What is wrong with the Zeitgeist Movement?

This is a massive conflict with me now.

I am watching the Addendum above after seeing the original and even though they are saying most of what I have suggested here, or even dreamed of, there is a real resistance internally to it and I do not understand why. It should be enough that there was some symbology and imagery that was important to me years ago – even for me to actually be convinced by the logic and arguments put forward.

This has halted my ability to move forward and any thoughts of what Beyond One World frozen until I find the answer – and believe me I would love to not be concerned with its development any more, knowing that these things were being taken care of elsewhere by people with more skills than I.

I keep asking myself also, Who am I to argue with this, no one as yet has subscribed to anything that I have suggested and the Zeitgeist Movement has around a third of a million in membership and is growing rapidly. As it contains much of what is within Beyond One World it has to be right – hasn’t it? But there is a real block that I must understand – I really feel that something is wrong…

With this I probably expose my stupidity, I don’t know and cannot even express or see it. Very humbling…

Be Sociable, Share!

10 thoughts on “What is wrong with the Zeitgeist Movement?

  1. Shawn,

    I think it might just be that you hold your idea/vision very closely and strongly. And you probably feel that if you accept the Zeitgeist Movement and forget about yours, that you’re losing a little part of yourself.

    It’s probably part of the ego trying to identify with being the creator of a new set of ideals/ideas for society.. and not wanting to be more of a ‘follower’ of someone else’s ideas.

    But really this whole line of thinking isn’t about that. It’s about creating change. I think the Zeitgeist Movement is going to do that, and no one is a follower – we’re ALL the creators and people in control of the way the world is changed. Just merge your ideas with theirs 😉

    Found your post from your tweet.



  2. I was so annoyed with their first movie – that I haven’t been paying much attention to them since. The first movie was a triumph of presentation over content, and the first few minutes of this one is the same. Stuff the snappy bass and flashed images, say what you want to say and get it over.
    My first problem with them is a lot of what they say is just stated as given. Violence is bad – well maybe it isn’t, sometimes destruction is called for. Poverty could be eliminated – why do you want to do that, poverty is just a definition of the lower resource groups. I’m giving a hurried answer here.

    Basically I think they will fail because you can’t engineer society; people within societies slowly evolve new ways to behave, new values. You can’t just try and replace values with a new set of values, you can expound them and hope that people will come to accept them. They are still stuck in the same old, “how do we make and share stuff?”, but avoiding the issue of “how do we make our lives meaningful”. Most of the stuff we make is useless to our continued existence. Maybe that’s because people are only concerned with their own existence.

    If we as individuals shape our own lives, surviving within the system as it is, then eventually a new system will evolve, one that will be far superior than an engineered solution. You can’t push these things along – look how communism failed.

  3. @Scott Richardson
    Thank you Scott for dropping by. I thought a lot about what you said in your post to try and fathom out what it is that is going on here. My ego and I know each other very well, it does play up at times, as it did here a little I will admit because it really does enjoy being unique. However, I do know that I can plough into the Zeitgeist Movement and put all my message across to more individuals who would actually be interested in what I am saying, so my ego is happily unaffected – the ideas are not quite the same thing, my ego is quiet.

    No the problems are deeper – and I wish they weren’t because I really would like to dive in…

    Thinking simply – a few thoughts:

    The Zeitgeist Movement shows up some of what is wrong and puts up a vision of how the wrongs can be solved, then in the forums, wiki etc I see loads of well meaning people trying to work out how it can be achieved – the key is its technocracy. Correspondingly, Beyond One World shows a progression, a paradigm shift of how to enable people to work towards what is wrong in one completely open system in absolute equality using their highest ideals to solve what is wrong – the key is its omnicracy.

    The Zeitgeist Movement is absolutely against religion, Beyond One World accepts it. IMHO you just cannot knock those of a religious persuasion, many have done wonderful things in the world as well as the atrocious. It is absurd to me to mock their concept of God/god, because conceptually this is something eternal, almighty, all-powerful etc. etc. and you (not you in particular Scott) you mocks it in concept is only a soul, or in the case of the atheist, a temporary mind – not a fair fight.

    The Zeitgeist Movement relies on technology as the answer, Beyond One World relies on the highest ideals, the best that is available. Both would agree that the scientific method is of immense value in determining truth but BOW will also recognise other conceptual things, love, beauty, care, creativity, those things that do not necessarily fit logic or reason. The scientific method has no bearing on you as an individual, seeing beauty through your eyes, feeling love for another, the knowing of oneself that “I AM”, but only the tangible or measurable physical parts at play in the universe connected with these concepts.

    On a personal level I have listened to Jacque Fresco on the Radio Shows and although he has many interesting things to say and I find him a brilliant man I found his oft references to the “stupid people” that follow the current system really uncomfortable. He cannot shun the system or the people that gave him the capacity to learn all the things he has learned in his lifetime, from the efforts of generations before. Without these people throughout history the ‘Venus Project’ would only have been painted on cave walls.

    I will look more to see if there is a way to resolve these things, I am certainly interested in the answers to a few more things before I make my mind up completely.

  4. @Peter Brand
    Thanks for your thoughts Peter – I agree that many things were stated without any reference or connection to the source, I think this is getting so important nowadays as more and more people are waking up to the fact that what you see on the Internet needs always to be verified.
    I certainly don’t agree with you on poverty – that isn’t something I personally could be comfortable with – you did give a hurried answer though 🙂
    You made me think more on what it is when you are ‘engineering society’ though, it does make me a bit more concerned about the individual. Society itself isn’t alive, it doesn’t feel or have desires, it is the individuals each within it that are alive and have purpose, or any meaning at all. OK – I think I am rushing that one a bit – I’ll explain what I mean better sometime later.
    I do think that individuals collaborating together on shared ideals is still the key here and that is something that if made possible will create a quantum shift in society.

  5. Shawn, there are members of the ZM forum which are rabidly anti-religion, but they speak only for themselves. Other members are deeply spiritual. The movement is about what we have in common, however, and science is the best tool we have to make sure that everyone’s physical needs are met.

    Peter B., are you so sure that our current society has not been engineered? Isn’t that what PJ’s movies are basically about – that we are products of the system and due to our conditioning we don’t question fundamental aspects of our lives?

    As for how to make our lives meaningful, well, that is something we must each answer for ourselves.

  6. @JoeZ
    Thank you JoeZ – Yes, I can see many differences in the people joining up with the Zeitgeist Movement forum and the conflict in ideas going on there. However, what I really do enjoy about the forum are the creative ones, who have had the opportunity to release the normal boundaries and really let there imagination fly – we will see some interesting things there I am sure. My reservation though still stands on the basics tenets of the movement – its absolute dependence on the ‘scientific method’ and its absolute that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are conditioned.

    The ‘scientific method’ is something that I myself hold highly, it is an absolutely efficient tool that can be used in determining ‘truth’ or the laws of the universe – however I am IMHO finding that it isn’t everything, not when it comes to people. There is so much more beyond this that depends more on the ‘spirit’ that exists within every person alive. Having a ‘technocracy’ that will sort out resource problems of the world is an attractive idea when you compare to the system that we live in but there is so much more missing. I am still going through the whole thing and learning more myself before I write exactly what it is that I mean, I certainly do not want to be wrong and there is so much ground to cover. However, an analogy comes to mind, not a good one admittedly but it pooped in there – if you ever watched the film ‘I Robot’, the main character Del Spooner (Will Smith) has a real issue with technology and its advancement because when he was involved in a motoring accident and ended up in the water he could see in another car a little girl drowning, the robot based on scientific methodology and probability concluded that it was him that should be saved, even with forceful protests from Del to ‘Save Her!’, it didn’t and she drowned. The analogy is essentially that the mathematically correct method of saving resources may not be an answer that any individual could feel comfortable with – no matter what conditioning takes place or separating out of deviants etc.
    OK – I probably need a better analogy that is more fitting to the ideals the Zeitgeist Movement is striving towards but I hope you see at least there is something more to this.

    The absolute idea of ‘evil’ being a conditioned response is something I am working through myself at the moment. I feel IMHO that ‘evil’ and ‘good’ really do exist outside the frame of experience, hence not conditioned and that we do understand inherently what they are. Though ‘evil’ as a concept (and I do love trying to break things into pure concept) are a mixture as far as I can tell of ‘knowing something bad/negative’ and ‘fear’. The only thing I can suggest at the moment are that I believe that if you knew nothing in the universe and were learning without any chance of others conditioning you, you would find things that you would associate with bad/negative, for example ‘to fall’ would create one of these concepts – if you found an environment that made you ‘fall’ consistently you may associate ‘fear’ with it because it causes negative feelings/results – the concept I think IMHO is that the environment to you will be ‘evil’ and you will disassociate with it as much as possible. Apologies – if that what long winded, I can see it but most often cannot explain it – it’s like a landscape to me – but please don’t ask me how that works.

    Again IMHO, it comes down to gathering the positive, the highest ideals, the best methods and letting everybody without question work equally towards building up what our future should be. If we freed ourselves from these bonds, ‘the minutiae of life’ and worked towards being what we all have inside us we could together fix the global problems that exist today, help each other accomplish what we are capable of and pushing our boundaries beyond one world, to many more, whether physical, virtual or other. The science and the technology will be used as tools along with many others to reach what we all agree is the right direction.

    I know, lofty words and ideas – who am I to suggest such a thing but that idea just keeps growing and growing and it is very frustrating I have neither the technical, social or communicative skills to display that vision. I know that I am not going to stop, I will keep going on this until I have worked it out or until life ceases for me, so this idea will be worked on no matter what. I will voice any opinion I have in the Zeitgeist Movement if I have the time to or it seems useful to the individuals there, unless for some reason I am thrown out (a deviant?) but I do not believe it has aimed high enough, hasn’t worked out how to join people for collaboration and effective decision making, or has unnecessarily opposed itself to a large proportion of the planet by its plan without first allowing them to have a voice. I think omnicracy not technocracy is a higher ideal. We’ll see…

    I know Peter will have his opinion on your question too but I will give my thoughts on it. Aren’t your ‘engineers’ a product of some system too? This may simply be those in power protecting their own possibly? They must in this concept be few in number, so what is the answer? To connect everybody in a way that full collaboration could take place, the more outweigh the few, the hierarchies and power centers are totally flattened, the whole decision process absolutely decentralised. It doesn’t mean conflict, it doesn’t have to, because the more and more that get to collaborate and communicate, the more our true direction is revealed. I have focused myself on these being our highest ideal because I saw that was where all the concepts of openness, transparency, equality etc belonged. Do you believe in those things? I am sure you will find many things inside you that are common with every human being on the planet.

    Finally, ‘how to make your lives meaningful’, you say we ‘must’ work out for ourselves – I actually agree. But think – Why do you say it? Why does that idea make sense to you? ‘Must’ we – I am playing an opposing advocate here – What are the alternatives?

    Apologies Joe, this was really just meant to be a simple reply but your statements made me think of things more. I hope at least some of it is coherent enough and you don’t have any urge to send me to some madhouse 🙂


  7. Quick addition:
    I have written much of what is here into the forums at the Zeitgeist Movement and it seems I may put people off. This is certainly not my intention, nor to get any part of this wrong, so for consistency here is where I posted – http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=173694 – there are a lot of interesting ideas and discussions going on there. Personally I am just making sure that I make the right decision in the end.

  8. Hi,

    Of course there’s something wrong with it. Look at the date written on the banner related to the Zeitgeist video festival on the main page. It’s Sept. 9th-11th 2011. 9-11 all over again … twice.

    If these people are capable of sacrificing their own citizens for “the betterment of human specie”, who can guarantee that they won’t do even worse things once they realize that the human emotions are the generator of the problems in the unified harmonized New Age idyllic society? They might even try to alter us to remove emotions, making a new specie of emotionless creatures. These are the people that made the existing system of corruption, pollution and suffering just to show us that we need to change. Just awful!

  9. Hi Shawn,i felt the same way hear is my conclusion beware of false profits why? i noticed they use a lot of the all seeing eye symbolism aka the light bearer aka lucifer aka satan. They also strongly disprove of jesus which i find very odd,why are so many so called change the world for the better people all seem to mention jesus is fake. Why do you think they would do that. False profits don`t have to be nasty horrible people,if there is a devil and i believe there is,he is extremely clever.
    I would say to you go by what your instincs are so clearly telling you. Good luck in your journey as it will be a long one.

  10. I have only seen the first movie. After they made an infinite amount of fallacies trying to disprove Christianity, I lost any respect I had for the movement. I did not bother to watch any other parts. This doesn’t even have to do with them being anti-religious. They simply relied on fancy effects to brainwash the mass.
    They creators have NO credibility as they state false “facts”. All the movies can best be described as science-fiction, not as documentary. Too bad there are plenty of sheep to believe them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *