Hello, my name is Peter Joseph and this is a July 15th 2012 video essay.

I haven't done an essay in a while so I decided it would be about time.

This video is going to quickly address some persistent misinterpretations of the Movement

which originate from researchers and reporters

which, frankly, should know better.

Please understand that there are many people out there who oppose or object

to various issues brought up by the Movement.

But at least they do so in a way that actually has some basis

with respect to what the Movement is and does.

I have nothing but respect for those who oppose us with

general consideration and diligence in the process of their criticism.

As the old saying goes: "If we all agreed there would be no progress."

So this essay is not to denounce general critics of the Zeitgeist Movement

who have done basic, fundamental research of the Movement

and communicate their ideas and objections in a mature, respectful way.

That's amazing and great.

In fact, I want to bring on notable critics of the Movement

to The Zeitgeist Movement's global radio show

to speak with me and others directly about their objections.

Unfortunately a lot of people out there prefer to just criticize from afar.

And I'm sorry to say, if any researcher or reporter is not willing to interact

with those persons or groups they choose to criticize,

being open to change their disposition through new clarifying information,

their integrity is instantly void.

We live in a very different world today with the age of the Internet

and now everyone has the ability and freedom to present

their ideas and criticisms of the world.

However, as with all freedom comes increased responsibility.

And one-sided closed attacks are simply intellectually unjustifiable,

whether intended or not.

At any rate, if you would like to suggest somebody for our global radio show

please email media@thezeitgeistmovement.com

with the subject line 'TZM Objections'

and we will work to bring them on, so we can understand their criticisms better.

Okay, back on point.

The trigger for this essay was my recent discovery

of an apparently peer-review style article published in 2011

in the 'Journal of Contemporary Religion'

called 'The Emergence of Conspirituality'

by Charlotte Ward and David Voas.

I discovered this article by stumbling upon the current state

of The Zeitgeist Movement's Wikipedia page

which sadly undergoes constant edit-wars by some very persistent

and clearly anti-Zeitgeist Movement gatekeepers

that subtlely pollute and distort what The Zeitgeist Movement actually does.

You know as much as I appreciate Wikipedia's democratic platform

which is truly amazing in most cases,

when it comes to anything controversial

or seemingly subjective in interpretation,

you often end up with ongoing edit-wars,

and only the most persistent and aggressive will win.

In such a context, Wikipedia is not about truth and proper representation,

it is simply about aggression and persistence

and those with the most time, evidently, will win.

Anyway, while I never take Wikipedia seriously as a source on that basic level,

I am still very much amused by what surfaces in this sort of entertainment aspect

with respect to the ongoing debasing of The Zeitgeist Movement there

through deliberate misinterpretation and spin by its gatekeepers.

My favorite part is the current Criticism section,

not only because none of the criticisms actually have anything to do

with The Zeitgeist Movement's interests and intents,

but also because of how much it outweighs in focus

the other flimsy statements that appear to express

what The Zeitgeist Movement is,

actually providing no real information of relevance at all.

Just a hodge-podge of prima facie and trajections

that ignore mostly everything the Movement advocates,

harping instead on my personal unrelated artistic expressions,

the Zeitgeist film series,

specifically my first film,

which was made years before the Movement was even realized

and has no direct connection at all

with respect to the Movement's interests.

And for those familiar, it's nothing new,

we have endless 9/11 conspiracy relationships

from the first film highlighted,

which of course have nothing to do with anything we promote.

We have this very odd article by Michelle Goldberg

which suggests that the Movement is some type of anti-Semitic cult

along with some dubious claim about this German social network site

that banned evidently one of our groups because of anti-Semitism

which is completely absurd,

since there's no evidence that the group that was banned

had any official connection to our chapter network

and was not just some random page using our name

which has been prolific across the Internet.

And not to mention of course, The Zeitgeist Movement clearly

has no racial, religious or class bias,

and rather seeks human unification and support in general, not division.

But my real interest here is the noted article in the 'Journal of Contemporary Religion'

and the lapse - complete lapse - of academic integrity put forward by the authors,

which paints not only an incorrect picture of the Movement,

but an offensive and defaming one.

Let me ask you a question:

If you were a reporter wanting to learn about The Zeitgeist Movement objectively,

and you wanted to understand what it was, what it did,

what would YOU do? Would you go to Wikipedia?

Would you go to some random blog or YouTube video that comes up in a search engine?

Or would you go to the official site that actually made its points very clear

regarding what the organization does, its mission,

and review our official materials and lectures?

The Zeitgeist Movement's website has been up since 2009

with a very concise FAQ and enormous number of lectures by our lecture team.

It's very difficult to miss in fact, how obvious, what our mission is.

Sadly however, it appears the FAQ, the pdf guides, the lectures,

and the enormous amount of work put into this through radio shows,

and parallel websites, blogs and so forth,

our global event days, our town hall lectures, our media project,

the entire educational method and avocation,

apparently all of that is invalid

when it comes to the interests of some of those that wish to report on us.

Of course, to give credit where credit is due,

the New York Times and the Huffington Post reviews of Z-Day,

along with many live interviews and reports by Russia Today,

mostly got it right.

But the vast majority continue to embarrass themselves

with what appears to be simply lazy research,

or even worse, malicious intent.

In fact very quickly, an amusing article,

at least in gesture produced by the London Telegraph a few weeks ago,

without any noted evidence at all,

claims that an unfortunately disillusioned boy,

insensitively labeled as "Forest Boy" by the media,

was quote "inspired by the Zeitgeist Movement"

with the author going on to make some of the most egregious errors

I've ever seen in an article.

It said the boy "was inspired to travel to Germany

by the teachings of the Zeitgeist Movement

that aims to destroy market capitalism."

The Zeitgeist Movement has never published anything

about destroying anything, first of all.

Our disposition is simply that capitalism will destroy itself, in fact;

we are simply watching it go down and planning for the future

like any diligent group should.

As far as his traveling to Germany,

the author was forced to actually retract and remove

a claimed that I originated from Germany!

I, Peter Joseph apparently am a German citizen,

uh which ... of course I'm not,

amongst many amateur errors, that I guess that might add in well

with the argument that apparently I'm anti-Semitic

so I'm sure Michelle Goldberg appreciated that.

Nevertheless, it also refers to things like, it's a

"political movement that holds future generations will view Christianity as a fraud."

Actually, no, the Zeitgeist Movement respects all religions equally

as a course of human evolution

and has never published anything making such statements.

This is once again a deliberate misinterpretation

coming from my personal 2007 film

which had interests about comparative religion

and has nothing to do with the Movement itself.

If Michael Moore started a social movement,

does that movement mean it's going to have to be about say adolescent violence,

such as what was the context of his film in part for 'Bowling for Columbine?'

What about his movie Fahrenheit 9/11?

Does that mean his movement would have to be about 9/11 issues that was noted in the film?

No.

Even the premise that a whole non-profit social movement could be based upon

merely a film series is idiotic.

Anyway, moving on.

The article also refers to us as a protest movement,

which is really odd given that we've never protested anything and do not intend to,

for we don't believe in the efficacy of traditional protest.

Instead we work through peaceful educational projects

in the hope to bring about sound logic and reason regarding

new social possibilities.

So the public, once informed, can make up their own mind.

And if we transition we do,

if we don't, then we don't.

In the words of Buckminster Fuller,

a strong influence on the Zeitgeist Movement's intent,

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.

To change something,

build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

Sadly, the Telegraph reporter is not alone

and this leads us to the noted article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion.

The context of the Zeitgeist Movement's inclusion in this article is presented

as related to a phenomenon perceived by the authors

called "conspiratuality"

which is defined as "a combination of New Age beliefs

and conspiracy culture" in effect.

Now, it isn't the scope of this essay to discuss the rather abstract linkage

the authors are trying to draw,

but I will say that the entire paper is based upon a series of self-defining

self-referring, extremely subjective, circumstantial presuppositions

that haphazardly and crudely categorize

a large number of counter-culture type groups in the world today.

Now, in some agreement regarding the subject of conspiracies as a theme

I will admit that I personally have lost a lot of patience with those

who rather than work to really consider the root causes scientifically of human behavior

oriented in a system like ours that rewards power consolidation and control,

they choose to just harp upon the symptom itself,

referencing the unseen "they" as it were.

The human blame game, no matter how exotic and creative,

simply bores me to death

as it actually isn't doing anything progressive.

And on that level,

I can share in the frustration of those who believe things

that really don't accomplish anything or could be erroneous

because they're not related directly to causality.

Yet, on the other hand,

to dismiss the very idea that human society historically

is and has been controlled by various power establishments-...

We can talk about traditional ones like kings and monarchs

to the age of feudalism; we could also extend that of course

to what the Occupy movement is fighting today with regard to financial power.

Those that seek and to preserve their self-interest over others

manipulating to their advantage dishonestly,

is not a profound, out-there, radical conspiracy nut-job notion, okay?

In a world today where 40% of the wealth is owned by 1% of the world's population,

anyone who thinks there is no structurally-based

self-interest oriented manipulation for upper-class advantage

is in an enormous level of denial

about the nature of our reality today.

And the use of the term "conspiracy theorist"

recently has served those in power quite well

by making all of those who realize such unfair social realities

simply appear like irrational lunatics.

So, as expected this article takes the establishment perspective overall,

painting the picture that any such realizations

are all irrational conspiracy theories

and is in turn painted, in their words,

as part of a "politico-spiritual philosophy"

when combined with the "New Age"

which they define as

"mystical individual transformation;

an awareness of new, non-material realities,

the imposition of personal vision into society

and belief in universally invisible but pervasive forms of energy."

Okay, all of that denoted let's step back and see how

they fit the Zeitgeist Movement into all of this.

On page 7 of the article extract,

a section entitled "The emergence of conspiratuality,"

they begin to discuss the Zeitgeist Movement by sourcing a singular statement,

very much out of context and in a very misleading manner,

from an old obviously cherry-picked introductory essay

called 'The Means is the End'

which can be found archived online.

They partially quote a paragraph which,

to one who is not read anything else in the essay

provides absolutely no info about what the Zeitgeist Movement is,

not to mention opening it up to large-scale semantic misinterpretations

obviously fitting their agenda.

The quote is as follows.

Open quote.

"The elite power systems are little affected in the long run