing something called "The Venus Project" (see link). It's a Utopian movement by a guy named Jacque Fresco -- Engineer, Design Consultant, and "Futurist" -- and he's been going around pitching this idea of a resource-based economy.


Ladies and gentlemen, presenting: Atlantis. I mean, The Venus Project.

Here's what that means as I read it. The financial system is broken beyond all hope of repair, so we abolish all forms of currency. In its place, everyone gets boundless freedom to use "resources." Money is a fiction anyway, and the federal reserve is evil (as explained in the first Zeitgeist, part 3), and people are going hungry because we artificially limit resources (i.e. food) when they could be made useful for everyone (i.e., feeding third world countries).

I'm a fairly liberal guy. I believe that there are problems with our current economic system, and some such problems stem from unregulated capitalism. A couple of recent sources for information I recommend are The Big Short by Michael Lewis, which traced the origins of the recent banking crisis in a highly entertaining and readable way; and this episode of the show This American Life, in which they discuss the ways in which money is really a convenient fiction.

On the other hand, I'm a numbers geek, and from my perspective, money -- though "fictional" in some sense -- was a fantastic technological advancement in the history of civilization. In any system of trade, some kind of valuation is going to arise naturally. Economists may call it "utils," or it may just be that we compare the value of one thing to the value of something else on an individual basis ("I'll give you two chickens for that hatchet"). Money is simply a means of formalizing a system that people are going to agree on one way or another. In prison it becomes cigarettes. In the future it's probably moving towards all digital currency. Heck, you can even calculate a meaningful exchange rate between United States Dollars and World of Warcraft gold pieces (after adjusting for a lot of inflation due to the recent Cataclysm expansion). It's an abstraction that achieves a goal. Barter systems are fine in small villages, but they are hopeless at large scales.

In any case, "scarcity" does not exist because of money. Quite the opposite, in fact -- money exists in large part because scarcity exists. While many resources such as air and sunlight are effectively in infinite supply, other things are very definitely limited. An excellent (though fairly disturbing) book on the subject is Collapse by Jared Diamond. Diamond studied a number of cultures which, for one reason or another, didn't survive -- they experienced massive population crashes in which a large proportion of their citizens died over a short period of time. In most cases it was because they ran out of something.

In fact, I can kind of sum up Diamond's formula for disaster that is common among most civilizations that died by their own hands:

  1. You have a limited resource. In one case it was timber (cutting down trees on an island faster than they grew back) and in another, it was grazeable farmland.
  2. Something about your civilization requires you to use a lot of that resource.
  3. It starts to run out, but the culture is rigid and resists change.
  4. People talk about breaking their dependency on this resource, but don't actually do anything about it.
  5. Much to everyone's surprise, it runs out.
  6. Turns out the requirement for that resource is pretty widespread. Many people die.

I'm not going to go off on a tangent about which finite resources we rely on in modern society (*cough*oil*cough*) but even so, I'm pretty well convinced that if we solved one problem of scarcity, the problem would just move off to something else.

And that's where money comes in. It is an abstraction that puts a value on resources with different levels of scarcity. They're not all concrete resources, either: people enjoy their free time, and working to accomplish a difficult task (like volunteering to fly to a third world country and deliver mass quantities of food) is frequently regarded as a "what's in it for me?" situation. That's not money's fault. Money is simply a method of making an abstract concept ("What's it worth to ya?") be attached to concrete numbers.

Oh, but I forgot to mention how this problem of scarcity is solved under Jacque Fresco's system. Here, let me quote:
"A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern."

And also:
"With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy."

So you see, this is easily achievable, as long as we first keep in mind the intermediate goals of developing unlimited, clean, renewable energy sources. Also, since human government officials are inherently corrupt, we just need to develop artificially intelligent administrators to manage our cities and distribute everything efficiently.


Riiiiight.

Artificial intelligence and alternative energy research are only a couple of the most complicated problems facing inventors, businesses, and academics. Have been for decades. And to think that you can hand-wave that away as a minor inconvenience blocking the realization of your Utopia, that's a pretty damn extraordinary claim. In fact, I would venture to say that if you could create a world with no scarce resources, that all by itself would do a hell of a lot more to fix everything than whatever fantasy anti-currency government system the Venus Project promoters can dream up.

And then there's this issue of benevolent computer systems that will impartially make sure everyone gets everything they want. Okay, I've been involved with software development for most of my adult life, and I feel pretty comfortable saying we're not replacing all our politicians with robot administrators any time real soon. But even after assuming that little hurdle is crossed, artificial intelligence isn't a magic solution to anything. There's no reason to think it would be more advanced than human intelligence to start with, and if it eventually got there, no reason to think it would be any less self-serving.


Show of hands, please. How many people want to turn over our economy to these guys? ...Thank you.


Okay, I'm not saying that all artificial intelligence is inevitably going to conquer humanity and harvest their essences to power an elaborate virtual reality that enslaves us or anything. I'm just saying, I don't see why the AI is going to make any decisions better than a human with some really good ideas who knows how to use data mining tools. A better question is, why don't we elect one of those?

Getting rid of money wouldn't save the world from scarce resources. If anything, the immediate effect would be that without a perceptible cost to themselves, people would use up those resources faster than ever. I don't see how these super-cities that Jacque Fresco invented will stop people from wanting to travel, which is one of the big ones when it comes to draining energy. In fact, if I had all this free time and were unlimited by capital, that's the first thing I'd do a lot more of. And I can't envision a realistic political path to implement what sounds mainly like "Socialism... With Robots!" when you have the Tea Party just slavering to declare that Civilization As We Know It is coming to an end if we allow some tax cuts to expire.

So in the end, I'm left with an impression of The Venus Project that is not much different from the original Zeitgeist. It's a large group of fans with who have coalesced around a group of persuasive amateurs, drawn to the notion that they have uncovered some deep and massive truth that is hidden from the rest of us willfully deceived, blind fools. It is largely ignored by people who have expertise in anything relevant like, say, economics -- not because they're trying to suppress it, but because there's basically nothing of substance there.

There. You asked my opinion. Now you've got it. I hope you're satisfied.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Brenton Eccles exposes the Zeitgeist Movement

Brave New World

The Zeitgeist movement is the first Internet-based apocalyptic cult, centered around a doomsday-proclaiming film and an ideology filled with classic anti-Semitic tropes

By Michelle Goldberg|February 2, 2011 7:00 AM
A moment in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward(Photoillustration: Tablet Magazine; film still: Zeitgeist: Moving Forward: theater photo: iStockphoto)
Over the last two weeks, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, the third in a series of apocalyptic cult documentaries, has been screening around the world, translated by devotees of the so-called Zeitgeist movement into more than 30 languages. There were engagements in Buenos Aires and Athens, Sarajevo and Tel Aviv, Mumbai and Tokyo, among hundreds of other cities. In the United States, it showed at indie movie houses, underground bookstores, public libraries, and universities from coast to coast, including a five-day run at New York’s Tribeca Cinemas.
About 30 people turned out for a Wednesday evening showing in Manhattan. After being greeted by earnest volunteers in Zeitgeist T-shirts and given the chance to pick up pamphlets and newsletters about the Zeitgeist movement—or TZM, as its acolytes call it—they sat through a two-and-a-half-hour film, alternately frenetic and soporific, explaining the necessary and imminent collapse of economies based on money, the root of all the world’s sufferings. The film prophesied the emergence of a superior “resource-based economy,” in which decisions about the allocations of goods and services will be made by computers free from corrupting “opinions.” Robots will do most menial work, liberating people for more creative, humanistic pursuits, and technological innovation will ensure abundance for all. The movie ends with scenes of crowds worldwide surging into the streets and, realizing that money is but an enslaving illusion, dumping their cash in great piles in front of the now-impotent central banks. Amazingly, only one person walked out.
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is silly enough that at times I suspected it was all a put-on, a sly satire about new-age techno-utopianism instead of an example of it. But to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, the Zeitgeist movement is entirely serious. At times, it even seems like the world’s first Internet-based cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity. In a phone conversation, Brenton Eccles, a former member from Melbourne, described how his involvement cut him off from reality. “It’s very, very, very isolating,” says Eccles, who was part of the communications team in the movement’s Australia branch. “You’re encouraged to kind of exit the real world. There’s kind of this us-and-them attitude.” A few days later, he sent me a document recanting most of his charges and claiming that his conflicts with the organization had in fact been his fault. This did not make it seem less cult-like.
There are lots of strange things about the Zeitgeist phenomenon, but strangest is how it got started. It’s a global organization devoted to a kind of sci-fi planetary communism, but it was sparked by a 2007 documentary steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. The first Zeitgeist documentary borrowed from the work of Eustace Mullins, Lyndon LaRouche, and conspiracy-mad Austin radio host Alex Jones to rail against the cabal of international bankers that purportedly rules the world. It was this documentary that reportedly obsessed Jared L. Loughner, the disturbed young man who allegedly shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
Since the shooting, conservatives have latched on to the Zeitgeist movement’s new-age side to argue that Loughner hailed from the left. Others, myself included, have pointed out that the original Zeitgeist film is full of fringe right-wing ideas that have migrated toward the mainstream via the Tea Party. Zeitgeist warns, for example, that the United States could soon be subsumed into a North American Union as a precursor to the establishment of totalitarian one-world government. Members of the Zeitgeist movement, not surprisingly, reject any connection between the shooting and their ideology, even as some of them welcome the new attention that it has brought their ideas. “It’s ultimately a positive thing,” says Keith Embler, the earnest aspiring actor who co-chairs the New York chapter. “It’s press. And”—with the third documentary just released—“the timing couldn’t be better.”
Meanwhile, the evolution of the movement itself remains obscure. How did a modern gloss on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion inspire a global organization of wide-eyed technophile environmentalists? What is the Zeitgeist movement?
***
The documentary that started it all began as an art project. “The original Zeitgeist was not a film, but a performance piece, which consisted of a vaudevillian style multi-media event using recorded music, live instruments and video,” the Zeitgeist website explains. The director, a young college dropout who goes by Peter Joseph, his first and middle names, says he “tossed” it up online, where it soon was getting hundreds of thousands, then millions, then tens of millions of views on Google Videos. It has since been removed from that site, but several people have posted it on YouTube, where various versions have received millions of views each, and on Vimeo, where it’s been seen almost 600,000 times in the last six months. DVDs of the first two documentaries are also for sale online.
“The work was never designed as a film or even a documentary in a traditional sense—it was designed as a creative, provoking, emotionally driven expression, full of artistic extremity and heavily stylized gestures,” the Zeitgeist website says. This might, however, be a bit of a post-facto rationalization, meant to distance Joseph from some of the reactionary ideas in his film. It certainly doesn’t explain how the piece made the transition from performance art to relatively coherent two-hour documentary.
The original Zeitgeist has a three-part structure, and if you just saw the first third, you might think it came from the left. It begins by arguing, using a characteristic mix of fact and invention, that Christianity is a colossal fraud, a set of myths appropriated from pagan sun cults for purposes of social control. Control is the film’s real theme: All our politics and our institutions, it suggests, derive from a conspiracy of international bankers who manipulate world events for their own profits. The second part argues that Sept. 11 was an inside job, engineered by these moneyed interests. Much of its footage was taken directly from documentaries created by the far-right radio host Alex Jones, whose work is devoted to exposing the global elite’s plan for totalitarian one-world domination.
From there, Zeitgeist launches into a pseudo-exposé of the international monetary system, a theme that runs through both its sequels. According to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, a think tank that studies right-wing movements, much of it derives from two books: The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, a member of the John Birch Society, and Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins. Mullins hated Jews, but his references to Jews in the book are oblique. “It’s bait, written by one of the world’s most notorious anti-Semites to lead people into that analytical model,” says Berlet.
Zeitgeist works the same way. Though it says nothing about Jews, its analysis mirrors classic anti-Semitic canards. Immediately after footage of the twin towers falling, for example, the film features an excerpt from a speech that Charles Lindbergh gave to an America First group in 1941: “When hostilities commenced in Europe in 1939, it was realized that the American people had no intention of entering the war. But it was realized that this country could be enticed into the war, in very much the same way that it was enticed into the last one.” As his words play, headlines about Iraq float across the screen. “We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction,” he concluded. Lindbergh, of course, was talking about the Jews. Viewers attuned to anti-Semitic rhetoric would naturally conclude that Joseph was, too.
After Joseph put Zeitgeist online, it quickly became an Internet sensation. Clips appeared on the websites of Ron Paul supporters, white nationalists, and, before long, some Tea Party groups. Anarchists and anti-imperialists embraced it as well. Stories about it appeared in newspapers worldwide. Some were admiring: South Africa’s Cape Times compared it to An Inconvenient Truth. Even the debunkers testified to its reach. An article in the Irish Times described the “massive interest” the documentary had attracted before lamenting, “One really wishes Zeitgeist was a masterful pastiche of 21st-century paranoia, a hilarious mockumentary to rival Spinal Tap.”
As Zeitgeist’s audience grew, people started asking Joseph what they should do with his explosive information. He didn’t know what to tell them. He supported Ron Paul, but he believed the system to be too irredeemably corrupt for a political solution. That’s when he met Jacque Fresco, a radical futurist and would-be secular prophet who has been preparing for his moment in the limelight for more than five decades.
Born to a Sephardic Jewish family in Harlem in 1917, Fresco moved to Los Angeles after World War II. The journalist Lionel Rolfe, in his memoir of California bohemia, Fat Man on the Left: Four Decades in the Underground, wrote that in the early ’50s, “Fresco had a circle of disciples who considered him next only to Albert Einstein, although the friends and relatives of those disciples often thought Fresco was a fraud and a charlatan.”
Back then, Fresco, a self-educated industrial designer, had already developed his ideas about machines making traditional economics irrelevant. In the 1970s, he moved to a compound in Venus, Fla., where he and his partner, Roxanne Meadows, set about creating designs for the cities—and civilization—of the future. They call their work The Venus Project.
Joseph learned about the Venus Project when Fresco, having seen Zeitgeist, sent him one of his books. For Joseph, Fresco’s highly detailed vision of a world without money, a world where work itself is largely unnecessary and human ills like greed and crime are obsolete, was a revelation.
Soon, Joseph was devoting himself to spreading the word about Fresco and The Venus Project. His second film, Zeitgeist: Addendum, starts in much the same vein as the first, with an attack on the international financial system. But then it shifts to a worshipful examination of Fresco’s work, offering it as a solution to the ravages of the current system. Joseph’s latest film, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, further elaborates Fresco’s irenic vision of a “resource-based economy,” one without poverty, inequality, or environmental strain.
***
The Zeitgeist movement emerged in 2008, after the release of the second documentary, as chapters formed worldwide to figure out how to prepare for immanent economic collapse and technological salvation. Joseph never acknowledged his massive ideological shift from decrying a one-world system to embracing it—he just powered through the contradictions with an intense, weirdly mesmerizing self-confidence. He seems entirely sure of his movement’s capacity to fundamentally reshape human beings. In the first Zeitgeist newsletter, he explained to a letter-writer why there would be no gluttony in a resource-based economy. “[F]or a person to want ‘more’ than another is an unsustainable, conflict invoking value which serves only a selfish conditioning generated by the current cultural climate of ‘survival of the fittest’ via the Market System of Competition,” he wrote. “TZM seeks to remove this system, hence removing the distorted values that coincide and are hence imposed and reinforced.”
Lots of right-wing fans of the original documentary have since deserted Joseph, though not all—the Zeitgeist newsletter features an essay by a former Ron Paul activist who described trying to get his Tea Party group to embrace Fresco’s ideas. Meanwhile, new cadres of progressive seekers have joined, going to meetings and throwing themselves into the movement’s vibrant online community. At 96, the bearded, impish Fresco suddenly has a large global following—last year, he visited 18 countries on an international lecture tour.
Since 2009, the movement has celebrated Z-day in March, with chapters worldwide putting on events. The New York Times covered the inaugural Z-Day gathering in Manhattan, which attracted a sold-out crowd of around 900 to hear Joseph and Fresco speak. It was, wrote reporter Alan Feuer, “as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his ‘Imagine’ days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life.” This year’s Z-Day will take place on March 13, with a main event in London and local happenings worldwide.
Most members, particularly the new ones, are probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement. Many were genuinely baffled in 2009 when a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism. Others seem a bit embarrassed by the first Zeitgeist; they’ll often say it’s “irrelevant”—one of TZM’s favorite epithets—because it came out before the movement got started. But no one is disavowing it, and so a growing global movement of tech-savvy idealists continues to promote a work of far-right paranoia.
“I’m willing to accept that the filmmaker is a person who has a great energy and tremendous ignorance who inadvertently replicated the Nazi view of money manipulation,” says Berlet. “In which case he needs to repudiate it.” That seems unlikely. In a video interview available online, Joseph rails against his critics, “the self-appointed guardians of the status quo.” The first Zeitgeist, he insists, “is based on pre-existing information. There isn’t one thing in that film that doesn’t come from a source.” True enough. The problem is what the sources are.

Stefan Molyneux's response to Peter Joseph

Sources for the Zeitgeist rebuttal