THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT -- Interview with Peter Joseph
Integral unedited interview:
ZMFB: Hi Peter and thank you for taking some time to answer our Facebook group members’ questions. We asked our members to post questions directed to you and we received many good and legitimate questions. We want to thank them all for their participation as well.
It was hard to choose only 5 questions, but that’s the format of this interview, so let’s start the interview.
Zeitgeist Addendum displays a clear picture of how the monetary system works and shows its flaws, which all have a major impact on humanity. The Venus Project promotes the idea of a system where money would be a thing of the past. Our first question comes from Daniel:
Q: I think the majority of the people out there are not only incapable of understanding monetary policy, due to our pathetic educational system, but are too timid and afraid of change. My question is, what do you think would be the strongest motivation for people to do away with the monetary system?
PJ: Well, as with anything, failure and thus forced change by cause and effect. However, I do my best not to think that way, as I don't like seeing people get hurt. In the end, technological unemployment, which is the phenomenon of people being replaced by machine, is going to be a strong catalyst. The fundamental basis of our world monetary system is the selling of labor as a commodity for income. This foundational element is now being challenged, and economists at this time are essentially ignoring the pattern. The fact is, Technological Unemployment is really the cause of long-term unemployment in the world.
Technology is making the human work force obsolete. In fact, we are MORE productive, with less people due to the nature of the advanced automation machines. In time, you are going to see unemployment continue to rise and the question thus becomes: "At what point do we decide that the system doesn't qualify as functional anymore?" 20% Unemployment? 30%...60%?
That point aside, the other issue is simply making people understand how much better their lives would be if we shifted our focus to use technology to overcome our current state of scarcity. If people knew how abundant and pleasurable their lives 'could' be if we stopped competing and starting cooperating to produce an abundance of everything with modern methods, most would quickly turn around. The horrors and hardship we face today, from war to governmental corruption and poverty does not have to exist at all and there is no reason to tolerate it anymore.
ZMFB: The fact that doing away with the monetary system will considerably reduce crime is pretty clear in most people’s mind. But, many are still asking themselves this following question, from Jen:
Q. Many severe crimes, especially crimes relating to sexual violence, are driven neither by the prospect of financial gain nor by a matter of survival. I agree that steps should be taken to deter negative/harmful behavior, but I do feel that many cold-blooded crimes must have a consequence. Will there be any form of punishment in this new society or will the survivors of crime be forced to live in fear?
PJ: All progress is a matter of degree. We are not seeking utopia for no such thing exists. I believe 90-95% of most "crime", as know it is a side effect of the profit system and hence scarcity. Once we have a system in place that stops the basic survival fear we have of each other, while allowing no reward for corruption, pollution and waste, the aberrant behaviors that remain can be focused on in a constructive way. Sexual Violence has a cause, just like crimes of passion and jealousy. While I admit it is complex, in time the mental distortion can be reduced if not overcome. For instance, jealousy is very common is our culture for many reasons, such as the grading system in school. We breed competitive behavior all over the place. This will stop due to a shift in awareness (realizing that cooperation is probably more productive to all than competition) and thus people will change the way they look at each other.
However, to answer your question, our current system of punishment is not much of a deterrent when it comes to violence sex crimes. The real issue, apart from finding the cause, is removing the person so they cannot do more harm, and putting them into an environment where they can get well. If it happens that at that point in time that person shows no signs of getting well, they will be kept there. It is logical to remove threats, but the system of "punishment" will not be anything like it is today, for such a thing doesn't work in the case of such complex crimes, for the most part. Most murderers do so in a rage, and they are not thinking "if I kill this person, I could go to jail". A petty thief, however, might be deterred by the thought of prison. However, thieves will have no basis in the new system, for there is no property.
I hope this is clear. In the future, we deal with "crime" by both removing violent offenders and figuring out what made them to want to commit such an act in the first place. Then this information is incorporated into the design of the system (education) to try and prevent such developments in the future. Granted, for such crimes, it could take a few generations to see substantial drop offs. Overtime however, such acts would become so rare that the idea of a police force would be a waste of time. This system isn't perfect. It is just a whole lot better and more productive. There is no productivity today regard to crime/behavior. That is why the prison population in America is growing every year.
ZMFB: Deep transformations of societies are never easy, but I’m sure most of us feel the need to change our world for better. We understand that the established political, religious, and social structures, the military-industrial complex, and the mega corporations actually rule the world in many ways, mostly for their own interest. Our next question is from Vahram:
Q: The day, when awareness is no longer an issue, and the Zeitgeist Movement is recognized as an opposing force to the numerous corporations around the world, how are we supposed to compete against them, which are much better funded than The Movement, and will unquestionably attempt to discredit us and attempt to convince the population that The Movement is not in their best interest? How is the Zeitgeist Movement going compete against the elite class of citizens who are going to try to undermine the movement?
PJ: Mass Movement on a scale never before seen. Think about it this way – if 51% of the US population refused to pay income taxes one year, the government would not be able to prosecute them all, and they would look insane and foolish to try to do so. This is why governments preserve and perpetuate division. "Divide and Conquer” works. In order to overcome our problems, it is going to take a global effort on a mass scale. We have to unify with a common goal. Political movements will not work. The monetary system is a paralyzing, self-preserving mechanism. It does not allow for it to be overridden inherently. It is static. Only through the mass rejection of the system, supported by the logic of what The Venus Project proposes, will such a transition occur. The future is going to be very ugly if people do not know what to look for. This way we all need to educate our fellow human beings as best we can. Remember, all the governments and corporations have are the projected value systems they create, laws, and the military.
That's it. It is a house of cards and I am not afraid.
ZMFB: Jacque Fresco mentions in Zeitgeist Addendum that to really move to a TVP-like system, the current one has to fail. Regarding this aspect, many people still believe that exposing the 9/11 facts and evidence will help our society lose trust in their elected leaders all around the world and in the structure of our society itself.
Regarding 9/11, which was an important part of your first movie, here’s our fourth question by Andrew:
Q: What is your stance on 9/11 now? I know you said you’ve been misquoted in the New York Times after Z-Day, so can you tell us what is your feeling about it? In addition, what do you think of the fact that active explosive residues of nanothermite were found in the WTC dust and confirmed by scientists recently?
PJ: My stance is the same, except for the fact that I'm frustrated with talking about it. Another problem is the stigma. This is tough. I am trying to bring in people who support certain scientific/ideological perspectives in certain ways in regard to the Movement, but many are scared to have such a controversial association. Granted, I have created this with a good reason, but it is frustrating to be called a "conspiracy theorist" over and over again for it cuts people off. So, in an effort to try to widen the Movement into social segments that can only seem to associate the 9/11 with "tin foil hat" people, I have decided to shift my communicative focus, generally speaking. Obviously, I am in full support, or I would not have made Part 2 of the Z1. But when it comes to the Movement itself, I want the focus to be on the most relevant issues...and that is really the monetary system, as far as problems are concerned. 9/11 was essentially a trigger for war and war is largely for profit these days. They are related.
The Movement is much larger than 9/11 truth at this point. Exposing such a thing has value for it will continue to erode confidence in the system. However, the debate is very annoying in the mainstream and every time we see a clear discovery, we quickly see well-organized propaganda-based rebukes that confuse the issue (such as the hilarious NIST study of WTC7). This is the way the game is played. Also,
the goals of those who still have the blind brainwashing to think that 9/11 is what the government said it was, will do anything they can to protect that identification. It is a "faith" of sorts, which is why I treat it as such in the first film.
The active nanothermite was a powerful find. It is essentially like finding a stick of dynamite, un-detonated, in the rubble. There is no faking that kind of science unless it is simply made up. I see too much at stake for these independent scientists for them to just make such finds up. They don't get money for their interests; they risk their careers; they are not selling anything; they are simply performing their science in an objective way to seek answers. I can do nothing but sigh when I hear people try to make up excuses about how WT7 fell "from fire". The NIST report was a circus of ******** made through reverse
black box modeling to fit a predefined conclusion.
In the end, sadly, logical reasoning does nothing to inform most of the public at this day and age. People are driven by their emotional identifications. For decades, we have had video of JFK being shot from the front, with his head going back and to the left. What good has it done us? The government still claims he was shot from the back and people still generally believe it in America. It is just sad. I think 9/11 will fall into the same trap.
The propagandists that run the websites that attack 911 truth do so not to convince the public of the official story... they now do so to create a "draw". This is where you counter an argument in such a way by using semantic manipulation or irrelevant angles, so that the reader is left not knowing what to think. If you can confuse a truth by imposing contrived variables that are out of the frame of contextual reference but are presented as viable by the presenter, then mission accomplished as a debunker. Sadly, the "draw" technique works. For instance, I get emails all day long from people who have been feed wacky nonsense about The Movement. 99% just become confused due to what they have read and are apprehensive in turn. We even have a small group of twisted people who think we are "Illuminati satanists" trying to "manipulate society" into bringing in the "New World Order". I actually get serious emails from people who are literally concerned about this. It’s unreal. Of course, we have Alex Jones to thank for that.
ZMFB: On another level, many people seem confused about the Google Zeitgeist Europe conferences, in which David de Rothschild, founder of Sculpt the Future, participated in 2007 -- and your Zeitgeist films.
Q: Is there any connection between both?
PJ: Ha. No. Actually - it's funny. When I released the Zeitgeist film, it just so happened that the "Google Zeitgeist" campaign was just started by Google.com. Due to the interest generated by the film, it actually overpowered the "Google Zeitgeist" campaign. Now if you Google "zeitgeist", you get my site. I find it hilarious.
ZMFB: Finally, technology would play a central role in the development of The Venus Project. New technologies would and should emerge rapidly to help us create the sustainable world that TVP proposes. Our next question comes from Branden:
Q: You talk about creating devices that last 10 years+ but as the technology advances these things will dramatically change faster as things become more streamlined. So in essence, the technology would advance so quickly that it could make devices obsolete faster than they could be recycled. With technology advancing so quickly in a resource-based economy do you think it would be necessary to slow down technological advancements and distribution?
PJ: Not at all. It comes down to recognizing the growth rate and adjusting the product enclosures (if applicable) to support updates. For instance, you can have a "universal" enclosure for a computer, which would allow you to have a titanium box with the best wiring, enabling all the components to slide in and out when new advancements are made. Most computers sort of work like this already, where you can change out cards and the like, but the intent isn't for longevity. Also, there would be foresight and no withholding of efficiency. In other words, when Apple Computer puts out a new product, they do so many generations behind their current state of technology so they can make more money. This waste will not occur in the future. The current state is known, the growth rate is calculated, and the product is created to strategically reflect both attributes. No slowing - maximizing. Obviously, obsolescence is going to continue, but if we understand what aspects are most likely to be quickly improved (like hard drives) vs
those which are most likely to have longer integrity (like enclosures), we can devise a system to take advantage of both.
I would generally say that once we get away from the profit system technology will increase cataclysmically. Today, when a person has an idea, they often patent it, making it off limits for others to use/research. This will be history in the future for there is no basis for it. Instead, ideas are presented to everyone and improved upon collectively. This way, progress will be tremendous and fast. Think about it: Modern invention today works like this: A person creates an idea, patents it and sells it. Once the product is being sold, an establishment is set up which immediately slows progress, for the product is now serving a monetary function and is hence supporting people financially. This is paralyzing. Coupled with the legal patents, the product, in fact, becomes a barrier for further development.
People often argue with me that "profit" is an "incentive" for change. Sure, if you want to maintain a very narrow perspective, but Profit is more paralyzing than anything else, among many other problems. In the future, a product will be a running development with no restrictions to change. Once computerized systems are set up which can allow for inferential logic, they will assist design development even more so, and people will bounce their ideas against this system to make sure they are in accord with modern science as we know it. Again, I think progress will be staggering compared to what we see today and obsolescence will be a natural by-product, which is fully taken into account on many levels, both strategically and also in regard to recycling.
ZMFB: Again, thanks for your time. I’m sure the now 160,000 members of our Facebook group also appreciated the opportunity to ask you questions directly.
The Zeitgeist Movement Facebook group team.
PJ: My pleasure. Thank you all for your help! Peter
