A new interview to be published soon in a German Arts Magazine. Not sure if they will put it all in so I will just post the whole thing here, now. ~p
(1)What is the Zeitgeist movement and what does it hope to achieve?
-I suppose TZM is a few things, depending on what aspect one chooses to emphasize.
On the broad scale is it a sustainability movement. In this, we understand the importance of environmental sustainability and how it relates to social sustainability. Long story short, you cannot have social sustainability (i.e. social stability) without environmental sustainability. If we experience massive resource shortages throughout the world, we can rest assured that it will create social destabilization as a consequence. Therefore, habitat integrity precedes societal integrity.
On the other hand, TZM is a civil rights movement. While we do not embrace or promote any existing political structure as a means to an end, one could (perhaps) use the word "populist" to express the Movement’s interest to help the vast majority of the world – a majority that should now rise up and realize the state of their oppression and counter the dramatic amount of unnecessary suffering and structural violence endured – all resulting from the current socioeconomic system.
TZM does not blame specific people, groups or “political” policy. At the root of the problem is the system of economics itself. Namely, market capitalism. However, it is worth noting that capitalism is also a symptom of a deeper sociological disorder regarding how we view the world and how we view each other. Our culture has evolved within an archaic and fearful worldview based on scarcity, with our most primitive reactions constantly ‘pinged’ or excited by the negative stress of our environment. This has manifest the capitalist model as a natural consequence and, as of now, we are in a nasty feedback loop which keep humanity in a violent cycle of primitive reactions of fear and greed… slowly pushing everything towards collapse.
So, to stop the cycle and create a more humane value system and appropriate approach to our social management, we first need to remove the system that is reinforcing it – what is creating the destructive feedback loop. The vast majority of the world’s problems are not going to be resolved or even slowed by current “establishment” oriented attempts at change. It’s all just noise. Trivial in the long term. Only when a new, intelligent socioeconomic system is installed that relevant long-term change will commence. We title this new system a "Natural Law, Resource-Based Economy”.
This worldview essentially began in the early 19th century with a man named John Etzler who is currently condemned by history as the first “Technological Utopianist”. While there are some problems with Etzler’s early, primitive vision (his main thesis was written in 1833), the basic framework of what he noticed – the intelligent use of technology; aligning with natural law forces; and the raising of humanity to a new level beyond merely working for money and the inherent slavery that it is - has been embraced by many since that time, extending the logic. This includes thinkers/institutions such as R. Buckminster Fuller, Technocracy Inc., Jacque Fresco and many others.
Furthermore, while The Zeitgeist Movement exists as a grassroots, chapter connected global network, it is also an emerging
501(c)(3) nonprofit working within the United States. This tax-exempt NPO helps larger order actions of the global movement, such as major event, press relations, media productions and the like.
(2) The Zeitgeist film began as an artistic performance rather than a documentary per se... what do you think is more effective in terms of creating an impact on the audience (artistic performance vs. documentary paradigm?)
-I'm not sure if there is a clean answer to that question. Each approach has an effect in different ways, depending on the nature of the viewer. My first film was created as an emotionally driven aesthetic piece that worked to generate critical thought in an extreme, abstract way. This work was done with heavy gesture and over-simplified statements to create a broad worldview. However, gesture aside, it is also likely the most sourced documentary in filmmaking history. I am unaware of any film that has detailed everything in such great scrutiny as I later did in the 200+ page book written to support the claims made. I state that because even 8 years later there is a vast condemnation of the piece in certain circles, with endless propaganda and derisive association – mostly based upon an uneducated and unenlightened sense of artistic express and mixed genre style.
So, I hence believe a combination of art and science; of gesture and academic rigor, is key. It is a balance. In fact, this is probably truer than ever given how saturated media has become in the modern day. The very act of getting anyone to pay attention to anything out there requires some type of aesthetic persuasion that invariably must be somewhat entertaining rather than coldly intellectual. That is my view, at least.
(3) Do you think that being able to participate in activism is a luxury, to a certain extent? For example, if I have to struggle to work a mindless job 10 hours a day just to feed my family of 6, do I have the same opportunity to take an interest in changing the system as someone with more time and resources? Or is it a 'with privilege comes responsibility' kind of thing?
-A natural consequence of the economic structure and resulting incentive system is that people become locked into a feedback loop of narrow self-interest. People are not trained by the very nature of this society to care about anyone else but themselves and their ”tribe”, and the pressures – the structural coercion – that are built in to the system reinforces that need for apathy and hence the disregard of one’s external surroundings. This relates to both people and the habitat, in fact.
So, in that respect, for people to really care about the well being of others or to pay attention to what is really happening in the political sphere – one has to be able to distract themselves from their general survival for a moment. This is easier said than done. While, of course, we all realize that our existences relate to the systems around us such as the political and economic system – it is still extremely difficult to have time given all of the survival pressures to actually do anything about what is going on. And , sadly enough, most of the little things people do who think they are doing something… are actually pointless in the long run as, once again, they do not address the system problem.
I would also say that people have been bought off in this society, even if poor. One of the negative benefits of technological development in the current material culture is the vanity and bizarre fetishes that have been created surrounding superficial devices/gadgetry. The thought of people losing access to these fetishes keeps them more in line with establishment values, just like how the rich would obviously rather keep their great wealth. Needless to say, to ‘rock the boat’ puts in danger one’s stability. The feedback loop continues.
However, to answer your question "with privilege comes responsibility" I suppose I agree in theory but at the same time most who achieve a state of true financial privilege have usually been indoctrinated into being satisfied by the system since the system has accommodated them. Coupled with the inherent narcissism and self-interest that the system compounds, again “pinging” primal human fears and generating greed - more often than not those who do reach a state of "privilege" tend to be even more fearful of rocking the boat. Rather, they pretend. They start trusts and become “philanthropists” – which is probably the most offensive word in the culture today, if you think about how it is used.
So, back to my original point, there are system pressures on many levels that deter people from challenging the status quo. I would state that the most common deterrent is the general destitution and stress perpetuated by the social structure itself that restricts one's capacity to even pay attention to anything outside of one's personal survival. It is too inconvenient and risky.
I will also add that education is also a huge factor. Just like in abject slave times it was illegal in some regions for slaves to be literate – there is a natural propensity to avoid quality education for the masses because there is no advantage to freethinking individuals when the overarching aspect of the socioeconomic system is self-preservation and not progress.
(4) It's kind of ironic that you started out working in advertising and independent equity trading (or maybe it's exactly as it should have been). Did you always have an ideological stance against the system, but kind of went along to survive, or was it precisely these professions that lead you to dedicate your life to activism?
-While my critics seem confused by such associations, I would defend them as revealing how close I have been to the worst aspects of the social structure and how that has affected me. You have to be very close to such structural despotism and exploitation to really get a true sense, just like you really cannot understand the horrors of war unless you've seen someone killed directly next to you in real life.
In my early development, all I cared about was the art of classical and modern music. I closed myself off from reality just like many others do and, as per my introverted character; I preferred to develop myself in a very disciplined and detached way. It wasn't until the cold reality of having to survive as an adult did I begin to analyze the world around me. I ended up in advertising because it was the only thing my limited skill set would allow me to do, keeping some decent standard of living.
I moved to equity trading because it is the only occupation in existence with no boss and no employees. I wanted out of the corporate hierarchy. So, I see myself as having been pushed along the rails of the natural, structural coercion that is the socioeconomic complex. Coincidentally and virtually by accident (it seems), this path led me to where I am today.
(5) Talk to me about the power of filmmaking. Do you consider filmmaking the most effective medium to incite social change?
-Well, shocking to many as it might be, I don't particularly like the art of filmmaking compared to other art forms. I will not go on a tangent about that. I will state that within the spectrum of multimedia production, the film tradition has a tremendously large influence on culture today. When you see, say, the Academy Awards and all these huge directors and famous actors sitting in a single room – you are really seeing the most influential people on the planet. When it comes to people's values, these people have more power than the political establishment and the religious establishment. So, realizing this, and also thinking back on the bizarre success of my first film/performance piece Zeitgeist, I engage this art form with a kind of strategy to, again, play both sides - the art and the science of communication and expression.
So, to answer your question, I think it is a very effective medium but filmmaking is really comprised of multiple mediums. I would still suggest music has a longer-term, stronger power in some value shifting ways - but music also presents more ambiguity.
(6) Are there any particular artists or activists that you admire/like?
-Perhaps the greatest intellectual and artistic influence I have had, more from the standpoint of theory, was a man named Iannis Xenakis. He was a 20th century composer that dealt with various abstract ideas regarding aesthetics and how to represent intellectual systems with sound and form. John Cage was another important influence in the way he broke the separations of music and everyday life. As far as film, I'm not really much of a film buff. I create my films from an intuitive standpoint with very little reference to anything that I've seen.
Honestly, I create films from a musical standpoint. Music and the aural quality of the film comes first in style and form. My new film trilogy, "InterReflections” will be a vast exploration of this personal style. Musical phrasing is superior to filmic phrasing and I apply it as such.
As far as activists, I hate to split hairs but I would first object to the idea itself. I understand what you mean but this is worth pointing out. I honestly don't like the blanket term “activist” as it assumes the activity is irrespective of cause. A person might wish to change some aspect of society and therefore they are to be an activist in that context (so one can be an economic activist or an environmental activist, etc). However, to be an activist assumes such a category of function is inherently real. I find that annoying.
In theory, I hope one day there is no such thing as an “activist”. Perhaps, we will have a social system that prefers and directly facilitates actual intelligent change in a fluid way and the idea of needing an external entity that has to work against the establishment, as the term "activist" really denotes, will be a thing of the past.
That said – while I admire those working for relevant change, I also hold a great deal of contempt/frustration at this stage given how impotent, off-focus and commodified “activism” has become. I hate to say this publicly but everywhere I look these days I see popular “activists” doing little more than yelling at the wind, selling an identity for income and working to self-promote. I see communities created that are more about angst driven ceremony, catharsis and sociality then about true social change, challenge, problem solving and forward thinking.
It isn't that such people/groups are not dedicated and sincere – it is first that they take a narrow, “localized” view rather than a system’s view, while the sickness of the market system and its need for income gets the best of them. Over time, many great people of conscience turn their battle into a career and usually that is the end of it as they then begin to limit their debate in order to keep income and identity in line.
It is, once again, part of the feedback loop that keeps the current order in place. Today, being an “activist” is a pop culture idea, like being a circus performer. People spend billions a year on “activist media” and there is a massive sales industry for it.
In the end, the only people I truly respect anymore are those who take a "systems" perspective and realize that no real change is going to happen by talking about this or that new government policy or corruption or war or economic blight… It’s mostly all trivial. There is nothing new anymore. It is the same cycle of system output despotism, fraud, inhumanity and war. It isn’t going to change by talking about it directly, without the system context.
In other words, the only true activism relevant in the world today is the kind that will work to shut down market capitalism and replace it with an intelligent and sane economic model – a model that will then bring out the best of humanity – not the worst, which is what it does today. All other points of focus are really a waste of time. And I mean that sincerely.
(7) Do you truly think, in the bottom of your heart, that humans are capable of transitioning to this post-scarcity society that you are proposing? If so, how come we haven't already?
-Not only am I convinced that the very foundation of our human nature is primed for this type of society given the incredible public health revelations regarding how negative the current model is to our physical and psychological well-being – I believe once a small version of this type of world is created and shown – people will flock to it at an exponential rate.
Why? Firstly, because 99% of the world’s population is being screwed. It isn't just a well-being issue – it is a dignity and pride issue at this stage. Principle. Our social nature doesn’t like to get jerked around. We have an inherent sense of justice, just as our primate ancestors have proven in various anthropological studies. Sadly, most do not even understand how badly they are getting screwed and how the system is literally killing them slowly by its structural violence – not to mention the insane wealth inequity that is another level of an emerging public health crisis.
However, the main challenge is getting people to realize that the alternative is real and can be done. The reason we have not been able to make this change is because the pressures of the current structure are so severe. This change is a complete shift of everything in the social order. Therefore, my estimation is that some country will begin the transition. The fruits of this country are shown to the world and I then believe there will be a chain reaction. The Empire will fight it - but all empires fail eventually.
The main great catalyst will be the emerging trend towards localization of all production. With the advent of 3-D printing, zero marginal cost and nanotechnology, coupled with the ability to automate labor, we are seeing a massive economic transformation. Capital goods are becoming consumer goods while labor power is being built into consumer goods/capital goods through automation.
In other words, very soon in the future, due to the advancement of technology, a modern city will be able to grow all of its own food and essentially do all of its own production for the entire population without ever needing to import anything but perhaps some raw materials. Over time, due to the ability of emerging nanotechnology, the importing of raw materials will also be greatly slowed if not eliminated as a necessity.
In the end, you will have almost pure localization and hence decentralization. Once this happens the structural pressure to maintain associations in globalization – which is and always has been the new colonialism – will come to an end. BTW, I’m not saying detachment is economically ideal – I’m saying it is a transitional step.
As we approach 2030/2040, which will be virtually apocalyptic based on the negative trends at hand assuming no changes – this will also be the same time that we will be able to break free and societies will be able to work on their own without having to submit to larger order governmental or transnational interests (as the march of exponential technological growth continues to improve).
This isn’t to say the world no longer works together – it would have to in the end as it would be most optimized for efficient economic calculation/resource management – but normal everyday living would not have a heavy reliance on such global interaction. As the old saying goes “think globally, act locally.”
More on this – can be found in the book “The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" which is available free on our website and is in print form at cost.
(8) Your mom was a social worker, your dad was a mailman. There is no apparent connection to arts/filmmaking from your family side. How did you get involved with music/arts and who supported you in this?
-Well, there are different degrees of artistic interests in my family and extended family. But, as far as my development, my parents were exceptionally supportive in whatever I wanted to do. There was very little coercion in my upbringing and a great deal of trust. Unlike many traditional approaches to child raising, I support the idea that children are designed by evolution to learn just as much on their own as they require guidance from those older. There is a balance and independence is just as important as social trust and feelings of support and security.
As far as my musical interests, I couldn't tell you where they originated. I would be seen around my house banging on pots and pans and I believe I took my first snare drum lesson when I was about seven. From there, I was accepted into a college conservatory for music at the age of 13 (which oddly had an academic program for my age) and remained there until high school graduation. I then moved to New York to go to college and dropped out after two years realizing the debt I was incurring was not appropriate for the type of life in music I was intending. I was a modern solo classical percussionist which, thinking back on it, is just about as ridiculous as you can possibly get as far as making a living
:-)
(9) Internet and technology definitely helped you reach millions of people; what is your message to all the artists out there that want to bring positive impact with their art, and reach as many people as possible, but that do not know where to start, how to proceed?
-Honestly, I wish I had relevant advice. The difference between today and the year 2007 (year of Zeitgeist) is that today everyone has the ability to make a movie. Obviously, I think this is a great thing but at the same time it creates saturation when it comes to one finding time to watch so many good productions. This is particularly a problem when it comes to documentary. I, for example, receive many emails with many fine documentaries and I simply do not have time to watch all of them. There are not enough hours in the day. I strongly doubt the viral nature of my first film would have been as strong if it was released today.
However, I will say this: stylistic and intellectual progress is about honesty when creative. If you look carefully at modern society, in all fields, people actually consciously adhere to some degree of tradition when they are communicating. When I made, for example, Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, I did so with a more traditional documentary focus in style. While I would never change these films, I do feel it extended beyond my comfort zone.
Zeitgeist, the original film - on the other hand - came from a completely different place. I didn't care how it changed other people's views. I didn't care if it had any impact or not. I saw it as a personal expression. And, I think what that means is that to truly break through and bring people to a new place and hence maybe even spark high levels of attention one needs to run the risk of being absolutely honest. Sad to say, it's almost impossible for people to be absolutely honest because we are deeply social organisms and we always look at our actions through the view of others.
Regardless, my core advice is to produce what YOU want to see and if your feelings and observations have merit – it just might strike a chord that went unnoticed before in others.
(10) TZM’s ultimate mission is the installation of a new socio-economic model based upon technically responsible resource management, allocation and design through what would be considered the scientific method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions. What’s the role of artists in this rather technical approach?
-It is unfortunate that the arts and the sciences appear detached. The reality is that our everyday viewing of the world and the very process of the way we change, invent and embrace our inherent human ingenuity - is first artistic. Science doesn't have any real novel leads. Science is a verification/analysis process mostly and this explains why so many scientific breakthroughs are achieved by accident. One could argue that humans can't actually invent anything - we can only deductively analyze phenomenon around us as we perform different experiments, seeking a lucky combo. Therefore, we have to have a creative expectation. We have to have a hypothesis and a hypothesis is invariably a creative deduction or inference – an experiment.
So, there is no purely “technical approach” as the arts and the sciences are part of the same system - of creative ingenuity and problem solving. As far as pop culture art, as per the more traditional definition of “art”, I could only expect it to flourish in a way unimaginable.
First, the polluting monetary influence is gone. No more contrived artists looking to manipulate prior trends to sell something. This means the artist will be much more pure in his/her intentions from the start. There would be no real reason to create anything otherwise unless you loved doing it. Money pollutes everything.
Second, the stress relief coming from the basic nature of the new social system and the free-time realized would set the stage for an explosion of human creativity on all levels. Just imagine all the wasted minds working at fast food restaurants today who might have a propensity for great contribution in our ‘Group Mind’ societal-creative apparatus… but have never been given a chance to realize it or participate. Millions if not billions of lost minds are toiling in market BS roles trying to just live, polluted by modern culture.
Anyway, creative thinking and the act of creation itself would be the new norm of human consciousness, I think. It would be profound.
