I'm not sure if anyone here would be interest in this flick or not, but I just finished watching it and found it quite intelligible and straight forward in the points that it makes.  Also, if you have a computer to tv hookup you can at least watch it on a forty inch screen with no quality issues.


Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, by director Peter Joseph, is a feature length documentary work which will present a case for a needed transition out of the current socioeconomic monetary paradigm which governs the entire world society.

This subject matter will transcend the issues of cultural relativism and traditional ideology and move to relate the core, empirical "life ground" attributes of human and social survival, extrapolating those immutable natural laws into a new sustainable social paradigm called a "Resource-Based Economy".

THEATRICAL RELEASE - Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is planned to be released in 60+ countries and in 20+ languages starting January 15th 2011. This large scale release is not associated with any major distributor.

DVD/INTERNET RELEASE - This is a non-commercial project, which means it will be available for free acquisition via internet in both viewing form and full DVD download. ZeitgeistMovingForward.com will also have a physical $5.00 DVD available in mid to late January.


Views: 224

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

hi seth, yeah, i watched it.......probably a pretty accurate diagnosis of the global system in this one. i just think the solution part of the film is utopian fantasy and pipe dream; not that i wouldn't want to see something like that happen. peter must suffer from some kind of magical thinking because there is no way to get there from here other than magical thinking...it is too bad though that we can't get even one tiny country to volunteer as a test tube for this experiment. alas, fiat currency and fractional lending has expanded to every nation on earth with the exception of one tiny island off england......another thing that peter may not have considered is the possibility that this system is run by sheer ruthless cold-blooded killers who will never let this society be any thing other than how they have engineered it to be....

imo, kenny's tipping point hypothesis is probably closer to the bulls-eye as far as future trends go......it's funny though, there's been a lot of negative reaction from people who i would have thought would have been on line with peter, but they dislike the last part because peter isn't positing a return to tribalism and pre-modern modes of existing......go figure! the vancouver left has always been a bit nutty, not that these folks would know the first thing about living off the land...they'd die if they got what they wished for........

hey seth, here's a link with some rightful debunking of zeitgeist and the venus project: 




even if some small country did volunteer as a venus project experiment it would still cost a small fortune to engineer that kind of city! gotta love irony!


anyway, pathological personalities with centers of gravities combined at unhealthy red/amber/orange is basically synonymous with cold blooded killers:) my point was that i just don't buy that 3rd rate military dictators in tunisia are driving global policy......

I've also seen it. As well as the other two. Zeitgeist Addendum is my favourite. There was also a presentation with Jacque and Roxanne in Stockholm the other day which I and a buddy attended. It was a good talk, but you can very much notice Jacque is getting old; sometimes he's rambling and regressing into some hardcore Orange hate. He also said art was, I quote, "worthless". :P


It's a very interesting philosophy. I still have some doubts however. For example, say you have an extremely beautiful island (with some features that can't simply be replicated), but its so small only about 20 people can live there. Now, in a Venus Projectian world, who gets to live there? Who gets to decide?

Hi Andrew, to me the most important thing about the solution part of the film is that they present one in the first place.  Personally I find it highly unlikely for such a thing to ever come to fruition unless of course we experience a collapse on many fronts first (which will undoubtedly happen), then I could see the odds increasing, but that isn't even the point, the point is that people are thinking about the problems we face and are presenting their ideas for functional change.

To a degree they did address the utopianist criticism, among others, in the film. They didn't seem blinded by the realities that we face in our planetary society.  I even received the impression that they themselves felt their vision was unlikely to occur, but I can't recall what part gave me that impression(?).

I can't say I see much of a point in the for profit company ordeal.  To me that type of criticism is similar to harping on David Suzuki for the amount of air travel he uses.  If more good is being done by means of the action in question what exactly is the problem?

I was resistant to even watch this film in the first place, but I am a glutton for openness and have to say it exceeded my expectations.  I think this film is in good merit to help snap many out of their mindless bubbles and will hopefully inspire positive action and change moving forward.  Simply there is more good than bad in this film.

The guy is ninety four so yeah I would say that is getting old, and in terms of value systems this film gave me the impression of green moving to yellow so it makes sense to have some orange hate shining through in there. 


Dawid Dahl said:

I've also seen it. As well as the other two. Zeitgeist Addendum is my favourite. There was also a presentation with Jacque and Roxanne in Stockholm the other day which I and a buddy attended. It was a good talk, but you can very much notice Jacque is getting old; sometimes he's rambling and regressing into some hardcore Orange hate. He also said art was, I quote, "worthless". :P


It's a very interesting philosophy. I still have some doubts however. For example, say you have an extremely beautiful island (with some features that can't simply be replicated), but its so small only about 20 people can live there. Now, in a Venus Projectian world, who gets to live there? Who gets to decide?

"this film gave me the impression of green moving to yellow so it makes sense to have some orange hate shining through in there."

Oh, I meant that the hate was coming from the Orange perspective. I say that because in the presentation he seemed absolutely convinced that science was the one and only valuable approach in solving all the world's problems. I may not disagree with that per see (I think technology is the driving force for mass-alleviation of suffering), but I certainly think that there are other dimensions of life that needs to be recognized as well. Obviously, just because you give a person a lot of money or resources doesn't mean s/he'll automatically turn into an egalitarian, peace-loving liberal straight away.

I like when Peter Joseph talks about what he's doing now with the ZG-movement and the documentaries as "social therapy"; things aren't going to change in this direction without a willingness to change. And yes, the ZG-movies (the latter two, anyway) also strike me as Green/Yellow (with Orange integrated in a quite healthy way).

For anyone still interested in this discussion, here is an updated version of the underlying train of thought in its most comprehensive avatar to-date:


And here is a lively debate which turned out to be a unfinished sparring game, with my own comments below:


Peter Joseph versus Stefan Molyneux debate

Anyone watching just this video without prior familiarity with, and understanding of the two gentlemen and their work are unlikely to get an adequate import of the importance of the subject under discussion and ramifications thereof, let alone an appreciation of their intent and investment in this subject. This, in my view, accounts for a lot of underwhelm and even misunderstanding which I seen from responses to this video debate, even from people whom I otherwise admire.

In my own analysis below, I will use PJ and SM to refer to the two gentlemen and NM for my own reading or understanding.

Now, getting to the subject of the debate itself. PJ starts with some kind of diagnosis of the epistemological hurdles in such a complex discussion, which I personally explained fairly satisfactorily, even though not fully understood or appreciated by SM. The first is Continuum fallacy or Denial of continuum: The assumption that the State and the Market can be separated is shown as an unrealistic one, because the economy underlies the political system. It is a political economy. SM consistently directs his ire at the State system, but does not explore how the state got created in the first place. In my view (NM), I see the state system emerge as a collusive collaboration among those in charge of power and resources, at best well-intended to start with and at worst as a disguised manipulative act that was made to appear democratic and fair over time. 


The second hurdle which PJ highlights is what he calls the Delusion of System-contrary moral imposition: Moral and ethical standards or codes imposed on a structure which is inherently against those codes, never works. For example, if I expose a poor domestic help to money lying around loosely at home, and then impose that she does not steal them for the sake of my comfort in being careless enough to keep them lying around, I am imposing moral standards in a system-contrary environment (NM). The premise of resource scarcity and the Malthusian notion of win-lose in a zero-sum environment and the need to compete for resources for differential advantage automatically generates the gaming dynamics of power, wherein the optimization of the well-being of oneself against the well- being of other is inevitable. (PJ). Secondly, in a knowledge economy the rules of scarcity and abundance switch from that of the industrial economy. SM posits that scarcity is an inherent part of nature which requires a resource allocation system: two points he seems to ignore – that was more the case in a material resource based industrial economy, not a non-material resource based knowledge economy any more, and secondly the market system’s externalization of costs have actually destroyed nature which actually has scarce resources!

The third hurdle cited by PJ is the fallacy of truncated distinctions: Policy violence and behavioural violence cannot be addressed at the roots, if structural violence continues; and structural violence is rooted in inequality and poverty. SM points to income tax as a problem (as does Austrian economic theory), which appears to be a relatively superficial matter to me in the context of this discussion, even if valid on its own right. SM also points to the downward movement of prices in a free market system, which seems to be irrelevant to the issue about inequality as explored by PJ.


SM, in his defence of the market system, cites the example of a transaction of fair and non-coercive exchange between 2 parties demonstrating that both are better off, rather than it being a game of unfair advantage or inequality generation. Firstly, in my view there is a reductionism error here to assume the sum total of individual transactions in a system will demonstrate the same properties of the constituent parts. Secondly, what he seems to ignore is that the underlying value-drivers for the transaction as a result of social influence (of materialism, for example) may be totally unfriendly to overall health of the natural environment and the even the individual well-being, which the free market ignores. For example, the individual may be buying a cell phone manufactured in China and throwing away his 6 month old one, thereby in effect supporting exploitative wage-labour of Apple and non-recyclable material dump in his dustbin, both of which are harmful at the collective level at the expense of individual consumerist pleasure (not to speak of the fact that even for the individual, the purchase of the cell phone does not actually made him happy in the deeper sense. SM does not demonstrate cognizance of the ecological, moral and psychological implications of cyclical consumption in his transactional view.

PJ contends that the underlying ethic of creating differential advantage will always make capitalists create some kind of power machinery (such as a state) that serves their interest. SM rebuts saying a single business will become uncompetitive if they individually try to invest in creating a state – he actually betrays a lack of system understanding – of how there can be collusion to create a state, as has always happened historically in every civilization. States have got created not by individual action, but by the agglomeration of resourceful people who have collaborated in the orchestration of a power machinery that serve their interests of self-preservation and differential advantage. PJ’s point about the very existence of that manipulative propensity being a systemic problem gets to the core of the dynamic much more than SM’s idealized notion that in the absence of the State everything will be hunky dory.

On the point about market discipline, SM cites the example of his daughter’s lemonade stand to argue for its necessity. PJ points out that market discipline as a systemic necessity is valid only within the premise of a market system where someone has to win and someone has to lose, which in reality, is unnecessary and has many other much more serious structural problems. SM seems to be very transactionally myopic and misses the systemic interrelationships of various other factors in the context of a system he proposes or extols. He, in my view, does not demonstrate recognition of the relationship between the general and the particular.

SM’s answer to the externality problem of neo-liberal capitalism as it is practiced today is to move more property in private hands so that they are actually taken care of, which does not happen because the state owns most of the property. So externalities will reduce, as per his thinking, if people have ownership of the environment. However he misses the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ problem entirely, let alone the practicality of providing individual private ownership to resources that cannot be divided (such as water, air, etc.) as opposed to those that can be divided (land for example). Even if it could, here again we see a lack of systemic understanding, that the sum total of local optima can never achieve a global optimum ( as proven in Eliyahu Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints).

SM also feels strongly about the general conditions in which children are raised and encourages moral responsibility of parenting. PJ does deeper into diagnosing why parents do what they do and links it back to our predatory socio-economic system premised on scarcity and competitiveness. SM’s moral injunction seems to stand in splendid isolation of the bio-psycho-social nature of human conditioning. His view may stem from his key diagnosis of family dysfunction in the interpersonal relational domain only (as evinced by statistics he quotes). While there is some truth to the need of cultivation of relational intelligence and presence in the man-woman relationship, PJ attributes the economic pressures of modern living to the problem which SM ignores or denies.

The point that PJ makes in the end about less inequality in countries with higher state intervention is something that sounds a bit odd and needs to be explored further, both statistically and procedurally. Was it a system outcome, or the result of specific individuals of higher ethical reasoning and moral integrity? (NM)

SM cites statistics to cite how welfare policies have actually given rise to more poverty, rather than the other way around which was the original intention. At the same time, he philosophically acknowledges the state system as completely corrupt, inefficient and generally unnecessary. So, it is not clear if his argument critiques the policy itself and its humanitarian foundational intent, or the corruption-addled means of its implementation by a dysfunctional state machinery. His argument has a conflation error of sorts, or a root-causal analysis deficiency.


In summary, I find more root-cause exploration and systemic awareness in PJ than in SM. Moreover, PJ intended the next talk between them to go through a solution landscape for a new social organization, which unfortunately never happened. While both PJ and SM have taken great pains in deconstructive critique of the current system, only PJ has attempted a reconstruction. To my knowledge, SM hasn’t yet come out with a reconstructive blueprint, with or without the help of the Austrian economic model applied to the state of the world today.

Finally, it was unfortunate that the two people ended up eroding their relationship in course of this dialogue, so much so that not only could they not reconvene for Part 2, but had to resort to individual broadcasts maligning each other. I find this a problem with almost all debates in public and private forums, where we get caught up with the question of ‘Who is right?’ rather than ‘What is right’?! I hope the two of them get together sometime over a drink with intense belly laughter, and re-connect at the level of the foundational motivation that has propelled them in their individual journeys in the first place.





hi neleesh, it seems to me that both arguments are premised on false assumptions. sm argues from a position that never has happened or could happen . the way we trade goods and services has always been mediated by the elite . i did get a good chuckle when he suggested i am free to go kill bambi in the woods. pj argues it seems from a perspective that all spirituality is superstious ignorance . one might suggest that if one dismissess the root cause of corruption on this planet then one may be prone to fallacious conclusions. the thing is though, traditional and modern religionists and spiritulists are in my opinion caught in shelob's web of economic corruption and not even knowing they are trapped concern themselves with who is screwing who sexually. the point being that they are missing the condition of their entanglement within corruption - what i call the left hand of god under nondual theism . there is only one cure for this imo . to recognize the nature of ones condition and to correct it by the only method available under this theses - to implement the right hand protocols of co-operative stewartship juxtaposed to non necessary exploitation of the earth and the life upon it . of course it would also help if humanity could understand what the left hand protocols are ; why they exist and what their purpose is.
my apologies for the misspell neelesh. mediate may be the wrong word but the point i am making is the elite always stack the deck in their favour much like the house in casinos. yes, ten percent are winning but the whole concept is based in corruption in the first place and this is our global ecomomic system . the last 30 years have been particularly gruesome under neoliberal ideology . not helping is an 1850 economic mindset which was fine with a billion people and seening endless resource . no new ways of trading goods and services have been implemented factoring in todays circumstances . hell, they can't even house the tea workers in india ; keeping them in abject misery while the corpoate owners reap all the benefits of that resource . sickening .
it seems to me the global elite have three choices in the coming century :
- hope that ITER or something like it can replace the fossil fuel supply to scale so they can just keep keeping on with their disfunction . [ not holding my breath on that one ]
= usher in a G A I N income for all people . as robots take over use the existing infrastructure of the last 100 years for recreational pursuit .
- eliminate six billion people
i know i would choose the second option .

Hello Andrew,

If you have some time to check out two very engaging presentations, please see the following:

The first is a set of three questions posed by Peter Joseph challenging the 'market economy':

The second is a response to those three questions:

I invite your considered responses to the above.


Hey Neelesh, 

well, I'm glad that C.C. and Peak Oil are hoaxes after all! No mention of these issues . 

You will never hear me say that the left hand of god has no purpose or its own inherent awesomeness ! Under my thesis, though  , it's still anti-right hand protocols no matter the drag :) 

if the neo-elite want to be benevolent they will find no resistance from me ( like a good king of old) . But, I see them just as easily being pawns in something they refuse to understand and acknowledge . In that context Integral could easily be co-opted by the malevolent . 

Reply to Discussion


What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2018   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service