Who is Peter Joseph?

Who is Peter Joseph?In late 2009, Charles Robinson was able to interview Peter Joseph, the creator of Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, several lectures and a presentation; Founder of The Zeitgeist Movement and a friend of Jack Fresco, in his home.

He described himself and his life in details in what is likely a rare interview.

He was kind enough to provide him with previously unreleased media and video and in turn Charles did his best to create a documentary (albeit kinda poor in quality compared to his work!) that would help express who this person is.

Peter Joseph was born in North Carolina to a middle class family. He has said in interviews that his mother's role as a social worker helped shape his opinion and impressions of American life.

He later moved to New York to attend art school. Currently he lives and works in New York City as a freelance film editor/composer/producer for various industries.

Due to the controversial content of his films and a desire to keep his day job private, he has not released his full name to the public.

Watch the full documentary now. Alternatively watch it at Vimeo.com.

1.4k
7.15
12345678910
Ratings: 7.15/10 from 67 users.
  • azilda

    well universally versed...thumbs up...way up!
    Of course some 1 will find opposition...the easiest thing to do when 1 is sitting at home doing nothing to change the world. This is a snowball rolling in the right direction and yes it goes over a few bumbs that need to be flattened but not stopped...but pushed even more! It is a white tornado that has the potential to clean the crap if we really listen to our senses.
    Last words: We change or we die!
    az

  • Mike C

    absolutely excellent

  • HHV

    I have a LOT of trouble visualizing society without money.

  • Ryan

    @Vlatko
    Thank you so much for the excellent documentaries. I actually run into these in the classroom at Indiana University, where I am a student. There is so much potential knowledge on this site. I watch at least one documentary on here nearly every night. Although this is the first comment I've ever posted on TDF, I've been boasting the site for well over a year now to everyone. Thank you for the hard work, dedication, and sincerity.

  • gaa

    played musical instrument, done video in a advertising industry, done day trading , my goodness , so similar to my life. anyway nice movement that will never pickup. a nice room with many expensive stuff that is bought from "establishment"

  • silkop

    Good doc, it definitely helps put the whole Zeitgeist mania into perspective. Here we have a distressed artsy young guy who fails in normal life (engaging into day trading is akin to falling in love with alcohol) and then instead of contemplating his personal inadequacies decides that "the system is at fault", becomes a social activist, spins conspiracies, (perhaps unsurprisingly) finds many like-minded young people who are seeking for easy answers, becomes an Internet star.

    I predict that the whole "movement" will meet a fate akin to the hippie movement from the 60's - the followers will grow up and either label themselves "victims of the system" with bitterness that stays for life or learn to work and prosper, and shake heads at their past involvement.

  • Avii

    @Silkop

    I happen to be one of those "like-minded young" even tho i'm 27 and studied economy for 3 years...and where in the world is this the "easy answers"?

    I personally believe this is inevitable in the long run when technology gets more advanced, but i would prefer we go do it faster so that billions of people would not have to die until that time...and this movement will not die, trust me...when things starts to go really bad in the coming years then people themselfs will start looking for alternatives, and tbh there is NOT ONE realistic alternative then this...so you and others will come around i suspect...time will tell

    Great up Vlatko

  • Bo

    Best message here..think outside your own identified indoctrination.

  • billy the kid

    silkop. its funny to hate on people you dont know. If he was talking total untruths i would understand. Not concerned with anyones personal life, but SILKOP if you cant see things like fiat currency in north america and see how its done nothing good for us at all then you have nothing to really say about past hippie movements. mid 7os which is past the "hippie" movement nixon changed currency in america forever making for the first time in US history paper money not redeemable in gold or silver. Big mistake. Silkop sir i would say you probly have a thrust for knowledge and agree to take everything with a grain of salt but somethings making posts like that just makes me think how negative people can be.

  • http://esmuziq.blogspot.com esmuziq

    smart guy

  • silkop

    @Avii, the main point of view expressed by this guy (namely, unsustainability) has been in circulation since the late 18th century (Thomas Malthus). Obviously, the catastrophe predicted by Malthus hasn't occurred. So what do you prefer, to stick to the "we're doomed" belief still, or perhaps think about why Malthus wasn't correct? If you do the latter, you may well discover the reason why Peter Joseph is also off the point.

    Regarding the "easy answers" approach: the process of thought of this guy is to deconstruct and attack the "establishment". This in itself is psychologically underpinned and common for young people (I've been there myself). It stems from your own personal lack of understanding how things work and insecurity. This process is destructive, but helpful, as you definitely become more knowledgeable about reality. Possibly also disillusioned about the authorities in charge. Now comes the crucial point in personal development - you are at a dangerous stage where you think you "got it". If you stop learning and start constructing new ideas now, you're likely to reinforce your negative approach, fall in love with yourself and come up with inferior, simpleton solutions (hey, let's all love each other and give up money) that are much worse than those ideas that you're seeking to replace. At best you're going to reinvent the same old thing and dress it up in other words. If you're instead keen on continuing your education and improving your understanding, you may end up in academia for decades. This might give you in the end a satisfaction of insight why these seemingly "wrong, obsolete, boxed" ideas were not so bad after all. There is even a remote possibility that you will discover some slight improvements and help humanity. Alternatively, you can give up the pursuit of academic knowledge and go into business or professional world, where you will encounter rather more trivial (but still interesting) problems. Both approaches are more worthwhile than becoming an embittered armchair philosopher or social activist at an age of 30, falling prey to the illusion that the world is against you while you have superior insight into how it operates.

  • silkop

    @billy, I don't hate the guy (why would I?), I'm just speculating about where he is coming from and why he is thinking the way he is, just trying to apply the scientific method to which he himself pays lip service. I'm not saying he's got wrong everything wrong either. (I suspect he is wrong on and largely ignorant of the monetary policy issues, though.) The impression is that he has worked hard personally to reduce his ignorance, but got severely stuck at a half-ignorant/preconceived level. He gets some matters right, but unfortunately these are the rather trivial and inconsequential things (e.g. the orgin of and role of religion). On other, more complex matters (e.g. sustainability, viability of economics as science), he firmly believes that he's got them right, while in reality he hasn't even scratched the surface. There are also some dangerous undertones to his diatribe, such as the idea that "we" (who?) should somehow decide which occupations are "efficient and worthwhile" and destroy other occupations. Overall, the guy seems to be driven by his frustration with himself rather than anything else, and projecting his frustrations onto the outside world.

  • Aleksandra

    BRAVO ! ... This is the one that think, the one that love, the one that is awaken, the man that we need. Thank you Peter (from Zagreb, Croatia)!

  • Rodrigo

    I'm with Silkop, things are way more complex then in Peter Joseph views, and if Peter effectively could scratch the surface he would voluntarily humble him self and rethimk the whole thing out.

    I'm not saying that we don't need to do something, i'm just saying the answer isn't in sience rules.

    Middle class artist, i know the type, i'm one, i am even a film editor working in cinema.

    But i think - What the hell have I lived compared to others that suffer the real consequences of human irresponsability.

    I bet even one of them would advise something as science to resolve all our problems.
    I think Peter's very naive and engendered a rapid solution wich everyone likes without the need to think to much.

    Read the books by Soljenitzing or other that fought in war and were arrested in concentration camps they know better what are the needs of the human soul.

    Not a freelancer kid with a bunch of computerized obejcts in his room, that was born playing computer games and watching warner brother cartoons, like me, my mom is even a social worker too.

    Peter Joseph is an easy and dangerous way out, because science is colder than the worst criminal in the story of humanity because science doesn't weight even the existence of our species. In the end it's all a mathematical solution, this kind of thinking leads to stalinist athrocities.

  • Will

    @silkop
    @avii
    @billy the kid

    I think together you all sum up the man quite nicely. Certainly no reason to hate on him (I've met far dumber), and he does make some good points, especially when considered from, as he himself states, a "systems theory" point of view. But silkop is astutely correct in observing Peter's own apparent obliviousness to the fact that he is using a point of view, as must we all.

    It's amazing how easily he dismisses philosophy, religion and "-isms" as completely irrelevant when what Aristotle and Kant and Smith and Marx (a philosopher despite his belief that he wasn't) and so many others before and after all realized in one way or another is that while the scientific method is a wonderful way of testing physical theories, it doesn't completely apply to the human experience, and never can, because our consciousness exists both within and beyond what we perceive as the natural world. We are all versions of Schrodinger's cat; in other words, we exist in a box but are capable of thinking outside it. That, however, does not mean we can exist outside the box. And therein lies the universal paradox that no system will ever overcome.

    And so, in summary, Peter's "noise" of Time Square, while certainly containing much waste and greed and avarice, also contains the messy, chaotic and necessary ingredients that will catalyze our future political economic realities (which will constantly, if slowly, evolve). We can reach for infinity, but never touch it.

  • Will

    @Rodrigo

    Just noticed your comment as well. An excellent summary as well.

  • silkop

    @Rodrigo I don't think pursuing science leads to atrocities (the ability to control the world afforded by scientific progress seems quite independent from our choices to do good or evil). I do think that Peter Joseph is embarassingly out of his depth and contributing very little in terms of realistic solutions. Basically, he's reinventing the wheel, poorly. Social institutions exist whose precise goal is to address the problems he has so brilliantly identified, and guess what, people have known about these problems for centuries.

    If you want to help humanity by pursuing science, become a scientist. If you want to help humanity by reducing the difference between the rich and poor, become rich and charitable, and convince other rich people to be the same. If you want to help humanity by reinventing the rules, rise to lead a major political party and effect the necessary changes in law. All these ambitions will surely consume a lot of individual effort, much more so than bitching about life, armchair philosophy, publishing video collages or writing comments in Internet forums such as this one.

    So why do we engage into these activities? Well, partly for the entertainment of communication, and partly because verbalizing ideas makes us rethink and improve our own positions. However, it takes a certain type of exhibitionist megalomaniac personality to dress up this internal process into "think tank" clothes (advertising background, eh?) and strive to gain mind followership. I believe that true leadership should be based upon achievements and deeds only rather than on popular ideas (aka demagogy). Whatever his intentions, he seems to be doing a disservice (if only temporary) to those who choose to swallow his propaganda. He's at a crossroads. It will be interesting to see what will become of him - whether he will stay trapped in his ideology for life, like those religious personas he so despises, or whether he will at some time become more sensible and abandon his pipe dreams for the dreary normal life.

  • azilda

    This video and some of the comments made me think of Cat Stevens...a young man who had a lot to say and decide to shut up instead.
    same same as they say in Asia but very different.
    az

  • azilda

    Of course one doesn't stay silent for ever...if alive and curious.

    And Peter is in the line with many others....what is great about these people is that they shake opinions, they move the mirror around, from facing themself to allowing others to face their self.

    money is just an illusion created by time
    we got used to it and we accept it
    but all in all it is just paper

  • Waldo

    While I disagree that he gets the "monetary policy issue" wrong, he seems to have perfectly described fractional reserve banking and the role of the federal reserve to me, I think he is leaving out the human nature issue. I wish people would be able to: work together and see each other as equals- innovate for only the satisfaction of helping humanity- submit to logical control of all resources- aim for sustainability and not excess- etc. but I don't think it will happen. This approach reminds me of the anarchist movemnmet which generally believes mankind can thrive with no social safety nets or rule of law, its a very beautiful picture they paint but its not reality in my opinion.

    @ Silkop

    Don't you think you are judging this from the point of view of a businessman, that might have something to do with your outright rejection of his ideas? I am not criticizing at all, but we have spoken before and you tried to persuade me to drop out of college and dive into the business world. I understand this has been a good path for you, and I am glad you have been happy with it, but its not for everyone. To me the knowledge I gain in one day at college is worth more than all the money you make in a year. I don't need to make big money to be happy, just enough to pay my bills and lead a modest life. I am 38 years old, debt free, well educated, not bitter in the slightest, and happy (for the most part).

    In my opinion you dismiss this guy to easily. He may not have the perfect solution, but he exposes some real weaknesses in our current way of thinking. Of course that just my two cents, I am not trying to start an arguement. Arueing this guys point seems sensless to me, as I have no idea how you would ever make it reality even if it was the perfect solution. We are too deeply emmersed in the monetary system to ever shed it, in my opinion. But, I would love it if we could. I think money's primary function in our society is to be an incentive, unfortunately it becomes an end unto itself for too many people.

  • silkop

    @azilda In fact, paraphrasing your comment sums up my position nicely: if you're a young man with a lot to say, maybe you should shut up instead. Or to quote Eminem, "words are a motherf*cker, they can be great". Note a certain resemblance between the angry-youth-idol Eminem, angry-youth-idol Joseph, angry-youth-idol Nietzsche and .

  • silkop

    @Waldo Of course, I am judging him from my own position. There is research out there which suggests that even being aware of different types of bias and being able to recognize it in others does not protect ourselves from falling victim to our own biases. So I suppose the best thing we can do if we want to reduce bias is to admit it and hope that others point the more specific instances of it.

    I also don't see a point in becoming very rich. I do see it as a possibility that would require lots of hard work and personal sacrifice. I tend to be lazy and satisfied with what I have, and I believe I already have a great deal in comparison to the world average. I no longer see it possible for me to gain real intellectual heights either (meeting and listening to people much more gifted by nature made me realize my limitations).

    I don't despise materialism, which doesn't mean that I would advocate wasteful consumerism. I view material goods as a fairly objective proxy for resourcefulness (or success), although they don't necessarily measure success of the individual who's currently in their possesion (luck is also a factor). A fool and his money are soon parted, though. There is a natural mechanism for fair redistribution of wealth and tracking back the careers of today's wealthy individuals gives ample historical evidence for how it works.

    Of course, there are things that money can't buy, but how does it support an argument against money-oriented economies? It's still better to be rich (= in control of many resources), smart, healthy, and respected than to have any of these traits alone. They are not necessarily exclusive either (in fact, unfair as the world is, correlations abound).

    Having said that, possibilities for misconduct and conflicts of interest are present, and it is up to us as a democratic enlightened society to devise and enforce means to guard against them as much as we like to. We know about it, we're not asleep, we don't need prophets to "awaken" us, there is no hidden enemy to fight, there is no need for any radical reorientation, and there is plenty of people much smarter than Mr. Joseph and me truly working on solving the issues. They are incentivized by the built-in human desire to help others and also by money (very significantly so, I dare say).

    If/shortly before resources run out, we will feel economic pressure to consume less and invent more and, as things stand, those who have the fewest resources and can't adapt well will be most likely to suffer most greatly from it. It will be up to us citizens of the resourceful, well-armed countries to make a choice between self-restraint and aggression. Due to our brain physiology few of us enjoy the concept of exploiting those less fortunate, but many of us do benefit from it all the same, often in ways we don't even realize. Contemplating it a bit and gathering data in favor or against different possible interpretations certainly doesn't hurt.

    On the other hand, death ultimately awaits us all, so maybe devoting yourself to drawing big rescue plans for humanity on shaky foundations is not so worthwhile after all. To end on an even more flippant note, I don't see an inherent justification for prolonging existence of humanity, as opposed to prolonging existence of the population of cats (which I like) or cockroaches (which I don't). Maybe this is what Waldo means by the coldness of a scientific mindset, and maybe this is why I have no ambition of going into politics any time soon.

  • Zatarra

    Good video the message was clear if you live long enough were all ****'d at the rate we consume. Dont worrie when the chineman, and shylock over the horizon come for their pound of flesh we all can turn our loot into travelers checks to take to heaven or hell since they wont be taking dollars there either. Great video vlatko this one's gona get a lot of coments for a long time. Can you also get some more comedy docs that would be great.

  • sonny corbi

    Nothing but rave reviews I must watch this!

  • Saturnine

    This guy understands religion perfectly.

  • Blahh

    Interesting doc.

    Maybe in the future when human's get out of our money addiction, they'll look back and say "Damn, they were fucking stupid."

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Interesting remark @Saturnine, although there isn't much to understand there.

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    wow
    the most annoying part for me about this guy/movement is that he gets soo much right.. he understands the world pretty well and i don't blame him for wanting to take action.
    in the end though, he makes the worse mistake in the worse area possible.
    the problem with society is not money (a medium for exchange) the problem is the initiation of force against citizens by their governments.
    the problem is not that the fed prints all this money, the problem is that the government forces citizens to use this money. if currencies were allowed to arise spontaneously out of the private sector, you would never see what we currently have going on because of competition.

    the problem with the world is not people trading with each other.. which is all that money represents. the problem is that governments initiate violence against citizens through the police and military.. and people are not able to freely trade with each other and fully control their own resources. we are forced to use money which is debt in essence and not allowed to create and promote our own currencies. half of our money is taken by force to pay for this fake money. our markets are constantly abused by politicians who can do favors for certain lobbying groups and their own business interests.
    the real question we need to be asking ourselves is "are voluntary relationships better than forced interactions?"
    everyone always says "violence doesn't solve any problems" and we know this is true at least in the long run violence won't solve any problems, but we then have violence at the core of our society.. every time we vote or try to pass a law, we are just telling a certain group of individuals, that we want them to go and use force against another group of individuals.
    this is not acceptable in a rational society and as long as humans are not able to freely interact with each other, we will keep facing the consequences.
    also funny how peter dismisses property rights.. well, i would ask him if he thought he owned his body and its effects. property rights are a description of ppl because inherently only we own and are able to control our bodies directly... without property rights, then it is necessarily a dictatorship.
    the funny thing about the rbe is that even if it were to take off , same as all other "moneyless" economies people would still trade and barter in private. you would have to enforce your "no property" rules because people left alone with no violent intervention would own their creations and effects and trade with others.
    --------> youtube /watch?v=b9WEWcbfnHg

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @princton,

    Yes... but violence does not exist on its own. Violence is caused. So stating that the removal of the violence is the key for better society just isn't good enough, and simply it isn't doable.

    Violence comes in various forms and in most cases the triggers are: scarcity (true or planed) of resources and divisions amongst humans (race, ideology, nationality, religion, reach, poor, etc.) Those are the root problems. Violence on it's own does not mean anything.

  • Waldo

    Expecting people to act responsibly and be charitable, honest, and willing to work together in equality and peace just becuase government is gone or we have a resourced based economy is giving people more credit than I am willing to concede. The rest of the zietgiest agenda I can dig. Life would be so different than what I have ever known, its hard to imagine. But what would it take to make this come about? I can't imagine a senario where we could transition to this kind of system without major collapse. Not only would money have to be done away with, but all the different isms and religious sects would have to be disolved, social systems completely abandoned and yet we would still have to work together and be efficient. Just the physical logistics of that is demanding, especially with no established central body or universal system of communication and cooperation. Its a worthy goal, don't get me wrong. I just don't know if it is really possible though.

  • rashid

    i respect this guy so much

  • Tonone

    All of the posts have some merit. But no one really understands death-we can't take money with us thats for sure... So lets say we die and rebirth----Now what?

    Praise the greatest VLATKO! Thank You.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/Humptydumptytribe Hambone Littletail

    "We change or we die." That sums it up in five words. All I can say is "Amen, Brother!" This was 49 minutes of some of the most straight-forward, on-target common sense analysis of the global situation anywhere on the Internet (the closest competition being "Collapse," with Michael Ruppert, that you can also find here on TDF). Of course, I am COMPLETELY PESSIMISTIC that this mythical "critical mass" will ever form -- from the trailer parks to the multi-national corporate boardrooms to the cities (and villages) of China, India, and Brazil, the madness that has gripped this globe will continue unabated, until we have destroyed ourselves. "We change or we die," indeed. Since we are clearly never gonna change, I only see one choice.

  • azilda

    @silkop in fact, young people often decide to shut up because older people think they know it all and are not willing to create new realities anymore. Many young get so tired of this world, they completely disconnect and end up in the street that is the only way they figure they can get off the wheel of the " financial machine". I say if you got something to say...say it and let others search among your words what truth there is for them. Now i would like to hear what good you got out of this...any??? any at all??

  • http://detmersstudios.com Peg

    What a breath of fresh air!!! This vid should be in every civics and philosophical class around the globe!

  • S Joseph

    Thanks for the dedication in making this interview possible.

  • bassick

    that was awesome. <3

  • Joran

    Peter Joseph's views in general are refreshingly optimistic in this day of the fear-profiteers and doomsayers like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck, whom literally make a living scaring the shit out of people with their crazy conspiracy nonsense.

    I used to respect Alex Jones until I heard him interview Peter Joseph on his radio show... Look it up on youtube. Alex exposes himself.

  • AlexB

    Well, these are certainly exciting times. Society is crumbling around us, and it's becoming clearer and clearer to see. I've noticed some positive remarks and some negative ones. To help bring some perspective on the matter to those who either have questions or those who think there are no answers, I will address a couple of the major issues.

    Firstly, the matter of who Peter Joseph is, or where he comes from is irrelevant to the problems at hand. He may fall into the stereotypical role of "art student, anti-establishment, youth" but do not project your own opinions of him and call it a day. Let's address the relevant issues and move forward from there.

    I think we can safely agree that the current monetary system is one of perpetual debt and cyclical consumption that cannot be sustainable on a finite resourced planet. However, some might argue that it's "just money" and that we only need to remove government to truly have a "free" market. A resource-based economy removes both politics and money, but for material reasons and because of the indoctrinating system we live in, many still don't want to "give up" money, as if there is something to be lost. The removal of money is more than just paper money, for going back to the gold standard or even barter and trade would not solve the root problem.

    Access is more important than ownership. In fact, you can never actually claim ownership to anything, as everything has a life cycle and once you die, you cannot take what you own (or think you own) with you. It's a construct of our mind and ego that we stake claim to material and intellectual property. In order to solve something as simple as poverty around the world, just feed cloth and shelter everyone. Money and politics slows down progress and innovation. It creates inequality, and yet, we struggle so hard to create equality in a system that thrives on just the opposite. You need to eat, and not to own the food you eat. You need a warm place to sleep at night, and not to own a house. You need to travel and not to own the car you travel in. It really is quite simple, yet we believe everything to be far too complex for human understanding. If we always thought this way, we would never have left the cave or jumped out of the tree.

    Money has also been claimed to be nothing more than a measuring devise. While that is half true, please tell me how long a meter is? A kilometer? What does one pound weight? How cold is zero degrees celcius? Those are measurable tools that, no matter where you take your measuring stick, it's the same scale regardless. You can't say the same for money. A dollar today is worth less than a dollar a year ago, and continues this path. Last I checked, my ruler was still 12 inches. There was no adjustment for inflation. In conclusion, money can never be an accurate measuring tool because to fluctuates with the whole supply and demand model. If we used such fragile and inaccurate measurements for engineering, I would think twice about crossing any large bridges.

    Another issue that pops up is "This will never be possible." By what information is that based on? Statistics? Countless human behavioral studies? When you look back at the past, you might be surprised to notice that almost all great innovation was faced with harsh and often brutal skepticism. Scholars of the establishment have written entire books on how flight could never be achieved. They thought it was impossible for organisms to be smaller than the human eye could see. It was commonly understood that the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around it. So don't be so quick to know what the future has in store, or how people will behave. Patterns only occur when there's no change in events, whether they be external or internal influences. Also, time cannot be easily be determined for how long such a social change could take place. Human technology is on an exponential curve, as we've done more in the last fifty years than all the years since. The possibility and how fast change occurs lies with each individual. The more people actively move in a direction, the more likely and the faster things will flow. Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't. Look at what we currently have at our disposal. The technology is clearly there. The average human intellect is greater than it has been in recorded history. And human behavior is no longer subject to simply your biological composition, as our environment plays a much more significant role in shaping lives than we originally suspected.

    The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project are far larger than their names and the people who advocate it. This quite possibly is humanity taking an evolutionary jump. There have always been great speakers and humanitarians, but they are catalysts for something much bigger than themselves. People are coming together, sharing ideas, and the future looks promising to me. Especially in dark times, the light looks ever brighter. I do agree that a financial collapse will occur, but the chain reaction to follow will be the rebirth of humanity. I'm not naive to the fact that many will suffer during a transition, including myself, but we will come out much stronger, because sometimes, people have to experience the worst before they know what's best. And don't we already suffer so much right now? Something like 20,000 people die every day due to lack of basic necessities. That's a statistic that will carry on if we choose to do nothing. We know where this road leads, and we may be fearful of the path not yet taken, but it doesn't seem like things could be much worse than they already are.

    Personally, I'd rather die trying to create positive change in society, than to merely survive, knowing I'm limited by the social system and that my destiny is written by the laws and economic decisions of an elite few. Who am I to benefit simply because I was born in a "wealthy" country? What have I done to deserve the relative abundance of North America? And is what I have really the best we can make? I think things could be very different and much better. And if you cannot imagine such a world, is that due to a lack of imagination, or lack of motivation? I can't predict the future, but if people continue speaking out as they do, and joining movements such as the Zeitgeist Movement, at the rate they are now, it may be a bumpy ride, but the destination looks beautiful.

  • Liberty4All

    Agreed - however Oil is Abiotic; Just another artificial scarcity conspiracy (while important to conserve).
    I wholeheartedly support the movement!

  • azilda

    Peter Joseph did not invent or compose what is said in Zeitgeist...he is a marathon runner...he took the stick that society passed to him and ran with it...and...someone else will pick up from messages like Zeitgeist and run with a different idea in the same direction. There is a new concience that is growing from under like a mushroom. It is touching all subjects of life including science, specially science, it is spreading faster than any religion because it is an anti religion a Re-Legion. It is hardly talked about in the media such as television ,newspapers, or billboards but it is being talked about by the mass more and more. This site and many others are growing like mmushrooms because there is a need to share and to discover who or what is behind the body and the mind, and we sense that we are getting closer to an answer.
    Mind is a vehicle, awareness is not a part OF it, but awareness flows through it. Mind is needed to talk, to relate, to learn and to pass on messages but the source of it is within all of us in different degree of awareness. Awareness is unstoppable and that is the reason that when a young man has a strong urge to tell his story society cannot stop it because it is society itself saying it in unison.
    az

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    @vlatko
    you misunderstand.. when i say violence i don't mean any kind of violence and relatively uncommon criminal acts. I mean the violence that is institutionalized, widespread and that everyone knows is occurring all the time.
    I'm talking about the violence that is at the root of all gubments and their corruption. they steal private individual's money at gun point. this is coercion and yet we all act as if it is not really coercion, because it is hidden behind paperwork, letters, bureaucrats and "law books" but eventually it all comes down to somebody with a weapon at your door because they want some of your money.

    this is also a worldwide phenomenon and the money taken by force is rarely used to benefit society at large. the corrupt get wealthy and spend the money "educating" private citizens and justifying why their existence is necessary.

    I wasn't just talking about any violent incident. I was talking about the system of violence / pretending its not violence .

    the true situation we face is "are we gonna live & let live... or will we try to force our opinions onto others?"
    society will self organize and all theorizing would be unnecessary, if people were to simply be left alone by "the powers"

  • Philonous

    I enjoyed reading Silkop's criticism against Peter Joseph because I share the similar sentiment about Peter Joseph but I couldn't really articulate it the best I could like Silkop could. I guess my main problem with Peter Joseph is his naive and unrealistic attempts to think that he can change the world dramatically by simply distributing $5 DVDs and Zeitgeist T-Shirts.

    It was not only his expectations that I find problematic but sometimes his arrogant attitude that all other "-isms", including philosophy and academia, do not have a place. His criticism against academia is what I found to be most problematic because I was thinking that he was referring more or less to Economics rather than other academic fields. His arguments against the appeal to credentials was some-what convincing, but overall weak, because people with credentials are actually people who are rigorously trained to understand their own fields, and know how to approach the body of knowledge more appropriately. It is true that anyone can master these fields by simply going to the library, but to train oneself to do this alone is pretty difficult, which is why we have universities and professors to give a little help.

    Another thing I find problematic with Peter Joseph is his criticism against Religion. Whether or not God exists is besides but point, but as for the moral effectiveness of religion I think there were some problems with Peter Joseph view on religion.

    First, there are many examples of religious groups and individuals who did fight against certain institutions or regimes. Dietrich Bonheofer, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, and the Confessing Church resisted the Nazi Regime (they were all theologians); one of them even tried to help assassinate Hitler. Martin Luther King (Baptist Minister) and Gandhi (Hindu) were religious characters who lead the movement against inequality. The Quakers are important examples of religious people who fought against the institutional norms of slavery. It is true that you have religions that instituted and reinforced ideologies and norms that oppressed people, but you also have religious people who resisted them. The Social Gospel movement was another important religious movement popular among Protestant liberals back in the 1920's; basically the movement was emphasizing social justice and helping the poor.

    Second, Peter Joseph's views on the origin of religion is dubious at best. People who actually do study the origins of religions are really struggling to find out how it really begin, and for Peter Joseph to simply claim that there is an answer is quite pretentious. I agree with Peter Joseph that religions borrows ideas from each other, but this is a trivial claim because humans always share ideas and values from each other all the time since the dawn of civilization. Culture, Language, Religion, Politics, Technology, etc, are all examples of this. All scholars of comparative religions unanimously agree that religions share from one another, but as to how it occurs and the exact origins of religions is still disputed, which is why I find Peter Joseph's presumption that the explanation he acquired from anyone is the definitive answer.

    Another problem I had with Peter Joseph's view is not merely his prophetic approach to the problem, but his "my way is the only way" approach that I find annoying. His "Either we do this or we die" is a false dichotomy, because there maybe many ways to fix the circumstances. What disappointed me some-what is that he never took a brief moment to defend his views and undermine his critics' views, and simply dismissed them as being corrupted by the system. This seems to show that he is very convinced that his views and approach is probably the only option, and he barely took a moment to say why he thinks so. True his documentaries are his views, and did make some arguments, but so far, half of the time he depends on experts, and simply extrapolate from their views to come to his own conclusions.

    What annoyed me a little is his understanding that his approach is "scientific method", which demonstrates that he has no idea what "scientific method" is. Basically you make an observation, asks questions, make hypothesis, do experimentation, evaluate results, and come to conclusions (either confirming or disproving the hypothesis). If I got the steps wrong, anyone can notify me, but my point is that Peter Joseph misunderstands the purpose of scientific methods. Scientific methods are meant to come up theories (explanations), and prove them through observation and deduction, in order to describe the world as accurately as possible. Scientific Methods are not meant to prescribe a political and ideological solution to the problem, or establish a Utopia. Thus Scientific Method is very different from Conservation (to use resources efficiently), and I think Peter Joseph confuses the two together. All scientists really do is use statistics to show that we waste our resources, and warn us about it, but as for how we're going to solve it is for the rest of us to decide.

    Like Silkop, I don't hate Peter Joseph, I simply find reasons to disagree with him, and to be cautious and reluctant to agree with him. He may not admit that having credentials is all that important when it comes to understanding things in general, but I personally think that credentials are objective indicators that someone is well trained enough to understand the circumstances or body-of-knowledge better than anyone else. I like his last documentary, I thought things flowed and followed very smoothly, but I disagree with how he envisions what the revolution would be like. I certainly doubt that billions of people will march in major cities to protest against the "establishment", to think otherwise would simply ignore the reasons why billions of people normally would not march against the establishment (I think relatively very little amounts of people in contrast to 6 billion have relevant college degree to understand the real issues).

    Anyways, I enjoyed the interview, despite the fact that Peter Joseph seem angry and frustrated at times. Thanks for posting this!

  • beedahosen

    This guy knows his s@#$.

  • Alex

    The narcissism, the narcissism...
    Comparing oneself to Martin Luther King and Ghandi. But where is the substance? Yes, yes the world is messed up. But we already know this ( the points he makes about economics, science, philosophy and religion have been made before and better-e.g. Carlin on religion).

    Also, what EXACTLY, are your proposals for improving it? Get rid of money and isms. Good luck actually implementing that. No, really. Good luck.
    This dude seems completely unaware of the extent to which he has been conditioned by these isms he so deplores. His discourse is well within the parameters of the 'verbal hobbies' on which he pours scorn. He has conjured a certain millenarianism (i.e. the world we know is coming to the end) and I have the answers that will allow us to make it anew!

    However, what definitively handicaps his argument is that HE DOESN'T PRESENT US WITH TANGIBLE ANSWERS! For someone whose critique of isms centers on their intangibility, He has no tangible program or manifesto. He has a long polemic, spiced with his musings and assertions (many of which I happen to agree with). But he has no coherent framework for unifying these disparate themes into a resource based economy.

    Nevertheless, this is going to become popular. Because it allows people to think they are making a change by 'coming together' and 'challenging the system' when they are really just shills for his T-shirt and DVD sales.

  • 1perspective

    for all that are knocking down Peter Joseph and the idea of a rbe,

    please share your idea`s for fixing this broken system because it`s easy to sit back and put down those who have a vision while offering nothing positive as an alternative.

    while i do not think the zeitgeist movement is the answer to the issue`s society has it is the only idea that is being put out there that comes anywhere near.

  • Brian Cohen

    I like the ideas espoused in the Zeitgeist movies.Peter Joseph is doing a great service by exposing the fraud of the fractional reserve banking system,and the blight that is organized religion. Good for him.
    And to all those who feel threatened by the Zeitgeist movies,or "Poo poo" their content,well,dont watch them!The fact that so many people seem on a mission to debunk these movies is a testament to the validity of the messages contained in them.
    Also,these films not only critique the current system,but they offer solutions. Kudos again to Peter Joseph.
    The current system we have is based on fear and hierachies,and in my opinion is long overdue for an "Overhaul"----and these Zeitgeist movies are a good start.

  • jezza

    peter should become a politician and create a fall of the monetary system, then eventually the party he involves in:)

  • Doobee wah

    Definitely some good things in his message to ponder. In a world filled with shallowness and greed, at least he is a deep thinker and has respect for our planet. Gotta give him credit for that!

  • azilda

    @silkop
    just for curiosity i went back to Zeitgeist:Moving Forward to see what you had to say about the film...out of 306 comments, not one from you! Hum! Have you even seen the movie? I have the impression that if you did you would have commented at least once your strong disagreement.
    az

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    to simply say "get rid of money" is not a solution or a new idea. it has been tried several times, each leading to starvation and the mis-allocation of resources. no central planner (even computers) can accurately reflect the needs of millions of people, hence the need for currency and prices. economics is not made up, it is a science to describe the allocation of resources and flow of goods between individuals.

    either way, will the Zm enforce their "no money" rules? will I get kidnapped for trading? can I call anything mine.. or I guess no one owns anything so its nobody's stuff, just grab and take whatever you like and do what you want with it? surely there must be some oversight (dictatorship) or else how do you stop thousands of people from "taking" things as they see fit and not according to "everyone's needs" or the central plan.

    I think humans are generally kind and want to help each other, but to propose that no one own anything or can trade for personal gain, living according to some "supercomputer" is to reject human nature and self ownership. not the scientific method at all.. if you want a scientifically based society, first accept the science of economics and recognize that people respond to incentives and markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources.

  • Anthony

    @silkop

    Actually they didn't grow up as you say it, they where just out gunned. That's the irony of things like this its all just hot air. ultimately changing society involves confronting the institutionalised power system and the only way that has ever been carried out is through direct action.

    Today that is not possible since the state has incredibly technically complex weapon systems.

    I don't like this guy either he just sounds like your average cultist loon.

    I disagree with you though, they genuinely tried to look for a new direction back then. But they didn't change their minds as you say, they just lost.

    What then happened was that people tried to condition themselves back into society through various popular movements, ultimately ending back where they started; with capitalism. That's the funny part.

  • 1perspective

    try thinking outside of the existing paradigm guys, if everyone has access then it surely wont matter who own`s anything.

  • iudwmtdu

    "I seriously hope all the things i talk about are erroneous and false" - Peter Joseph....about 5 minutes from the end of this film. Criticising a guy that hopes he is wrong, Well....it's a bit silly really.

  • Atabey

    This documentary is an excellent presentation of a young man who is responsible and a fighter for a possible world. May our times experience more people tuning in into the defense of our only Home: EARTH! Thanks for this doc.

  • Aron

    He's on point with a lot of what he has to say, and I do value his work and efforts. I have to say though, a little humility would go a long way. It's good practice to incorporate into your message an acknowledgment of your own biases. And the point he makes about opting not to have children in such a flawed environment makes it apparent that he either hasn't experienced real and pure love, or he's too cynical to comprehend the absolute sheer f-in delight that a child can bring to your life and contribute to the world.

    Say it's your career, say it's a fear of commitment, say it's your traumatic upbringing, say it's that you simply hate kids. But to say that it's irresponsible is a cop-out and immature at best. Where would he and the Zeitgeist movement be had his parents taken the same stance? Giving life is the single most pure and rewarding contribution one can offer the world.

    Good guy, good movies, good message (for the most part), so long as everyone knows; he's just a guy with an opinion and a vision, just like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, he too will make refinements and adjustments to his beliefs as he grows old. Nobody gets it's right 100% of the time, nobody is perfect.

  • nader

    this is a beautiful man, in my eyes he is one of the best scientists allive today, I say that comfortably

  • nader

    @ aron, beautiful words, thank you

  • sahotak

    its his opinion....

  • 1perspective

    imagine no possessions it`s easy if you try.

  • Adam

    Great doc!

  • Jo aka polar jo

    I enjoyed this. Felt his passion and frustration; what I appreciate most about that is it's 'real'. I think that most of what I have seen & heard behind the 'movement' is sincere, genuine - This is not, however, about a person or the ideas of one small group (not so small anymore - mind), so any personal attacks are truly not relevant. I have to think that's a good thing. Unfortunately, I also can not see how joining Zeitgeist helps change anything. ( I heard nearly all these concepts, sharing,considering the needs of the earth first, egalitarianism - sorry it's an ism, etc. from First Nation philosophies & 10,000 + years of mostly successful experience), so I know it's doable biologically.If 'you/I/we' are already convinced that current systems do not work - then action is required. Michael Moore's films (namely Capitalism)suggests we stop buying the 'product' of multi national corporations, join locally owned coops, transfer income to local credit unions, etc. Countless other films on sustainability suggest growing our own food, farmers markets, etc.Political change starts with local politics - which any small group can impact, leading to larger focused movements... We are moving forward. We are waking up so to speak. The good ideas, and how to supports are now accessible. So 'do it' already. Then tell every body how you did it on your own blog or website ... A Zeitgeist like day may come; today it's gardens,renewable energy,electric cars,shop consciously,share more, think global and live local...(a good start I think) :)

  • whoopi goldberg

    um... so like... why is he so irritated with the system? i dont really get it cause everything's pretty great right now.

  • A-Town

    Listen to what he is saying and you will come to the realization that he contradicts himself a great bit. For instance, he talks elitism and how it is irrelevant to the field of social sciences, yet goes on to say how people in trailer parks are uneducated so that is why they make so many babies. He also preaches against fanatic belief in religion, but yet speaks of his movement with more fanaticism than I have seen in a long time. The list goes on...

    He also speaks as if all the countries in the world would be willing to adopt his model for a Utopian society. As any social science student would tell you, what is accepted in one society is not always accepted in another. Even within our own society there are so many micro cultures and counter-cultures (non-religious) that would be so against the notions of using technology in the ways that he presents.

    Its funny that he criticizes the same institutions that he once worked for. He did not seem to be to successful, so I assume it left him with a bitter taste in his mouth which motivated him to make these films which justify his lack of ability to function in current day society. Perhaps he would be in the same field if he were to have been more successful.

    I am glad to have watched this documentary as I find it shows Peter Joseph to be a fanatic, who is putting all his eggs into one oversimplified basket.

    Please be wary of people who claim to know the solutions to all societies problems... Also, have faith in the ingenuity and adaptability of the human race. We have come this far, and I think we have the ability and good will to continue on.

  • azilda

    @Aron...i also appreciate what you write.
    Although it may feel scary to put one more child in this world, it probably always did for all past generations, but that never stopped love from winning overall.
    And i also agree with the following quote:And like the rest of us, he too will make refinements and adjustments to his beliefs as he grows old. Nobody gets it’s right 100% of the time, nobody is perfect.
    At 52 i can say ...i did say a lot of stupid things in my life even though i was always pulled by a strong desire to be the best i can for the world surrounding me, specially my kids. What is important is not to have failed in certain efforts but to have tried.

    az

  • Abrahams Son

    So what's the point? This film highlights the obvious problems we face without stating the point of the survival of man. If, as he suggest God is nothing more than nature then our whole purpose to keep man and nature surviving??? So everything from the "big bang" foward has no purpose but to survice in a infinite void of meaning? Has evolution "failed" because it has created humans which are naturally self centered and cant stop our own destruction? Almost everything he says seems obvious to me but what is the purpose if our only purpose is to keep the species alive? Dont even worry about the 99% of the world's population that dont even have the luxury of pondering this theory because they are too busy surviving, or too illiterate or too hate driven to listen to anyone else. The idea that we are all going to join hands hands and create a better humanity is no more plausible than chasing the corporate greed he targets. If history tells us anything it is people are in the end self centered, even its David Joseph just trying to make himself feel better about the human condition and his role in the "great awakening" Yes I'm negative on the subject but I welcome any attempt to change my mind.

  • Abrahams Son

    If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.
    C. S. Lewis

  • Abrahams Son

    IS THE "ENDGAME" ONLY TO SURVIVE? (as my teenage daughter says "I'm just askin"

  • whoopi goldberg

    its almost like hes trying to start his own religion

  • brockhaus

    This guy is so full of himself. Also watch zeitgeist refuted.

  • silkop

    @azilda To satisfy your curiosity: I haven't watched the "Moving Forward" movie. Actually, I think I started watching it, but got disinterested. From my POV these movies fall into the conspiracy theory category. Elsewhere I commented that attempting to debunk such material is a rather fruitless struggle.

    The movies are (intentionally?) difficult to deal with in that they mix some plausible propositions, throw in some more or less relevant data, then jump to making some false assertions, draw some conclusions based upon those, add another tidbit of data, and so on. It takes great determination to sift through the claims and even greater to do it right without committing any mistakes yourself in the process and contributing to the confusion.

    It's like trying to debug a large piece of software riddled with an unknown number of interdependent bugs by previous developers; fix one and you're likely to bump into two new ones. Sometimes when confronted with such highly defective software, it is more cost-effective to make a clean start and to try a "correctness by construction" approach instead of "refactoring". Another analogy may be found in HR: if a hired employee turns out incapable, sometimes it's better to fire them quickly rather than go through the trouble of educating/training them (possibly causing offense in the progress).

    Such effort assymetries are also a known problem with pseudoscience and a "loophole" that kooks love to exploit. To advance an argument (at least toward a fairly unsophisticated audience), bombard your opponent with mass-constructed hypotheses and then shift the burden of verifying or disproving these hypotheses off your own shoulders. If you're on the receiving end, you will soon find yourself swamped doing difficult investigative work, while the attacker revels in assumed certainty.

    I believe that a better approach is either to avoid these sort of debates altogether or appeal to audience's common sense and own analytical skills by exposing some of the rhetorical techniques at play. Of course, this will be countered by your opponents pointing out that you are sidestepping the important issues, not contributing anything valuable yourself (which is a nice combo of ad hominem + exerting group pressure), etc. But in the end, we must not forget that we don't owe anyone our opinions (or vice versa), and stop before things get too confrontational or time-consuming.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Az; You do know that Cat Stevens is currently being held for his cooperation and collusion with taliban funded terrorist groups? And that he has converted into a Muslim extremist nut job? I will apply the words of the good reverend Maynard to this guy along with any other talking head, "he had allot to say. he had allot of nothin' to say". Like any good speaker with a depth of mind to back him up he manages to draw many in by offering nothing. The worlds disillusionment is the fertile soil in which he plants straw. It will grow but it will not be edible.

  • the loler

    I like this guy.

    Im not 100% sold on the venus project ideas, but I think this guy is a clever chap and Id feel much better with him in control of my country than any of the 600+ mps that currently rule over the uk.

  • Waldo

    @ Princeton

    How can you ask this: " I guess no one owns anything so its nobody’s stuff, just grab and take whatever you like and do what you want with it? surely there must be some oversight (dictatorship) or else how do you stop thousands of people from “taking” things as they see fit and not according to “everyone’s needs” or the central plan." but support anarchy? There is no oversight involved in anarchy, yet you say people will spontaneousely coordinate and be charitable and productive under that system. It seems a little hypocritical to me. You seem to think they will run wild under the zietgiest sytem of no government.

  • adi

    "humanity is going to have to be smacked around quite a bit" i would say thats an understatement reading these comments, as i believe change will only ever come out of necessity & so it remains to be seen how the whole 'fossil fuel crisis' will impact society when considering we pretty much BUILT the modern world from oil.

  • adi

    Take only that which is essential (for survivlal) & the remainder will still flourish.

  • Reasons Voice

    One hour of a narcissist verbally masturbating his own ego is not informative. He summed it up best in the last 2 minutes. The entire film, as well as the previous films, and the entire movement for that matter, is nothing but rhetoric and anti-establishment sentimentalism. Number of complaints infinite number of solutions none. Not one single proposed active solution to any of the issues raised. That is not a movement that is a crying session.

  • T!TS

    well... at least this guy tries to change something, unlike all these businessmen and corporate rats, politicians and lawyers who live off the misfortunes of others (read: silkop)

    tits out

  • Waldo

    @ Reasons Voice

    He gives solutions in his documentary, I may not agree with them but he gives them.

  • 1perspective

    it amazes me how people on here that seem so intelligent on the one hand are completely blind to these issue`s.

    it also saddens me that in our modern technologically advanced society intelligent people would rather try to discredit the guys character and intentions rather than offer any alternative solutions.

    Peter Joseph may or may not be a complete dick, (the fact that he works in advertising is not a good sign given his stance on these issue`s) but to just say these movies are to difficult to deal with and fall into the "conspiracy theory" category while also admitting not to have watched it is a complete joke.

    and the claim that Peter Joseph is "verbally masturbating his own ego" is rich coming from you guys.

    peace

  • azilda

    @Reasons Voice. The moment i sent the comment about Cat Stevens i knew i would have someone say something about his affiliation with the Muslim world. My intent was not to say i agree with Cat Stevens'life, but i saw in this a similarity of young people's potential. People go on living the way they are living even if it is miserable, even if nothing comes out of it except anguish. They continue because at least it is familiar, they have become skillfull in it and they go on sleeping....and i will add even more so if a huge amount of cash is flowing in from stardom. I sure don't know what went on in Stevens' mind while he was raised as a young man, while he composed his first songs, while he became popular and after he jumped out of the wheel, something of value was there for sure and no doubt still is.
    az

  • Reasons Voice

    @Waldo; The only solutions I have ever heard out of the movement involve ultra high tech that doesn't even work on the levels required, or just plain doesn't exist at all. It is funny how many of these types are coming out of NYC. It is true that only the wealthy and pampered have time to experiment with this stuff.
    @1perspective. When a man says "I realized that EVEN I was backwards on allot of issues" it is a pretty blatant indicator of an inflated ego. Even I? Unlike the rest of the idiot drone masses, it is a surprise for him to discover he could be wrong. Follow that up with comparing ones-self to Gandhi and Martin Luther King. You think that the person behind the message doesn't matter? Adolf Hitler made great, unifying proposals in his speeches, Jim Jones had the keys to heaven. And hell if ya take Charles Manson out of the picture who knows maybe helter skelter would be more appealing. The man behind the message is important. The guy talks so much about thinking outside the box and being original in ones perspective. And here I find the people who support his ideas getting upset when some one pokes a hole in the box he built for them. He stands on a platform that questioning everything is the ultimate achievement, but question him and his movement and you must be an idiot.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Az. You are very right and I apologize for my tone in the last response to you. Yes there is a great wealth in the untapped ideas of young men and women. However it is not just becoming jaded that alters those perceptions. Often it is just simply growing up and realizing they were wrong. Not always but much of the time that is the case. New ideas are great and they lead to progress, however it is folly not to temper them with the wisdom of experience.

  • azilda

    @Silkop
    In a way you did exactly what he did except your participation required less effort. You posted Your opinion and got people to agree and disagree with you. Your opinion has touched 82 people (or comments) so far, his... millions of people. And out of those millions, i would guess that at least a million or two of them needed to have a "first" window open about something that was said.
    Let things be that you have not created, enjoy whatever becomes available. If you see knowledge, enjoy it-- if you see failure enjoy it--because failure brings knowledge that no given knowledge would have brought. And if you want to destroy an idea, become aware entirely of the idea before you try to destroy the man from which the idea came from...the mind of this man you will never know.
    All bright parades have a beginning and an end.
    I asked: "what good if any did you get from the film Zeitgeist Moving Forward?" i am still waiting.
    az

  • 1perspective

    @Reasons Voice

    i do not support his ideas, i support all forward thinking ideas and feel they should be discussed.

    i concede that the man behind the message is important particularly in this case given the title of the doc is Who is Peter Joseph? i seem to have got muddled between this and the moving forward thread. you do seem though more interested in comparing him to Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones, and Charles Manson than you do to being open to discussing his idea`s.

    what you view in young people as a need to grow up i view in older people as a need to be open to new idea`s.

    you view his idea`s as unrealistic.
    i view staying with the status quo as equally unrealistic.

    peace

  • Reasons Voice

    @1perspective; You take me wrong if you think my concern is thecomparison. I wasn't even really making the comparison so much as offering justification for looking at the man behind the ideas. In my perspective, the ideals of twenty and thiirty somethings of todays world are often about as realistic as a childs. We are just as likely to find an orchard of lollipop trees and gingerbread houses as we are to experiance some sort of global agreement. Just to pick one of the foundational issues he mentions, religion will not be done away with by any means short of force. Extreme force at that. Yet to acheive this global unification of ideal religion must either be done away with or subdued, as it divides the people imensely. Do you believe for one second that any of the extreme religious people of the world are going to put their beliefs asside any time soon? It is my stance that this ideal comes from an assumption that life is supposed to be fair and easy. That is not true life is not fair nor easy. Not just for us humans but for every living thing on earth. Life is a struggle filled with sadness and loss, sickness and death, but also triumph and joy. For a young man like this who by his own admission has failed time and again in his endevors in life. I can understand his mentality of disappointment and disilusionment but again that is a luxury of the young. At some point ya just have to grow up and understand that there was never any garontee that you would grow up to be an astronaut rock-star doctor.

  • dan26

    he is right and help is needed!!! you can discuss what Peter wants and what would be better and so on..... but the answer is in front of us all the time. What are all the prophets, wise man, sons of gods saying to us? In the past and more then ever today we are faced with a choice.... To live for yourself and do everything necessary to survive or to cooperate with others and live to help others! Live to help others..... The most advanced being on our planet are humans and that is possible because about 50 trillion cells are working together to form this amazing body. 50 trillion!!! So what is the next big thing in evolution think what is 8 billion people as one!!
    You may say that I'm a dreamer
    But I'm not the only one
    I hope someday you'll join us
    And the world will live as one. J.L.

  • azilda

    @Silktop
    Ok so you won't watch the movie and comment on any thing good coming from it.

    Here i quote you from above: "Now comes the crucial point in personal development – you are at a dangerous stage where you think you “got it”. If you stop learning and start constructing new ideas now, you’re likely to reinforce your negative approach, fall in love with yourself and come up with inferior, simpleton solutions"

    Here i quote you from Dangerous Knowledge: "When I posted the above comment, I was unaware that Poincaré and Gauss essentially stood by my intuitive interpretation of infinity, as did Wittgenstein later on. Having informed myself, I’m even more confident that Cantor’s treatment of “infinite sets” is ******** and that it’s not ME who is a looney having trouble to accept the obvious. How reassuring."

    Here i quote what someone thought of your comment:"silkop – you sound like a second year student in some vaguely related discipline. Very pretentious and very shallow. Read more, think harder and type less."

    As i wrote earlier, we post opinion, we make films or discoveries, some spending years or even life time trying to share the inner voice. Although none of us are really religious, all of us are spiritual, becuase none of us can shut the words that are rolling in our mind indefinitally.

    Someone said:" The mind has an infinite capacity to know the world becuase the mind created it".

    I say: A world so ready to see the worst and so slow to accept the best. One day there will be a "stand down", a comedy scrawl where humanity finally becomes proud of laughing at one self.

    In the future Quantum may become labelled as a religion, people will say i am Quantum. Quantum Physic, a science half religion, a religion half science, a merging or a re-legion which is growing faster then muslem, buddhism, catholic or any other religions from the past. This may be because it is the first to rest upon the biggest thinkers of our time, the scientist.
    By the way i think you have a lot of knowledge, share the best of it! I have enjoyed many of your past comments.

  • azilda

    This year there is 1/1/11, 11/1/11, 1/11/11, 11/11/11 and if you add the last two numbers of your birth year and the age you will be this year it will amount to 111 like every one else on this planet!
    Mine is on March 13th...Named Zeitgeist Day or ZDAY where there will be events all over the world, on every continent. Now agree with this mouvement or not, it is a good opportunity to participate in YOUR magical way to change the world, at least your world! and prove that you can do better than this guy... if not do it with him...contribute!
    az

  • 1perspective

    @Reasons Voice

    you say "the ideals of twenty and thiirty somethings of todays world are often about as realistic as a childs".

    i could say the ideals of fifty and sixty somthings of todays world are outdated and as realistic as a cavemans.

    you say " We are just as likely to find an orchard of lollipop trees and gingerbread houses as we are to experiance some sort of global agreement".

    i could say We are just as likely to find an orchard of lollipop trees and gingerbread houses as we are to survive as a species if we dont find a suitable global agreement.

    i am not religious but i dont think that anyones religious views should be "done away with or subdued". on the contrary i believe that its the manipulation of religions by the systems of society that we live in that are the problem.

    i think that we should create communities where peoples beliefs and cultures are respected and before you say i`m living in cloud cuckoo land and it cant be done, i agree it cant be done within the existing system which is why i advocate a radical reform of the entire global system. weather or not that is a resource based system without money is debatable but somethings got to happen i think all rational thinking humans can agree on that.

    i`m not saying Peter joseph has got all the answers i`m just happy to see there are people thinking beyond the parameters of the existing paradigm. weather those people are young or old is irrelevant.

    you say "It is my stance that this ideal comes from an assumption that life is supposed to be fair and easy".

    while i agree that it is unrealistic to assume that life is supposed to be fair and easy it is also unrealistic to assume it to be childish to believe we can make our lives fairer and easier.

    you say " At some point ya just have to grow up and understand that there was never any garontee that you would grow up to be an astronaut rock-star doctor".

    i dont think anyone is really expecting a guarantee to be an
    astronaut rock-star doctor.

    people would be happy with a guarantee that we will do all we
    can do together for a fairer easier more pleasant world for ourselves our children and our grandchildren ect...

    @everyone

    stop taking for granted that things are the way they are because they have to be and realise that things are this way because the people with the most influence want them to be this way.

    future historians will look back at this era as the oil age and the age of greed and by then the paradigm WILL be different so stop believing those that say it cannot change because sooner or later things WILL and there`s no reason it cannot be sooner.

    peace

  • Reasons Voice

    Yea the world today is destructive, and yes if we keep on this way we will ensure our own demise. Honestly though I am of a mind to say so be it. I am one human being that is honest enough with myself to admit that there is no reason our species should have a guarantee of unlimited perpetuity. If we go extinct we will only be joining millions of other species as well as our developmental ancestors. Are we really that special?
    As to the issues I mentioned above. It is all well and good to want these things but none of it will happen without massive bloodshed. Religious bodies are not all corrupt nor are governments, however when you actively try to cull the troublemakers from those herds you will inevitably end up with stampedes.

  • 1perspective

    so if i`m hearing you right your saying because change for the better is difficult we should not even attempt it.

    come on man you talk about the world view of the younger generation as being childish and unrealistic but give me that any day over your "grown up" defeatist mentality.

    you talk about actively trying to cull the troublemakers from the herds. have you really been conditioned over the years to view human life in terms of cattle? do you have children? do you view them as nothing but cattle? or is it only a view that is held for those that will not conform to your religious or cultural ideals?

    like i said before i dont necessarily agree with Peter Joseph and his ideals. in fact i feel a major part of the problem in the world today (other than the fact we live in a greed based capitalist economy) is that particularly in the "developed" world we have taken it upon ourselves to push our ideals on the rest of the planet weather they like it or not.

    i dont have the answers unfortunately but that dosent mean there arent any solutions. in my opinion it would make a lot more sense to have more intelligent people of all ages and all cultures with fresh ideas to have a forum where they are encouraged to express and discuss those ideas.

    there is to much self righteousness around today we all think we know how others need to be but we are rarely ever actually really listening to each other.

  • 1perspective

    peace

  • Reasons Voice

    @1perspective; That was a figure of speech that is often used an holds no connotation of my view of people. You may consider my attitude to be defeatist but to me it is not. I can only look out for myself in this world. I do my best to live a clean selfless life. I have little need of what is considered materialist goods. I work hard, I enjoy life, and after a lifetime of attempting to help others and watching them trample my efforts under their feat, I have gotten over it. If you build a beautiful new building with spacious apartments in the worst part of town. Then you rent those places out to the locals at a rate that they can afford, what you will have in one year is a nice building with holes in the walls broken windows and trash everywhere. You call me defeatist, I call myself bored with peoples refusal to improve themselves. That is why I worry about me and only me. I once had a bleeding heart too, but once I realized that all that did was make me weak from blood loss, I patched the hole and moved on.

  • Dreadragon

    The one thing that seems to be missing from the entire notion of a 'resource based economy' is where to start.

    I haven't read through all the comments here, but if nobody has mentioned the existence of a series of books from Russia known as "The Ringing Cedars of Russia", then I guess I was meant to post here today. I was guided to these books after a near-death experience and what is strange about this is I typically HATE reading (or used to anyway). The main 'character' of these books is a Woman who lives in the middle of the Siberian Tiaga, yet knows every single thing that is happening and ever has happened not only on Earth but the entire Universe! And she affirms that every person on the planet is completely capable of doing the same if ONLY we were to return to our 'pristine' state of living in harmony with nature.

    Within these books are DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS for how Man can do this right where they are right now simply by starting to GROW OUR OWN FOOD! The recreation and CO-CREATION of the 'garden of Eden' can be accomplished by simply sharing our biological information with the foods we eat so they can finally learn again exactly what it's feeding! The way we currently eat, from monocrop farms with no connection not only to Man, but with the rest of it's surrounding environment, our food has become 'generic' at best which has resulted in our need to 'supplement' our diets with even more generic 'best guess' quantities of vitamins, minerals, etc, etc, in attempts to recreate what millions of years of evolution already has 'built in' for us already!

    Start composting local foliage, start using composting toilets to add into the mix, start planting seeds by germinating them in your own saliva, walk barefoot in the soil you plant stuff in, start watering them with natural rainwater that you have bathed in (without detergents), and the next thing you know, you;ll have food that automatically begins to heal every ailment that has been caused simply by the lack of this 'circle of life' (as cliche' as that sounds).

    I can't possibly do these books justice in one post, but I PLEAD to everyone out there to find the first book "Anastasia" by Vladimir Megre' and read for yourself how we can turn the entire course of the planet around in a single growing season!

    Be well! For a change!

    Brian

  • Dreadragon

    I forgot to add the request for notification of follow-ups, so to fill some space, allow me drop another useful name in this regard: Dr. Leonid Sharashkin, the English language editor of the Ringing Cedars books and a tireless promoter of the permaculture gardening movement. I have attended one of his seminars and can tell you this man is not doing this for the money, he is WALKING THE WALK himself and has been an absolute priceless resource for placing Anastasia's claims into the scientific perspective and making countless invaluable suggestions for creating gardens in urban environments as well as RIGHT INSIDE HOMES AND APARTMENTS!

    I especially love the 'tire tater' idea that I incorporated into the community garden located in an empty city-owned lot adjacent to my home (this will be it's 3rd season and stuff is already beginning to pop up on it's own all over the place).

    I do hope I've made a good impression and not come across as some hippie-commie wacko-dude, I actually used to be a highly skilled electronic/computer engineer but came to the very same conclusions as Peter Joseph, apparently right about the same time! I'm ow retired/disabled on VA and Social Security disability, but I'm putting it all into community endeavors to try to 'walk the walk' myself, so this is not just 'empty preaching' here!

    We have a lot to relearn, but the feeling while doing it is absolutely exhilarating and I invite everyone to share that unequaled joy once again, it really is the one TRUE remaining freedom we have left that cannot be (yet) taken from us!

    Brian

  • azilda

    @dreadragon
    I would suggest to not start the Ringing Cedar series with #1 or you may not go on to read the rest of the series. Mégré goes on explaining in #1 that he had no writing experience what so ever and it shows. I have only read two of these books #1 and #8.2, this one was very interesting and obviously either written with help or he picked up new skills along the way. But i agree there seemed to be a lot of great knowledge, i remember the part about gardening and how to plant seedlings, spring is coming...thanks for reminding me.
    Both of these books landed in my hands at very peculiar time, specially the second one. Strange that i had forgotten about those books since.
    az

  • Dreadragon

    I have read all nine and the 'scruffiness' of the first book only adds credibility to the whole story as being legitimate! Think about that for a moment... if he waas doing it strictly for monetary purposes, wouldn't you think he'd do his best work right off the bat?

    Besides, without the first book, (especially chapter 11), you wouldn't get the gardening instructions and bee hive construction directions, and you don't get the lead in on how Anastasia came to bear Vladimir's first son (who should be coming of age to continue the legacy about now btw)...

    FAN-FREAKING-TASTIC that the very first responder after me is familiar with the books!!!

    My heat is skipping beats... I bet Anastasia herself is doing somersaults! LOL

    Brian

  • Dreadragon

    The beauty of the Ringing Cedars books is also in the way that ALL religions are brought into the fold in a way that expresses the common, good portions and affirmations of the existence of their respective prophets and various VALID contributors while exposing how the religions themselves were developed out of the desire to 'force' a creator to reveal true form to our fragile physical selves...

    I get the sense though that whoever came up with that 'plan' may not have taken into account the possibility that our creator may be made up of complex modulation patterns in a big ball of GAMMA RAYS!! (whoopsie!)

    Speaking of whoopsies... did I actually see whoopie goldberg posting here? Hi girlfriend! };^D>

    (don't really know her in person, but now I feel like do!)

    Brian

  • Dreadragon

    ack! My shot at making an impression and I misspelled her name!

    Just thought I'd mention that as immediately after my comment went through about Anastasia doing somersaults, my entire house had a momentary brown-out! WhoooOOOOoooo!

    Seriously though... Ringing Cedars, read them... find them in the library if you can, but apparently they have become the number one most stolen library book...

    I'm in the process of scanning the whole first book in digital format to share, somehow I doubt she would protest though since SHE DOESN'T USE MONEY!!!

    I would also like ya'll to know that I'm on the verge of completing my prototype for my wind bottler invention that basically captures the power of wind directly to compressed air for use as a free, clean and endless energy supply... and I'm giving the designs away for free. But if you want to get started now, just build yourself a big carousel in your yard, gang the rotation to a compressor head and send your kids out to charge some tanks up! When they get tired, just attach a few vertical turbine blades to it or dangle a carrot in front of a goat tethered to it or something... honestly folks, it's gonna be THAT simple... especially when we just start running air hoses between houses and tell the power company to };^p~ pbbbbbth!

    Brian

  • azilda

    Dreadragon...if you read my comment again...i say:I would suggest that you do not start the Ringing Cedar series with #1 ...i did not say: do not read it! I was very bothered by Mégré's attitude described by himself in the first book. As i wrote: #8.2 was much more interesting and also written with the benefit of obvious lessons from his past mistakes.
    If the other books were to land in my hands i would read them but the series is a bit expensive. If those books want to have a farther reaching audience they should be offered in cheap paperback. She may not use money but the books are still 16.00us each and that is 9 books. How about condensing them all in one and selling it for 29.00US?
    I know money is not the subject you are trying to communicate here, i myself use very little too.
    az

  • Dreadragon

    My apologies azilda for the generic, unpersonalized response but your post did not appear here when I navigated from my e-mail notification with your post, so I felt I should add some context for elaboration.

    I also don't want to appear as a liar about this being my first attempt to push this info, I have made one other brie post on this site in response to the "Moving Forward" documentary, but 'technically' it's still the same motivation, it just got 'reaffirmed' when I found this interview that finally put a 'face' to the Zeitgeist films for me (which by the way were presented to me much in the same manner as well as at the same time as the Ringing Cedars books.

    I would also like to mention that I am currently engaged in a 'theocracy battle' with my own Mom over these books. She is the one whom I wholeheartedly believe saved my life after being inflicted with Lysterial Meningits back in fall of '07 when all the doctors had written me off. She has painstakenly taken up Bible study through the Shepherd's Chapel ministries over the past couple of decades and has found the healing power of anointment which I personally witnessed on more than one occasion prior to my own deadly affliction, and in one extremely brief moment of lucidity at what everyone assumed was 'the end' for me, (and the memory is now overwhelming me in tears of joy as I type this!)my Mom was able to reach me 'somehow' and get me to utter those critical words "I accept" after literally screaming at me to remind me how I KNEW how it worked and I had to give myself over to Christ and trust that I would be taken care of.

    3 days later I just woke up hungry and thirsty and not one single person in that ward doubted for a second they had witnessed a miracle at work.

    Whew... anyway... she's quite upset with me right now for suggesting she read these books, even though she fully supports my work with the gardens, and yet, she has fallen hook, line and sinker for the religious conservative, Islamic-hating agenda even though she DESPISES the lies that are taught in the church environments... in fact I just wrote a very difficult letter to her just today (gently) pointing out her hypocrisy.. so THIS is how strongly I believe the messages in these books... I'm willing to upset MY OWN MOTHER WHO SAVED MY LIFE for this!

    I'm bogarting this comment section, I truly do apologize... but when the spirit moves me, I've learned I HAVE NO CHOICE but to see it through. Thanks for reading if indeed you have been...

    Brian

  • azilda

    @Dreadragon...no sweat...i have myself experienced the unexplainable once or twice...see my long comment in Invisible Worlds...might sound far fetched to many but to me i had no doubts i connected and why not...the Black Hole of the eyes is where it's at!
    az

  • Dreadragon

    Speaking of unexplainable, it's downright freaky sometimes how my life seems to parallel that of Monty Python's "Life of Brian"!

    "You don't NEED a messiah telling you what to do, just think for yourselves!" LOL

    And as it turns out, it really is the case... we've been fed so much FEAR of nature, we can't fathom being able to just 'exist' along side of it any more. OF COURSE there's going to be hardships and confusion and 'gasp' deaths, but how is that any different from what we're living now other than the fact that some other entity is doing the steering for us most of the time without out us really even realizing it any more? And where has it all gotten us? Look at the rates of cancer and birth defects and obesity and everything else as compared to say... the Amish or the Amazonian natives, or the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert... sure they may not have iphones, but look how quickly we get bored with all that stuff anyway in favor of something shinier or more gadgetagious!

    Something creeps the hell out of me personally is this notion of self-aware, self-replicating nano-bots hat we can't even see! ... I'm almost 47 now and I've worked with stuff from vacuum tube level and watched in disappointment while the discrete, elegant, 'that part does this, this part does that' assuredness of purpose has 'morphed' into these little, multilegged creepy-crawly looking 'magical' multitaskers that I've learned are EXTREMELY sensitive to the slightest static discharge that completely wipes out ALL functionality... at least in the old days, you'd only lose the sound, or the green dots, or the knob would break and you'd have to use a needle-nose pliers to change the channel... but it still did SOMETHING at least!

    And then you could simply pull the tubes out and head to the local pharmacy (of all places) do the tests yourself, discover the faulty tube, purchase and replace it and actually LEARN which area of your set does what...

    Rambling again, sorry... I just have this lousy 'foreboding' feeling about the upcoming galactic alignment and the PREDICTABILITY that we're probably going to experience some pretty gnarly electromagnetic/static interferences that our consumer electronics industry just never took into consideration and it doesn't take a 'genius' to imagine the chaos that would ensue if every semiconductor barrier region on the planet suddenly and permanently 'bridged' (nerd-speak for permanent bye-bye to everything whimpier than a vacuum tube).

    Ok, I'm dome spreading dread for the day... sleep tight everyone! };^D>

    Brian

  • migrantworker

    No matter what this guy says, his intellecual snobbery makes me want to kick him in the junk.
    Worst kind of liberal ever, the kind that hurts the movements he professes to support by arrogantly ignoring pragmatism and practicality.
    Thanks buddy for being another douche telling the world how things ought to be and how we are not getting there because we are obviously not as smart as you... C'mon can't we see that this guy is that guy we all know who uses big words to sound smart?
    Now we have yet another buzz-word for intellectual snobs to throw around.
    Gonna make a video of me smacking this guy around... gonna make a fortune with it and donate it to his favorite charities.

  • sonny corbi

    to migrantworker: There is a lot of truth in what you say. This young man reminds me of myself at his age. I am in the top 2%, in sales, (i am now 69yrs, young)Two things i would like to pass on to this young man: 1. a quick articulate mind doesn't mean there is anything in there or the right thing to begin with and 2. Tell us something we don't know! The system we live under evolved over many many years. It has provided us with a good life and yes it is a depleting system But Peter would you be so kind, all knowing and the in lighten one, How do we change the system with out making a ripple in the pond?

  • migrantworker

    Sonny,
    Huzzah Sir!
    We would all be better served if by a matter of due coarse the same scruteny we apply to others be applied on oneself.
    I'll hold him down, you smack him. We can both profit and donate to worthy causes.

  • migrantworker

    We should get Alex Jones and Peter Joseph in a no rules cage fight. Proceeds go to the needy and homeless.

  • Dreadragon

    I wish to send thanks to the moderator of these responses for allowing my posts to be read. I realize the potential danger involved in the wide exposure of the Silent Weapons document to this extremely important and informative site, and apologize in advance if something happens as a result of this brave move.

    It is telling how the comments that have appeared after my own have been reduced to a level of a group of slack-jawed yokels gearing up to inflict physical harm on the subject of this doc because he's 'intellectual'. They fail to realize that all they are doing in reinforcing all messages delivered throughout all the Zeitgeist-related documentaries (as well as Kymatica as a bit of a 'plug').

    It becomes pretty easy to tell which people have been 'poisoned' by the ingestion of nothing but government-controlled food and water supplies... I am forever grateful for growing up in a region that valued such institutions as cooperative extensions and 4-H clubs that embraced the importance of teaching self-sustainability, they truly have contributed to the 'hard-wiring' of my thinking even throughout my success in the technocratic environment.

    The answers are all in the soil and in re-educating the new generation to respect it and use it to it's full potential instead of enslaving it in the way industrial farming has attempted to do to it AND US.

    Brian

  • kurt

    All you guys who got lost in details criticizing Peter Joseph and all you guys who do this terrible typical human thing of trying to defend their world view because changing it might hurt... you are the reason why humans fail.

    I don't even care if he is right in every single thing he says. The main points he makes are valid and the human society will hit a wall rather sooner than later.

    Writing this here is pretty much a waste of time because you guys will start understanding when its too late and even then some of you will be in denial.

  • http://Tdfdoc Wes Semrok

    Thanks for making this film! I love to bounce ideas off others and this film is an inspirational film in that aspect. The present is for those that will seize it!!

  • Karenwasherefirst

    Just share and give up the attitude that you deserve all these things-people are so selfish.

  • tug1

    No, you're the smart one, migrantworker! You are!

  • http://www.facebook.com/KIRAsMiSAMiSA Misa Amane

    I fcking agree.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Smith-Donaldson/1104380162 Smith Donaldson

    Guy will be great when he grows up.

  • Nowheretohide

    Thank God we have some people that are actually awake and can see the outrageously insane premise the system we have all bought into...hook, line and sinker...is. The reason it requires such tremendous courage to step out there and tell it like it is, is because the vast majority of people are incapable of thinking for themselves.

  • rawkidd

    He's right at some points, but I can see a very frustrated man as well here.

  • http://profiles.google.com/physexecsec Allison Hunt

    B-o-r-i-n-g.

  • Equalto

    So is quantum mechanics to a 6 year old. Get educated and keep up and this stuff seems easy. This message i'm typing is more towards everyone who responds similar to you and not directly to you as an individual person alone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lawrence.coq Laurent Marie Coq

    I am outraged by anyone calling P.J. a liar.
    Who cares if he has distorted truths? What do you make of (for the latest) 30 decades of lies, abuses and manipulations from the Bush-Clinton’s Clan?
    These united families have doomed the planet to a point of no return.

    That said, P.J. should be awarded a Nobel Prize for his 3 landmarks.

    Whatever you like it or not, he has done what you never had the education to do, what you never had the discipline to do, what you never had the care to do!

  • http://profiles.google.com/maka9210 Karsten Karstensen

    Nothing new under the sun. This guy only understands from a bird perspective (perhaps 'higher' than most) but that's still not enough. He needs more natural history lessons.

    Also, cut-n-paste videos aren't really that hard to do, esp. if you only care about your agenda and not turth.

    Also, his lies outweight his truths.
    9/11-truthers should never claim to understand anything.
    Just sayin'

  • bb

    watch his docs then reconsider your definition of "prosper"

  • http://profiles.google.com/extanttribe Neander Thal

    You're saying essentially that he's right, but that these things are not new (implying we should only value relaying information that is totally unequivocally new, i.e. the double-slit experiment) but he needs to study the natural world, and shouldn't be listened to because of past assumptions he had on a terrorist attack.

    Theres nothing really in your comment that detracts from the fact that he is, actually, saying some extremely important and necessary things, and pretty damn well I might add. He's actually a very articulate and effective communicator, an avid reader, and extremely sincere.

    Frankly, anyone saying he lacks studying needs to be more specific, since he is quite well studied in a lot of topics. And anyone saying he lacks substance, as I saw in one comment, is just downright disingenuous. Such comments are better dished out for Donald Trump, not this man.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Kukowski/100001515201862 Matt Kukowski

    His presentation does put off a lot of people. His attitude is comical. Frustrated beyond belief. But, that is how he is. What the REAL challenge is ( at least for me ) is to ALWAYS listen to what is said, regardless of presentation. Going EMO ( how he does ) is as I say, comical to me. But, he is VERY influencial to the younger crowd for this very reason. If the idea is to spread Science and Understanding to the dumb high school kids then more power to him! Personally, I like P.J. but I can see how he can be labeled as Emotionally charged and somewhat frustrated.

    What I do is study all types of intellectuals. Alan Watts, Terence McKenna, Einstein, Feynman and anyone else frankly. Determine my own views and mix it all together... You should NEVER take the word from a single authority. Variety is the answer.

    So, like this web site... amazing with loads of information. Take it ALL in and make it your own. We are all able to determine our beliefs for our selves.

    What P.J. is saying about our relationship to the Earth is probably the most important. Whether we live in balance with Nature by going back to the Jungles ( which is probably impossible at this point ) or learn to live in Nature and still be sustainable is VERY fun to think about.

    Science helps A LOT. But, blind dry science without regard towards the spirit and love and intelligence can be a dull science.

    Blah blah.. :P

  • http://twitter.com/RukgrafxNYC Eben Lugo

    Open your minds. Don't be sheep and be part of the problem, but part of the solution. Many of the views in Zeitgeist are plainly obvious if you just open your eyes.

  • avd420

    So if you're not with Zeitgeist you are a sheep and part of the problem? That statement screams "CULT!"

  • abdulwalee

    I knew it... Atheist! Why do most of these types almost never believe in the exsistance of the Creator and the Creator is not Jesus nor Moses but The One Who created you is deserving of Worship and yet just because some don't practice it doesn't mean Allah doesn't control the earth. You're wrong about Islam and yet become a tool for Shaytaan(The Devil)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1002456105 Carl Jodoin

    You are the exact kind of muslim beleiver that piss americans. You are not worthy of any recognition or accomodation. I am an atheist ( I know you KNEW!), and i personnaly don't have any wrong feelings about religious people (whatever the religion). But you show signs of blind faith, which i strongly disapprove. Its sad for your religion to have such bad representers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1002456105 Carl Jodoin

    AND. Lets just say an atheist will be good by willingness of heart while people who fear ''Shaytaan'' will always have this in the back of their mind while walking straight.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

    lol

  • Guest

    Whatever Zeitgeist mentions in all its documentaries is quiet well known or people all are aware of it(nothing new). People Know that the Problem is Practice Not Principles. People know that the rich always have a way to sneak out of law, save themselves. People know that even they can buy law at a price it is available out there. People know that the principles(whether Religious or State Laws) that they follow are so falsely interpreted and being used for the convenience of the few elite.
    But People too know or they are not confident enough to take the Zeitgeist Solution - Because simply it is not promising enough(although you make it sound quiet robust & strong). Because in the heart of the heart the code says the Solution is Simpler Not such complicated called as Resource Base Economy or whatever things you add on to this movement.

    What I say is a strong criticism of Zeitgeist, all I truly wish is Zeitgeist to come out and cause the revolution it claims to be...I truly wish that you gain some very long life...especially Jack Fresco (sorry if the spelling of the name is wrong) the Venus Project guy...so that we can test Zeitgeist on the Blade of Time...
    My doubt is very simple: Man is such a mystery, I very much doubt if it will stick or subscribe to this system of Resource Based Economy, because Man the constant wanderer has hopped from one state to another...and as I feel by the under current in the Zeitgeist movement - This movement is scared to the core by this demon called religions..and why not? it must be because this demon has cast such a spell on Mankind and some how with all its follies held mankind together it seems very difficult to Zeitgeist to TRULY COME FORWARD or as the movement says: Moving Forward!

    The Next Challenge for Zeitgeist is to do some Prequels, especially something that relates to Decoding God, Decoding Religions(beat them on their own grounds), Decoding Politics and the favorite part of Zeitgeist to Show How & Why money came into Existence, What Money helped in What money destroyed...this would truly give some value to Zeitgeist ..if not.

    Zeitgeist will remain for People: Empty Vessel That is Making a Lot of Sound!!!

  • Guest

    A System(Resource Based Economy) of morality which is based on relative emotional(so called Religions / Zeitgeist Movement) values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.

    Socrates

    He is a man(any revolutionist including zeitgeist people if they are) of courage who does not run away(scared of dying for the truth they stand for, hiding behind funny notions like revelation of one's last name...Oooh..Aaah), but remains at his post and fights against the enemy(just like the man who quoted this) - Socrates
    History is replete with men who stood for their truth and hence they still survive by their teaching whether Religious or irreligious(freedom fighters for their land or for their race or Revolutionist who revolted against their oppressors)... They did not sit on their as**s(I mean donkeys) and wrote books or rather in today's world made documentaries they walk the talk...

    What are the Zeitgeist people waiting for: "Like someone will come handover the keys of the world to them & ask them or rather request them: Please Lords of the Spirit of Zeitgeist, please help us survive with your Resource Based...whatever!!...
    Grow up - For Zeitgeist sake at least...Go and Fight For Your Truth.
    Men of Action are required to run the world...Not Men of words

    One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics(current world politics) is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato

    So Zeitgeist people get into the gutters of today's world(whether Politics, religion, economics or whatever) to clean them...
    Dont sit on the shores and wait for the currents to calm down...

    The measure of a man is what he does with power(knowledge = power).

    Plato
    So that you think that you have the true knowledge of the mechanism of the world or nature(whatever you call it) then come out and show the people how it must work...then let the world decide or measure what the true worth you are!

    You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.Plato
    The world waits when the Zeitgeist Idea will actually play(show us what Zeitgeist has done progress in action till date?(of course except the video & driving people astray )...So enough of Talks lets Fight(Kung Fu Panda)

  • Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

    I disagree with you that man will never accept a resource-based economy since we always do what is necessary to survive, and also that religion (I speak of Christianity in particular) has somehow "held Mankind together." Seems to me it has really only torn us apart. Just look at "A History of Christianity" here on topdocumentaryfilms.

    Freaking brilliant website by the way. I log on almost every single day!

  • Jayjay30

    Thank you for bring to my attention to theology , I'm inspired to do my own research.

  • Jayjay30

    Thank you for bring to my attention to theology , I'm inspired to do my own research.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LXWTNAWB4R2XKJMJXYZHQ6AXNU Drew

    allah/god is only a voice inside your empty head and now you are asking this voice to show you the way, defination of insanity..

  • Thomas Rojas

    from what i understand, in the socialism that was implemented in the Soviet union, karl marx also had the assumption that resource was infinite. The so called "computers" they used back then also were created to calculate on the basis of infinite resource. Technology is growing exponentially. This is the means to solve problems. Engineering>>>legislation.

    A resource based economy understands the foundation and upward that the decisions made will be based largely on availability and renewability aided by the scientific method to make decisions that i personally would not trust a sanctioned gov't to make.

    My question to you is why dont you think their is not another option besides socialism, communism, fascism and all the "tested" systems. At one point they were untested. EVEN the Democracy was untested at one point. What i can say for sure is that NONE of those "TESTED" systems has ever worked and never will.

    Why not try something new?

  • quimbys

    Mr. Rojas,

    I think that your comment, "from what I understand" is the key that answers your own question. My advice is to do the work: Watch Pandora's Box, the documentary I cited below and then tell me how you think Zeitgeisters won't have the same problems as the planners of the Soviet Union did. I guess I am trying to say that the Zeitgeist plan, despite what they always claim, does not appear to be any different than what was tried in the Soviet Union. Therefore I am trying to say that the Zeitgeist vision of the future has been tested and has failed. I do have to continue to agree that the Zeitgeist vision of the future is appealing, as are many other fairy tales, but until there is some proof of concept, I am going to have to say that is sounds like the Soviet Union.

    As for your comment that other systems were at one point untested is only true to a point. Each system you name above, was tested in small scale societies, city states, or utopian collectives long before they were taken to the scale of governing a whole nation or the whole world. Research this point and you will find out that this true.

    Finally I have to agree with you that those other systems have also failed and so I, like you, am looking for an alternative. I believe after you do more research you will see how similar the Zeitgeist proposal is to 1960s Soviet-style communism, despite the appealing Zeitgeist packaging.

    Good luck and all the best,

    Quimby

  • mwhist

    Why do u say its like but don't show how they r alike ur talking quimbys proves nothing. U also forgot that the fundamental point of zeitgeist movement and such can not even start to be experimented till the global monetary system ceases to exist. Soviet Union wasn't socialism it was just state capitalism as such it had banks, prisons, a monetary system inefficient use of technology and so much more that can't even allow it to be compared to zeitgeist and venus project. If u use our technology to its fullest without profits and shortcuts and such we would have an abundance not and i repeat an infinite supply of all things but with the correct use we can come close to keep some things on an equilibrium. And i am not saying we aren't scarce of everything but don't bring up theoretical possibilities that only trolls would claim would occur. Such as what if all people wanted an apple at the same time. Through lab techniques as well we could mimic many natural thing to an extent. Make cities designed actually to survive and less unorganized, a total doing away with cars and making cities designed for such, implement all the thing that right now we just lack the money to implement.

  • dmxi

    human life is a constant social evolutionary questionmark & we are in the middle of a journey but only at the beginning of intertwined technology connecting us all .we're understanding the failures of egoism via monetary slavery due to nature backlashing at us ,so we are forced to combine our technical knowledge with our true meaning of existance.we are not gods chosen children just an organism with a chance.

  • signalfire1

    Excellent, excellent discussion of the subject at hand. Thank you.

  • signalfire1

    It may or may not be abiotic, but that doesn't change the fact that burning it is not a good idea for the air we're trying to breathe and the climate we're trying to keep from changing too radically. Wouldn't it be nice to have the cleanest air possible, with an optimum level of CO2 and oxygen?

  • signalfire1

    Your lack of spelling abilities and knowledge of basic grammar tells me your thinking processes are not that acute. Try starting over again, I suggest around the third grade level...

  • signalfire1

    The 30K+ people who die every day of starvation because they don't have little pieces of green paper beg to differ with you.

  • signalfire1

    Well, for starters, it's Peter Joseph, not David. Methinks you need to pay a bit more attention.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Jacquard/1210162491 John Jacquard

    oh yeah because the soviet union (or any country for that matter) devised a system that abolished scarcity. then created a free society in which every individual had their basic needs met, to refocus their awareness on greater things such as all the best minds working together on developing 1 medication or computer. yeah that happened before huh? then after that the soviet union (or any other country) did a complete systems analysis of the worlds' resources through one unified system for technology developments into abundant energy.they did that too right? they set up society to where there was no government at all no prisons no laws, simply identifying the problem at hand and creating a solution instead of passing a law and censoring society. after that they designed all the cities in the most efficient way with organic farms , housing built from disaster proof materials each with its own power generators and solar cells and a information center in the middle that is connected to all the worlds computers and is also a free learning center. families could spend their time actually teaching their children and live a healthy lifestyle free from drudgery and financial manipulation they did that too huh?they abolished ownership and each person had free access to any tool technology that they could use to advance them self. each individual was able to be educated in the areas that interested them the most to no limits or distractions and everyone worked together abolishing copyrights to make the most efficent products and instruments that everyone was entitled to. every local area had it's own organic green house that was free to the public. this was all done before right? the soviet union had a free society instead of a small few owning most money property and resources right? democracy and freedom has existed before in the world by any society right?

  • signalfire1

    I find it fascinating the animosity that PJ engenders; I submit it is much the same as the reaction Galileo and Copernicus got for their 'new and unproven' ideas from the Catholic hierarchy (which in some instances included an unwillingness to even look through a telescope for fear of what they might find, or that the mere act would be blasphemous).

    What I see when I hear this man talk is pure genius. He's ahead of his time but also right in time. His ideas are, he says himself, put out there for discussion and refinement; at this point he is only trying to reach as many people as possible, educating them as to his view of the world they were born into and the other possible ways of ordering and running things.

    We won't be able to see past our present system until it collapses, which it is now doing at increasing speeds. I applaud him for being willing to come forward with other alternatives, especially when he is risking his very life to do so (yes, some of you 'naysayers' have threatened his life, congratulations on your irrational fears and religious BS getting in the way of a possible solution to our global problems).

    It's a shame that someone as intelligent as DaVinci, and at such a young age, comes along so rarely that it's impossible for the masses to even identify him as such, and that the kneejerk response is an immediate call for a crucifixion of sorts.

    I also applaud his rejection of 'credentialism'. We don't need more people extremely educated in restricted fields with virtually no awareness of other disciplines; we need more people with broad educations across the whole breadth of knowledge including subjects not yet imagined. We need people willing to spend a lifetime educating themselves rather than just engaging in mostly mindless 'entertainment' and likewise mindless 'employment'.

    In the end, he is calling for people to serve others, to labor and invent and learn and engage willingly, with the knowledge that if their neighbors are enriched and supported, healthy, happy and well-fed, then they also will be. It's not socialism, it's not communism, it's not liberal or conservative. It's sanity, something in horrifically short supply.

    "I still don't understand why you need money to live on the planet you were born on..." - an alleged quote from a perplexed alien from another planet; retold by Alex Collier. I have no idea if the quote is a true one or not, but it sure is food for thought. What if we are the only society, the only planet, where money became the medium of exchange, with winners and losers, and not a global society of enlightened self-interest?

    I think Jacque Fresco is right; we haven't achieved anything even approximating 'civilization' yet. We are not yet civilized; we're more like the Roman Empire than anything else, and that failed miserably after a 1000 years of murder and plunder.

  • quimbys

    Fair enough. The Soviet Union did not achieve Peter Joseph's ideal. But I never said they were trying to do that. I merely said that they had tried to tackle just the problem of abolishing each person's need through a unified system that involved using computers and they couldn't even come close to doing that. This problem alone is not trivial. The Soviets had many ideals that were similar to Joseph's and one thing they had decided early was that people who were not on board had to be dealt with harshly. Rather than letting these people alone they were "re-educated", put in jail, or killed. Mr. Joseph never says exactly what will happen to contrarians who don't want to live in within his utopian vision, but these people could cause a great deal of trouble. Joseph just seems to assert that somehow a time will come when these people are irrelevant or otherwise not a problem. Don't count on it. But even in my previous comment, I was never saying any of that. I was only saying that the Soviet Union had already tried, in an eerily similar way to Joseph's vision of computer-assisted control of their economy and it was a disaster. If you don't believe me, why don't you watch the documentary that I recommended. You will be able to see for yourself. Good luck.

  • signalfire1

    He doesn't 'work in advertising'; at one point he did work for advertising agencies, I would presume either music or video as they would seem to be his skill set. That hardly makes him a Madison Avenue titan, more like a guy who needed a job...

  • Agustin Cuesta

    I agree with you, I also believe that every human being is intelligent. However, due to some barriers of distractions that prevent logical thinking such as certain programs on Television, War, Misguided values of a person, pretty much anything that deprives a person to think rationally and positively for the benefit of humanity. Nonetheless I presume that every person from all generations has asked him or herself the reason of out existence. Who are we? What is the purpose of our existence? Why is their so much hatred and hostility in the world? Fortunately Peter Joseph, along with many others that have shared his views and ideas before him, have sparked the flame to live in a world with love, sharing of resources, respect, empathy of one another, basically (despite the corniness of it) in a world of peace and love. And it is thanks to Peter's films that have spread the message like wildfire. :)

  • disraeli zambizi

    Excellent interview with a brave and great man, way ahead of his years. Watch this, then if you like it watch Zeitgeist. Very important messages here for those who have ears.

  • Friendlybob

    Either you didn't read about communism properly, or you didn't listen to any of the zeitgeist movement material. It is nothing like communism, also the soviets were socialist. They never achieved communism. There are some extremely fundamental differences between communism and the Zeitgeist movement.

  • Friendlybob

    People shouldn't take Peter Josephs personal opinions and dispositions to represent the entire Zeitgeist Movement. This is not the case and TZM's website clearly states this, the main thing you need to do is check out everything this man is saying in as much depth as you possibly can. Do your own research, don't claim all of this is true or untrue based on something that took you 10 minutes to learn, because it's very likely you're lacking information.

  • quimbys

    Well Bob, all I can say is that you didn't read my comment carefully, nor did you check out the documentary that I recommended. Once you do, then maybe your comments about my post would become much more relevant. The exchange of ideas requires some work and sincerity. Good luck. Q

  • Friendlybob

    What is Pandora's Box about? Because a resource based economic system would use the scientific method, which is not wat the soviets did. Also the computer used would this system's management would obviously be infinitely more advanced than anything the soviets had back then, plus it wouldn't be running on false assumptions.

    Could you elaborate on which ideas in the zeitgeist movement were already tested by the Soviet Union?

  • quimbys

    Bob, I am beginning to suspect that you are not interested in viewpoints that may disagree with your own. But if you are, you might just as well view the documentary as I suggested rather than having me recap it for you. Warning: if you do,I suspect that you will be able to understand what I was saying. Again I say good luck to you.

    Q

  • Friendlybob

    If I gave that impression I appologize. I will view the documentary.

  • Friendlybob

    It seems that most of the things shown in that documentary that caused problems were caused by people's, or government's application of science. They have nothing to do with the use of the scientific method the zeigeist movement is promoting. It acknowledges that "truth" is always evolving as our understanding and information changes. It promotes the use of the scientific method to best create a world which we understand to be in the best interest of mankind as a whole. All of the things it promotes were arrived at by use of the scientific method, and can provably improve the way people experience life. What your point (I think, correct me if i'm wrong) seems to be by linking that documentary is that man is too fallible to implement such a system, but this is why the zeitgeist movement promotes a society without leaders, and without any motive for abuse. Corruption would be useless in such a system, as one wouldn't be able to gain from it.

  • Friendlybob

    Also, decisions wouldn't be made by people or majority vote. They would be arrived at by use of the scientific method, we simply take what we know to be the best information regarding to humanity's wellbeing, and weigh every decision against that.

  • over the edge

    @Friendlybob
    first off i would like to state that our current system needs at a minimum changes and yes at the maximum discarded and rebuilt. at first i liked the idea but i have yet to get some answers that maybe you can provide and i would also like to ask some questions concerning statements made by yourself (will save for another post). first off this system requires control over the remaining resources, weather they be oil,land,technology, and so on. these things are already controlled by people or corporations. how do you propose taking control of these things? many of these things are controlled by people or groups that like the power that these things provide and if you propose taking them by force i will not be a part of that. what about that piece of prime real estate that has been passed down from generation to generation to a proud family member that wishes to hold onto that land? are you stating that we take that land away? or do you let them keep it and allow certain members rights not allowed to other?. what if these much needed resources are owned by a group that holds that land sacred to their culture, while it is good for them it hurts the group and therefore any program looking out for the group would logically take it away. also what if a country or group controlling a disproportionally large percentage of the resources wishes not to join. lets say that country is mine (Canada) and i am not claiming to have any information that we will. but what if with our relative wealth of resources we wish to go it alone. do you take them by force? these (and many others) are reasonable questions that require detailed,tested,repeated and reviewed answers that stand up to any and all opponents and demonstrated multiple times in reasonable sized experiments by and for all to see for themselves. or in short exposed to the scientific method. do you have this data for me?

  • quimbys

    Bob, I really appreciate the effort that you're making to engage.

    I have watched most of the Zeitgeist movement's stuff online and I was initially quite a big fan. I agree with almost all of the premises brought up in the movies including the key one that a system based on the economics of scarcity (our current situation) is outmoded and wasteful. I think the people who are behind these movies are sincere and intelligent people. I think where I have the problem is not in the premises, but in the solutions to the issues they bring up. All of the Zeitgeist stuff that I have viewed is remarkably short on details. When they say that they want a system based on the scientific method, they are remarkably short on details. The only example we have of a society that has tried anything like this was the Soviet Union, as you now know. They really thought they were applying scientific approaches to solve societal problems. In fact they were probably as close as any society has ever come to doing this. And we know what happened there. Now I am not saying that the Zeitgeisters are communists (or Soviet style Marxist-Leninists if you prefer), I am saying that Zeitgeisters only have an idea that they claim is new. I am worried that they do not want to acknowledge that the Soviet Union used similar language and had similar goals to themselves. Now I know they seem to be proposing something different, but Zeitgeisters have yet to say how it's going to be really different. Sure I have seen the pictures of their ideal city and I know all the things that they SAY will happen, but they fall appalling short on details. For example, this idea of no leaders cannot really happen. Those who program the computers will be the leaders. Computers appears to be dispassionate machines that make rational decisions, but actually they are crude modeling machines that are programmed by humans. One thing we learned from "Pandora's Box" is that even deciding how many toothbrushes to manufacture and when to do it, is an enormous task that is difficult to program a computer to do. Yet the Zeitgeisters propose doing this for all goods and services. Zeitgeisters are long on truth, but are woefully short on how they will actually implement their system day to day. Now getting back to my main comment. Since they are short on details and have yet to implement of their ideas on any scale at all whatsoever, we can only look at what has already been tried and, unfortunately this would be the Soviets. The Zeitgeisters claim to be interested in scientific approaches based on evidence, but they are not interested in the idea that their system was already attempted in the Soviet Union. They claim that they are somehow different, but do not really say how they are different. Ignoring this evidence tells me that Zeitgeisters are not really interested in evidence that contradicts their "untested ideas".

    Now I can address your comments.

    Scientific Method: The scientific method is something that is driven by humans and can easily accommodate human biases. As a trained and practicing scientist, I can say that it's not as objective as many people believe because it is driven by human minds not computers. Further, the scientific method is designed to reach the truth in a long drawn out process of grinding things out that is often not conducive to human activity. For example, how long did scientists believe illness was caused by bad gases (pre-germ theory)? Too long for all the humans who died just because they were told to keep windows closed to (fruitlessly) protect themselves from cholera. We saw this problem played out again and again as Soviet computer models attempted to keep up with Soviets consumption realities. Peter Joseph describes it as just a giant calculation. I think the Soviet experience has shown that it is much much more than that.

    New human beings with no leaders: According to Zeitgeisters, a system without scarcity and suffering will create a new mindset that is designed to keep our lifestyles sustainable. In my experience humans will want things that their Global Resource Management System may not be interested in producing. The very moment this happens a scarcity occurs. Now if we leave this scarcity unfulfilled, history has shown that humans will take steps to fill it. Now if they want to do this on their own in the Zeitgeist system, one of two things seem possible. Either the computer will say "No" and then the utopian Zeitgeist system with no leaders suddenly has a computer (programmed by a human) acting as a leader. Or the computer will say "Yes" and suddenly we have a computer (programmed by humans) acting as a leader, but one that we agree with because it gave its permission to make the item we want. If the computer says no too much, there will be a rebellion against the Zeitgeist system. So I ask you, if there are no leaders then what can these people rebel against? Well obviously if there were no leaders then there couldn't be anything to rebel against. But since there is actually a leader these people disagree with, called The Resource Management Computer (optimized for world resource management), there would be a leader: the computer's programmers. These programmers are people and they are subject to all the biases that all people possess. They would become the new politicians in that people would attempt influence and or gain their favor to get the products that they wanted. If these programmers are not responsive, people will take steps to gain power to get this influence and we will be back in same boat we are already in. Only this time it would be a free-for-all because it would not have any of the protections like the ones built in to modern democracies that are designed to prevent this type of unchecked influence grabbing.

    So Bob, let me conclude, once again, that Zeitgeisters continue to fall woefully short on nuts and bolts details of how their system would actually work. They claim to embrace the scientific method, but already appear to be uninterested in evidence that is already against their ideas. While I agree with all the problems and premises of the Zeitgeist movies, I am completely not in agreement with their proposed resource management solution because they offer no details, no simulations, no testing, which is very suspicious for people who claim to believe in science. Further, their ideas have been tested in one form in the Soviet Union and it did not work, and they pretend that there is no parallel there. So what can we do? My hope is that they will test their ideas and work out the bugs. If they do test it and show that it works, I will be at the front of the line to join them.

    Good luck,

    Quimbys

  • Friendlybob

    First of all, thank you for your well worded reply. I'll do my best to reply to your questions ( though i'm afraid I can only really repeat things from the Zeitgeist project media to the best of my memory.)

    First part: Marxist-Leninist communism; Alright first let me say that as we both know, the soviets did try to implement similar solutions, however their implementation fell short on some crucial issues that I think the zeitgeist movement would not. For instance, when TZM talks about the scientific method being used, their talking about simply using a universally agreed on set of rules used for arriving at decisions. The soviets could not utilize this as well as they should have, for they were an isolated nation.

    I believe a system such as TZM is promoting can only really flourish in a global society, where you can truely reach peak effeciency with such a system.

    Second part: The computer system. I fully appreciate the difficulties involved with having a computer system that tracks all global resources, but in principle it's a pretty simple idea. All you do is input a few rules ( I would assume, I have no idea how to program a computer, but that's beside the point) that allows it to see the amount of any given resource left on the planet, this way we always know how much we have and what we need to do exactly to stay sustainable.

    Secondly it would be used for mapping the transportation of those resources in the most effecient way possible, reducing logistical problems. This is really all it needs to do in regards to resource management. Such a system would have been tremendously difficult for the soviets, but with computers today it would be much easier, and with computers 20 years from now it'll be easier still. I'm sure you're familliar with moore's law, which ties into that point nicely.

    Third part: The scientific method; I will fully concede that the scientific process (I don't think nescesarily the method) is subject to human biases. However the scientific method is still the best set of rules we have for reasoning and reaching rational decisions, wouldn't you agree? Again I think the problem would be how to implement it. For instance on issues of morality, if we used the reasoning used by Sam Harris, that the least amount of suffering for conscious beings possible is the best possible situation. If we take that logic, and let a computer imbued with the rules of science tell us about what's moral and what isn't, I think we'd get some pretty good answers. And if we followed those answers, i'd argue that we'd have a better society than we have today. I think such things really are just a large calculation, all you need is enough information and a specific set of rules ( that we attempt to utilize to the best of our abillity in human decision making, but fail at a large amount of the time) in a computer to reach decisions such as that. I think such a rational computer system would make better decisions than most humans.

    Fourth part: Scarcity by demand for impractical things. The only kinds of products I could see people wanting that a system focused on sustainability wouldn't make are certain vanity items. The question we should be asking is, are vanity items more important than sustainability? If we all agree that they aren't, and I think we will, than we'll just have to give up certain items. I suppose we would do this by educating people on how sustainabillity is indeed more important than certain vanity items. In essence, we would be removing the biases that create the problems before we create and environment where such biases would arise.

    Fifth part: Conclusion; I think the main differences between the soviet union and TZM would be the implementation of solutions. For one, the possibility for corruption would be virtually non existant in a resource based economic system. Also I think it would be a far more moral system than the soviet one, purely because of the underlying principles.

    I hope this has answered your questions properly, please excuse any grammatical errors as English is not my first language.

    Thank you.

  • quimbys

    Hello Bob,

    It's most commendable of you to be discussing these things when English is not your first language. I am a language teacher so I understand how hard it is for you.

    Let me briefly respond to your comments.

    First: You mention that the Zeitgeisters are talking about simply using universally agreed on rules. I would say that there is no such thing. These rules that you speak of are made by people. The only question is, which people? You seem to be saying all people, but like the Zeitgeisters, I am quite unsure how that would happen. Would it happen by majority rule? Would it happen by a leader of some sort? Either way, there will lots of trouble from the people who disagree. You mention that the Soviets could not create this system well because they were isolated. I think that makes no sense. The Soviets had control of a huge amount of resources and virtually lacked for nothing in the way of resources. So they could have done it if it were possible, in my opinion. They surely tried for a long to do that anyway and they failed.

    Second: I understand that you're saying that computers are more advanced now. Yet you say that it would easy to implement. So which is it? If it's easy to implement then a simple computer could do it. If it's not easy then why do you think that computers of today could handle. Honestly, as you yourself admit, you don't really know what's involved in solving these problems, yet you feel that it's possible. I do have some knowledge of economic supply and demand and I say that it's a very complicated problem with way to many variables. Our current supply and demand system is regulated by money. Money provides a way of predicting supply and demand. Without money suddenly everybody should be able to have whatever they want. Again if people are not able to get what they want there will be tons of trouble. In the Zeitgeist economic model, everybody will be entitled to have whatever they want. If something happens and not everybody gets what they want, there will be nothing but trouble. Shortages caused all kinds of trouble in the Soviet Union. Even though there was often enough stuff, not everybody could get what they wanted. Now you tell me that people shouldn't want "vanity items". True, but they do. On top of that, people sometimes want things one person thinks is a vanity item and somebody else does not. Who solves this problem? The Soviets tried to solve it by creating "a new Soviet man". Unfortunately it did not work. Black markets appeared as well as corruption.

    Third: Morality decided by a computer cannot work because morality is often illogical or to put it another way, people are not always moral. This part of the human condition is able to be experienced every day. For example, you know it's immoral to let homeless people die on the street, but my guess is that you do nothing about that and neither do I. How did you reach your conclusion not to do anything? Certainly by logic, yet I am sure you consider yourself a moral person. Computers, believe it or not, with or without Moore's law will probably not be able to make decisions as simple as this for a long time to come.

    I could go on and on Bob, but suffice it to say that we are just going to disagree and disagree more without reaching an understanding. I just want to summarize by saying that things you consider simple to solve by computers these days is not really simple when it comes to real people. But I can see that you agree with the Zeitgeisters that these things are simple. So I say to you and the Zeitgeisters: instead of talking and talking, show me real evidence and stop ignoring evidence that is contrary to the Zeitgeister viewpoint. In this way they will be able to convince more people to agree with them.

    I am looking forward to hearing about your new Zeitgeist community which proves that everything you and the Zeitgeisters believe to be true. When that happens, I will be begging for an application to join.

    Good luck,

    Q

  • RedTape

    Peter, Its clear You are frustrated with humanity, hop on your kit and play away some stress. I DO! ..... take care, Red Tape

  • Realist

    It is reallay amazing how many blindfolded people run around with the constant rainbow in front the eyes.

    It is frustrating to see the humanity is too s*upid to think a bit further than the own door mat...

    Start asking yourself:
    Is fossil fuel finit or infinit?
    Is food finit or infinit?
    Are products made of derivates from patrol good or bad?
    Are we destroying our planet - yes or no?
    Are we contaminating everything we need to live (and most other species)?
    Is the actual economy system good or bad?
    Do we need oxygen to breath - yes or no?
    Are we polluting our air, oceans and lands?

    Actually we don't destroy our planet, we are converting our planet in something which will not serve us to survive and Peter is absolutely correct to say that.

    Most of those sitting in the front of the football match, drinking Coke and beer without any end, eating one Burger after the other, listening carefully of what the priest tells you in the church and think they are good people because of that, meanwhile WE F*** AROUND WITH OUR BASE OF SURVIVAL do not understand ANYTHING of what this man talks about.

    And it is really sad, very sad that nobody just tries to think a bit more global about everything.

    Everything you do, your (and also my) work, your living and whatever you represent, is just made up to serve and consume.

    Everybody is speaking of the need of an economy growth. But what does this mean: To grow we have to consume more, we have to produce more, if we have to produce more we need more resources, if we need more resources we will leave each time less resources for those who come after us.

    It is simple and very logic and god (for those who believe in god) won't come down from heaven to save your a** when nothing else is left...

    Stop thinking about god, think about humanity, because this is the only thing you can trust in. It is human beings helping other human beings and not god, neither religion are doing anything.

    We are an embarracing, destructive species and the worse of all is that we think of ourselves that we are the crown and very best of what earth has to offer.

    Embarracing and I see each sentence confirmed from what Peter says, just reading some of the ignorant, s*upid and mind limited comments written down here.

    I feel big shame... and if politics was really made for people (which it isn't) and if religion was made for the best of everyone, there were not more than 35000 little children dying each day of hunger, the pope wouldn't go to 3rd world countries telling people telling these poor people to have sex without condoms, getting babies with AIDS. Instead of having 5 tp 10 kids they maybe would have 1 or 2 kids with a small, vanishing chance to be someone in this life, we would have less super rich people and more people with less problems.

    Our economy and religious system is nothing else than modern slavery based on credit pressure made by banks.

    Open your eyes...
    Think about it...

    The way we live right now is not the way our species will survive and this is the sad truth - no matter what you believe in, no matter what you work in and less it will matter where you live.

  • http://Www.johnuxwriter.com/ John Mulvihill

    Ah, well do I remember when I was a young man and my head was full of such self-righteous nonsense, and nothing was going to talk me out of it. Like Peter, I was born into a middle-class household and went to university. How could I not avoid the bourgeois fantasy that is socialism?

    If you think Peter is getting a little old for this kind of self indulgence, consider Noam Chomsky. He has been able to make a nice living out of peddling nonsense for decades. But then, he's the exception: Most middle-class male revolutionaries end up in tweed jackets with patched elbows, striving for tenure in the Poly Sci departments of unknown Midwestern universities. No such fate for Peter. He lacks a doctorate, poor guy. But then again, it's unlikely a learning institution would employ a man so fearful of opposition he will not give out his full name. He lacks the courage that is required for strong convictions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1428870214 Terry Moonman

    Noam Chomsky has made his living for decades as the professor of linguistics at MIT Boston, far from peddling nonsense, he revolutionized his field. What are you doing watching these kind of documentaries? A little masochism, self-flagellation?

  • Juicytidbits

    Got to chime in here, tried to get through the zeitgeist documentaries, and I found it interesting to challenge the basic assumptions of economics, indeed it is quite obvious that free markets can't solve everything, especially when every person has a vested interest in exploiting every resource available, as fast as possible. But there is so little attention paid or examples given towards what to actually DO that it's frustrating. Big computer gonna solve it all? Heard that one before. Someone has to design the algorithm, someone has to interpret the decisions, we aren't going to agree to turn over our lives to a computer, so that's not a solution. What else? Abstain from politics? Quit buying things? Live off the grid? Nothing is really offered in terms of practical application, and that is where the true challenge is. Communism should work as a theory in the abstract, but it has been tried many times over the last 150 years and failed every time, because even if the theory might be correct, those pesky humans just don't seem to cooperate.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aarongrooves Aaron Williams

    It's clear that some people posting comments here either didn't actually watch the video, or didn't understand it. Or perhaps the fog of their indoctrination is too thick for them to see through.

  • Jazen Valencia

    What are you even talking about. To solve problems you need to discuss them. You sound like a self defeatist.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/5FMKAUZNX6FCMLZLMJL22SATJE Heysheeple

    Im not trying toot this guys horn, but to many people he is humbling with intellegnce and information.

  • DAX

    Would YOU really have a child IF you were a hard luck farmer with a barren field and no food to feed it at all? Would YOU enjoy watching it suffer and starve to death? With our current wasteful system that's a highly probable fate for everyone's grandchildren. He didn't say he hates kids at all... he said he cares to much for their future to put them into a world that could not sustain their well being. The guy is brilliant and far seeing, not fooled by the illusion of never-ending security and prosperity.

  • Johny Jacques

    A mind that should be celebrated.

  • fk_censors

    That's exactly what i got out of it (except that the fact a system hasn't work regardless where it has been applied, means it does NOT work in theory, regardless of how utopic it sounds). Central planning has been tried before, and the Venus Project is basically communism with better graphics. It is understandable some people believed in this crap 100 years ago, but now after so much suffering and poverty caused by it, why would anyone intelligent still believe in this dream?

  • MSP

    Fresco: "Karl Marx was wrong!"

  • MSP

    Q.
    I do understand your reasoning, although I consider your Soviet-Zeitgeist comparison a little vague.

    I'd like to ask you this:
    If you had no knowledge of capitalism or the monetary system, and someone described its basic principles to you, wouldn't you be critical? You might question how such a society would sustain itself, given the poverty, war and suffering it generates, and yet here we are. Not many people are questioning these things.

    I think the reason for this is a consequence of socialisation. The media and religion are two of the key factors in sustaining our society, motivating people; therefore, if the Fresco and the VP supporters or Joseph and the Zeitgeists were to somehow (admittedly, I don't know how yet) work the media and religion, they could make progress. Many religious teachings are on a par with the aims of the Zeitgeist and therefore disputing them is counter-productive.

    Fresco has another interesting idea relating to our language and communication: that we should re-design our language to be "not subject to interpretation" or 'syntactically unambiguous.' Such a language would improve our ability to communicate with one another and express emotions to a far richer degree. You may be thinking: how is this relevant? Well, the ability for one to communicate and to be understood is a fundamental human desire. A failure to do this often results in people feeling withdrawn from society; it creates subcultures like 'emos.' This is not a problem, as such, for most people, however, until this happens to someone who is in power, for when they aren't understood, people often resort to conflict.

    In short, I can't answer or discredit most of your thoughts in TZM, just wanted to say a few things.

    I'm young so I'm probably naive about these things, but your discussion with Bob is really fascinating. Notice I said "discussion." Unfortunately, too many people for and against TZM are far too direct and deaf to any form of intelligent criticism.

  • Somersethatch

    The more we know, the more we realize how little we know. Peter Joseph expresses his sense of fear and frustration with the self-destructive nature of mankind, but does not seem to recognize its origin: the natural limitations of human consciousness - including his own. Man's perversion of religion, and the atrocities he commits in the name of God speak only of the failings of human nature; they do not disprove the existence of a form of intelligence superior to man. Yes, man is at the top of the hierarchy of intelligent life on earth. Yet, for thousands of years, history has proven that we are woefully unable to apply that intelligence to our own survival as a species? I seriously doubt the Zeitgeist people, well intentioned as they may be, will provide workable solutions. If man is the supreme being we are toast.

  • ezazz123

    Greedy Wall Street fat cats will kill us all since they cannot and will not ever stop business as usual.

  • NewLife

    Everything will change when it comes to the point that people would not be able to survive anymore and have to go on the so-called "World Protest" where all countries , cities and people with the same intentions, beliefs and motives will go on the streets and change the world to a better place. ( That is the real apocalypse for me where the good/light will overcome the evil/bad. "I live for this day"

  • Tronald dump

    Funny, you post as guest, and your referring to others lack of courage, is name could be fizzy bubbly it doesn't matter, it's the message

  • SteelRocker .

    Peter is way ahead of his time, I swear he must be one of the most eloquent speakers alive. Idol

  • Jdove47

    A "public" figure with big claims about Christianity and he wont'
    reveal his last name so that his personal history and true motivations
    can be examined. VERY suspect. Can we say muslim sympathizer?