Self Appointed Guardians In The Spotlight

Reproduced from the TZM blog. Submitted by Dave Lucas.

We are familiar with Peter Joseph’s references to the self-appointed guardians of the status quo – those all-too-abundant, willfully ignorant members of society who seem to regard any criticism of the current system as an attack on their own dignity, self-esteem and social status, and who are all too ready with their belittling strawman attacks as soon as the RBE concept is introduced. We have all spent time sharing online resources helping to arm ourselves with various tips on how to cut through their logical fallacies and maintain a strong, credible position in any debate.

A key focus of TZM is to concentrate on the systemic root causes of problems rather than being too distracted in fighting the symptoms. If we can recognise characteristic patterns of thought in the minds of our critics and intelligently identify the psychological flaws that are manifesting these patterns, this will be an elegant way to shift the onus of credibility away from our own position and onto theirs.

A popular theme in TZM circles is the possible influence of psychopathy within institutions of power and influence in our ruthlessly competitive politico-corporate system. Dr Robert Hare is one of the world’s most recognised experts in psychopathy and author of the psychopathy checklist used by official sources in the clinical diagnosis of the condition. In the online film ‘I am fishead’, Dr Hare analyzes the workings of the corporate system and explores how they can create a career environment advantageous to predatory, psychopathic personalities. He looks at case studies comprising a few hundred individuals from the most successful one per cent of the corporate elite. His conclusion is that although there does not appear to be a higher per capita concentration of psychopaths in the elite group as compared to the rest of society, those in that group do show on average a significantly more pronounced degree of psychopathy than those in the lower rungs of society. Also, this film looks at drugs such as Prozac used as stress suppressants by individuals working in the commercial environment – and how the artificial removal of that stress (which is a normal reaction to a socially adverse environment) leaves a person in the same emotionally detached frame of mind as would be found naturally in a sociopath in the same environment.

But what are the characteristic personality traits we need to be ready to recognise and counter? And is it just psychopaths we are up against, or are there other higher-functioning personality-disordered individuals who will always be predisposed to react with a barrage of dismissive resistance to the concept of a fair, just and equal society?

Dr Hare’s psychopathy checklist is shown below: -

Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"• Glibness/superficial charm
• Grandiose sense of self-worth
• Pathological lying
• Cunning/manipulative
• Lack of remorse or guilt
• Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
• Callousness; lack of empathy
• Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".• Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
• Parasitic lifestyle
• Poor behavioral control
• Lack of realistic long-term goals
• Impulsivity
• Irresponsibility
• Juvenile delinquency
• Early behavior problems
• Revocation of conditional release
Traits not correlated with either factor
• Promiscuous sexual behavior
• Many short-term (marital) relationships
• Criminal versatility
• Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning

As we can see, the traits listed under factor 1 are those that most obviously describe the kinds of people who are at home with predatory capitalism and who will most abhor the notion that we can flatten the social hierarchies, remove exploitation and achieve freedom and equality for all. There are many in our society who exhibit these traits to varying degrees but who are less inclined to show the more self-destructive traits listed under factor 2 - and who are thus likely to remain invisible to the criminal justice system. Their abuses may be more subtle, insidious and an integral part of our societal model itself. Their condition has a name of its own, and which merits greater recognition: Narcissistic personality disorder.

A prevalent component of today’s social conditioning is learning to attach one’s own social status to material possessions and to the prestigious career path, and hence income that gives one access to them. If related psycho-social pressures or traumas occur in a person’s early years (especially if coupled with a particular genetic predisposition), that person may be induced to develop coping mechanisms, including an irrational compulsion to strive for disproportionate levels of status and material wealth, supported by a disproportionate sense of their own self-worth and entitlement - irrespective of any commensurate achievements that might genuinely entitle them to such recognition and reward. Such a person will have a life-long compulsion to maintain their differential advantage over others at all cost. They will be characterised by a lack of empathy towards others, and will become expert in applying manipulative behaviours, false charm and deception to achieve their advantage and control over others. They are predators living most of their lives hiding behind a contrived, false persona that mirrors the artificiality of our modern commercial world. Their own, real personality has become deeply repressed and remains in an undeveloped childlike state of emotional immaturity. Hence they know only how to mimic the outward display of emotions they require to impress, convince and influence others – and not the genuine emotions themselves. They will tend to study role models, including TV and film characters, in order to perfect that mimicry. Their social charms can therefore appear staged and exaggerated – as of course was the case with a recently exposed narcissist, Jimmy Savile.

Some debate still appears to prevail in professional psychology as to the boundaries between the psychopath, the narcissist and the malignant narcissist. The narcissist differs in the fact that they are not usually driven to such high levels of extreme risk taking that one associates with say, a serial killer, coupled with the fact that they tend to prefer their victims alive and kicking so that can enjoy the emotional feedback (narcissistic supply) that they gain from their psychological control over the person. They want to be admired, adored, worshipped and obeyed, and if that person doesn’t comply then they deserve to be crushed into submission.

The malignant narcissist is characterised by a particularly strong suppressed self-loathing and denial mechanism, and their behaviour may also be characterised by additional factors such as extreme jealousy, paranoia, and the drive to try to compensate for their own weaknesses with systematic, sadistic emotional bullying. A slighted malignant narcissist will quickly escalate their haughty, arrogant and self-righteous stance into a full-blown fury rather than lose an argument with their target – often their partner, in private away from the public gaze. This is termed a narcissistic rage. In an abusive personal relationship it forms part of a repeating cycle in which it alternates with periods of pleading for forgiveness and promises that things will become better. A true psychopath, exhibiting factors 1 and 2 is believed to have a greater genetic component to their condition, chiefly a physiological flaw in the link between the cognitive pre frontal cortex of the brain, and the emotional centre of the amygdale.

There are two individuals in my own circle of acquaintances who clearly exhibit narcissism. Both of these have reacted with hostile dismissal towards my involvement with the Zeitgeist movement, whilst remaining wilfully ignorant of any of the substance of what our aims encompass. They have both tried to undermine the credibility of TZM and its aims using childish playground insults rather than structured, logical arguments. Terms such as ‘loopy’, ‘bullshit’, ‘oddball’, etc. are the only language they can muster. When invited to offer logical arguments, their response has been to try to isolate me using that classic trick of the abuser : assuring me that other people we know are voicing the same mocking derision towards me - arguing that they are only trying to save me from making myself a ‘laughing stock’ through my involvement with a ‘cult’.

I have responded by explaining that the financial industry (in which both work, naturally!) is based upon a belief system which itself has an increasingly tenuous basis in mathematical reality, and that they are the ones who are actually embroiled in a cult. Their response to that is just more strawman attacks against my character. Both consider themselves respectable members of the community, and see the police, courts and of course the banks as playing an important and role in protecting the social fabric. They will both be quick to put up barriers if these institutions are questioned, and manufacture pompous reasons as to why such questioning is simply too impertinent and antisocial for a sane and socially conscious person to consider indulging in.

The hubristic inertia that maintains the status quo for the rigid and increasingly obsolete institutions of governance, law and finance in today’s society bears many of the hallmarks of narcissism, with sociopathy - either natural or induced – doing its bit to keep the chain of command in operation. As the monetary/market socio-economic system comes to the end of its natural life, those individuals are becoming more conspicuous in their desperation to keep the system in motion. They will be willing to exercise ever more ruthless bloody-mindedness in the face of reason in their suppression of those who are ready to leave the game. The more people there are ready and equipped to expose them, the less places they will have left to hide, and the further our society will move toward critical mass, with a new liberating confidence to embrace the brave unknown of the planetary civilisation.

Needless to say, there are a plethora of eloquent and illustrative articles, videos and forums on the web waiting to educate you. Just Google ‘narcissist’, ‘malignant narcissist’ and ‘psychopathy’.
Happy hunting…

Vultures Delight

Well, it turned out to be an eventful day. Peter Joseph, founder of the Zeitgeist Movement (the activist arm of the Venus Project) and its de facto leader, stepped down as official spokesman of this organization. It's highly probable that a video that was uploaded on YouTube on the 11th of April was the cause of the breakup. In that video Jacque Fresco, founder of the Venus Project, criticizes Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement and the organization itself - generally speaking - of not doing his/its best. Of course what Fresco said was surely not a smart thing to do since no man has done more for the Venus Project in the media than Peter Joseph.

I also figure that this was the final straw for Peter Joseph. He already mentioned before the release of Zeitgeist Moving Forward that he was feeling exhausted and hadn't gotten much sleep meeting the deadline of the movie release. Joseph is also a constant target of attack by critics who seem to be engaged full time in discrediting the Venus Project, the Zeitgeist Movement and the people that are involved - on a personal level. It even goes to the extreme, and Joseph is labeled and pictured as the next Hitler or a dictator. This is actually how far some people are willing to go in order to dismiss another ideology and it's just unbelievable.

I'm also thinking that Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows are already regretting this incident. Likewise, I think Peter Joseph also regrets this situation but he just reached the limits of what he could take. All of this is unfortunate of course yet on the other hand we must realize that this was never about individuals. It is about the concept, the idea of a new sustainable and stable, peaceful society, and the people that carry the torch will eventually have to pass that on anyway. It's about moving the idea forward.


What's perhaps even more striking is the actions of the critics. I've noticed that when pro-Zeitgeist or Venus Project videos get uploaded it doesn't take that long before 'dislike' votes appear. Meaning, that some person(s) are actively monitoring the uploads and voting them down but also are looking for dirt. (I myself am privileged to 10 instant 'dislikes' whenever I upload something.) This is what happened with the video where Fresco makes his critique as well. There are many videos where people take a tour in Venus, Florida. The channel on which the video in question was presented didn't get that many views, but the critics found it amazingly fast anyway. That is simply an indication of intense monitoring.

The vultures were also quick to jump on (what they perceived to be) the carcass, the final nail in the coffin of the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project. Videos quickly appeared on the YouTube channels belonging to critics, highlighting the critique Fresco made, with added phrases such as "this is the end." While I'm sure that is the intent of their actions, and btw these are the same people that insanely yell that we supporters are in a cult, I'm afraid that's all they can hope for.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Venus Project, what some people on the foreground might say to one another, you can't take the motivation away in people. That motivation is striving for a better world. That's nothing cult-like or evil. It's just the quest for peace and harmony. And that's why the Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project will simply move on. That's why it also doesn't matter that Peter Joseph steps down. Kudos to him. He has done wonderful work. Now it's simply time that other people continue in his footsteps.

Seeing Like A Troll

Last week I made a video response, sort of, to Muertos who issued a challenge to the Zeitgeist community by demanding that 'we' should read a book called 'Seeing Like A State' by professor James Scott in order to have a formal debate with him. The book itself is a critique against implementing technology on a large scale and central planning, which Scott calls 'high-modernism.' (In case you're wondering I am reading the book at the moment.) My video response was also heavily influenced by comedy since from what I've seen Muertos post on a number of forums and blogs, he's in no position to be taken seriously.

Scott's book is also the latest attempt by Muertos in persuading the Zeitgeist folks to let go of their ideology. That's because at some level Muertos can't stand that kind of ideology because it conflicts with his own. Of course, like many critics he doesn't let this be known. First we Zeitgeist supporters were a bunch of conspiracy theorists, based on the first Zeitgeist film which had nothing to do with the later Venus Project. Next we don't support charity, which is false, and after that we became cult members. Safe to say it has been a constant avalanche of critique. That's one thing, but another thing which leads to not taking him seriously is this;


Above was a message on the Conspiracy Science forums. Muertos dropped down his guard and admits why he's doing the things he does; 'to abuse and ridicule Zeitgeist members.' Clearly he has no intent in discussing matters in a civilized debate. In the back of his mind he already decided that Zeitgeist and the Venus Project should go the way of the dinosaurs. As such no one should feel obligated to meet any of his demands since they are insincere to begin with. It's typical trolling behavior. He was also waiting for some people to fail in meeting his demands so he could lash out in return.

In my interactions with him I also detected that he has a habit of generalizing. If someone adheres to a (conspiracy) theory surrounding 9/11 then the whole Zeitgeist Movement are a bunch of conspiracy theorists, omitting of course that some folks don't support the theory, don't care or have moved on already. His latest attempt in marginalizing a group of people and making them seem inadequate or disloyal is to refer to them as cult members. A favorite troll tactic. Quite funny actually since not so long ago Muertos stated that it was not a cult. Using the term cult is of course derogatory and intentional at that.
The Zeitgeist Movement advocates to use the scientific method for social concern, not religion. But these are of course semantics for someone whose only objective is to marginalize and discredit that which they don't agree with.

Kalvin

"To the Zeitgeist Movement
A hierarchical stratified society is nothing but the result of a natural phenomenon, that natural phenomenon which I have coined as "Mental Darwinism" is the result of mental, intellectual differences among individuals with some mentally better suited than others. Therefore an "Elite" is practically impossible to eliminate without subduing the human mind. That is exactly what this Zeitgeist movement is attempting to do, the creation of an "Altruist egalitarian utopia" in which the best mentally fitted is no different than an idiot and must not be rewarded for his mental ability, but instead brought to the level of the crowd for whom he must work on humanitarian grounds at the expense of the incompetence of his neighbor. Quote "Success must not be rewarded with material gains, but with the satisfaction of social contribution" (TZM). That is altruism in which you place the interests of others above your own and you sacrifice for your incompetent neighbor.

The Zeitgeist movement goes against nature, nature dictates that only the strongest survives and in our contemporary society only the smartest succeed leaving behind the ungifted. In the Zeitgeist "Altruist Egalitarian Utopia" anybody can simply say, "I'm not smart, I'm lazy, why work and think if my brother who is mentally competent can do the thinking and working for me, anyways he is the gifted not me, therefore he should work for me and I should just wait to use the fruits of his mind" Zeitgeist goes against nature itself, the capitalist society in which we live is the best socio-economic structure that obeys the dictates of nature itself. Somebody once said "He who wants to live let him fight, and he who does not want to fight does not deserve to live" Let the incompetent bastards perish and the competent individuals who can think succeed for that is nature and not the gain of the incompetent at the expense of the competent.

Unfortunate children of Africa and the World
As a believer in reason, I assume that every living human being has the capability to create rational decisions and produce rational thinking. A person who for the lack of ability finds himself in a particular socioeconomic position in which he cannot afford to provide himself with the most basic utilities for the sustainability of life, irrationally decides to procreate and raise a family instead of procuring a method to ameliorate his situation in order to provide and raise his family in descent environment with a promising future. The victims of his lack of rational thinking are his descendants who grow up in a miserable environment like the children in Africa whose misery and hunger was triggered by nobody but their parents who made the irrational decision to procreate before assuring the future well being of the consequences of their actions."

Once in a while you come across some truly amazing (and shocking) comments. The commentary above was made by a person on the official TZM YouTube channel and he's a critic of the movie Zeitgeist Moving Forward as is plain to see. The reasoning behind the critique is fascinating to see, from a psychological perspective mind you. I couldn't disagree more with this person. His ideology is there for everyone to detect although he does try to camouflage it. Looking at his YouTube profile was only a confirmation of what I already strongly suspected. Go take a look.

Beyond Copycatism II

Last week I did a blog on Samuel Gilonis, an outspoken critic of the Zeitgeist Movement, who felt it necessary to label the movement as a cult and Jacque Fresco as a racist. The reason why I titled the blog 'beyond copycatism' is because it was obvious to me that types of critique were simply copied from other sources. These sources do the exact same thing and employ a certain tactic so it's a no-brainer as to where the author got his inspiration. His next article which is a reply to Peter Joseph's commentary to the first article is named "Damn Everything But The Circus! A Response To Peter Joseph."

I have no problem with people trying to defend their arguments as long as they do it in a civil fashion. Sadly, some persons don't seem to realize that you can be offensive without using a single curse word. Degrading a person or group will have the same effect. Samuel Gilonis does this although it's a matter of debate whether he's aware of his own actions because right of the dot he insinuates that an entire group of people have fallen victim to sectarian beliefs, yet then wonders why some of them come over to his article to write criticizing replies. Here's a clue Sam, people felt offended. But either he's not aware of the result of his own actions or he's fully aware and milking the situation for what it's worth.

Gilonis also finally reveals his source of information/inspiration: 'Conspiracy Science.' Well, you can wonder if I saw that one coming. The Conspiracy Science blog and forums have been a meeting place for Zeitgeist critics for a few years now and their main task seems to be generating critique for critique's sake. While I believe that some of them genuinely oppose conspiracy theories on that website and as a matter of principal I can understand that, on the flip side that place consists of a number of folks who simply have an ax to grind with Zeitgeist primarily for personal reasons. In other words, the intentions and motivations of Conspiracy Science differ greatly, some having malicious intent.

There a number of contributors there who were banned from the Zeitgeist forums, often for misconduct. It's quite fascinating actually from a sociological point of view. They go to virtual public place thinking they can say and do anything, bully others into submission. Next they get removed from that public place and instead of examining their own actions they blame the people that threw them out. Next they start blogs criticizing Zeitgeist, create anonymous YouTube channels or contribute on forums already generally in line with their agenda and start claiming another group of people are a cult - just to get even with them. Such people aren't actually critics, they are fail-mongers.

If Samuel Gilonis wants to emulate that behavior he's free to do so, freedom of speech and all, but don't count on getting intellectual credit for employing this tactic. Wanting something to fail is entirely different than objectively pointing out its flaws. Don't forget that some people can tell the difference.

Beyond Copycatism

"Jaques Fresco, pioneer of The Venus Project, ideological forefather to Peter Joseph and former member of the Ku Klux Klan."

As is written by Samuel Gilonis, a university student in journalism (if I'm not mistaken) judging from the comments on his article 'the cult of Zeitgeist.' It's absolutely fascinating to see how a person can approach a certain ideology by not addressing the finer points it makes but by taking (questionable) items and twist them towards negative conclusions. For the uninitiated, this is what happens quite often in regards to the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement. People see an ideology that conflicts on some level with their own and subsequently they reason to such an extent that they find grounds for dismissal, and thus protecting their own view of the world or ideology.

To be fair, the author did try to camouflage his assertion, all be it very poorly, that Jacque Fresco was an ardent follower of the Ku Klux Klan. His final analysis however leads him to conclude that at the very least Fresco tells tall tales. Jacque Fresco tells about that episode in his life here. Me? I take it as anecdotal. I have no reason to believe Jacque Fresco is a racist. His speech about many subjects doesn't point to that direction, quite the contrary. In the grander scheme of things, how does this episode - Fresco's affiliation with 'the Klan' - really matter? In my opinion, the author wants to see some negativity here. The title of his article also rehashes the favorite detractors slogan: 'Zeitgeist is a cult.'

Which speaks volumes for psychology itself, when you really think about it. Here you have an organization, the Zeitgeist Movement with half a million members worldwide, activist arm of the Venus Project, that advocates using science and technology for social concern (not religion), and we are thrown in the mixer to look like the Jim Jones sect. This isn't simply going from A to B, this is going from A to Z through the obstructed maze that is ones mind. Mental barriers seemingly deflect and garble the original message.

"At one point in the film Joseph adopts mock indignation at how people could possibly brand his doctrine communism or socialism."

Yes, that scene can be found right here. The ultimate irony is that it fits the bill smack-dead on in how some people approach the movie or how they 'translate' the message. Samuel Gilonis could have billboarded that section seeing how his comments culminate in the same type of frenzy. He proceeds in the "ism" direction although the movie clearly states that we should move beyond any "ism" and embrace life value analysis. Move away from inequality in any way, shape or form and focus on the necessities of life itself because everything else divides us. Is that really cultish or is it a holistic approach for the welfare of the planet and everyone on it? Sam, oddly enough we are not about establishing a new Politburo or any kind of fascist NWO state. We are about freedom, equality and wising up as a species.

"Whatever way you cut it – this is utopianism."

You moron Utopianist. That's what it boils down to and that's what Peter Joseph highlighted in the movie Zeitgeist Moving Forward. We are disillusioned somehow, for not accepting the world as it is and for wanting something better. It is in fact harmful according to Gilonis because that quest for betterment leads to situations like in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China. We go in the mental mixer and we are back to communism again. We conveniently forget all the hardships capitalism brought and we focus on a negative mentally contrived concoction.

It comes down to psychology and ideology. Samuel Gilonis proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt by making associations in his mind and projecting fear and failure should we adopt something like the Venus Project. Maybe the most remarkable thing here is the wide range of perceptions. Some see the ultimate worst and some see great potential but we are basically arguing over something that is not a reality. I think both sides can agree that wanting to improve our world is a noble endeavor no matter what ideology you might possess.

Pyrite

"The Zeitgeist movement is the first Internet-based apocalyptic cult, centered around a doomsday-proclaiming film and an ideology filled with classic anti-Semitic tropes."




That's how the article by Michelle Goldberg starts who, amazingly, actually has a masters degree in journalism. The Brooklyn based author and journalist has written a couple of books and published many articles in magazines. She's married to Matthew Ipcar who was involved with the Obama administration during the elections and after. From the looks of it Miss Goldberg is Jewish and a libertarian not that typecasting is desirable or conclusive in relation to other matters, however it can explain some of the motivations behind certain statements.

Apocalyptic cult and anti-Semitic rhetoric, I must say, is a brand new terminology to describe the Zeitgeist Movement. I've heard Zeitgeist being accused of communism, fascism, occultism, cultism (in the general sense), satanism and of NWO-ism. Anti-semitism is the 'new kid on the block.' Michelle Goldberg must be congratulated in finding the latest and most innovative way to smear a social movement.

Claiming the movement is apocalyptic is taking matters somewhat out of proportions, but that seems to be a constant in the entire article. To be honest, a collapse of the current socioeconomic paradigm is something that is portrayed in Zeitgeist Moving Forward. That doesn't imply everyone wants to see the current system collapse with all the hardships and possible loss of life that could very well go along with it. In fact, I think that most people would like to avoid such a scenario from ever taking place. That's why we advocate a different system to begin with. We are not hoping things fall apart tomorrow, we do take into account that such a thing could happen. The latter is based on a multitude of factors.

Oil is going to run out. It's that plain and simple. There's a limited amount still in the ground and we are consuming the oil reserves at an increasing rate. The entire world economy is based on it. Many products are oil based. The mathematics is very simple here. When oil runs out you'll have a problem. Nothing doomsday about it, it's reality. When you watch the news about the economy you see massive unemployment and increasing debt everywhere. Cities and states are tightening their belts. The U.S. has a public debt of 14 trillion dollars. Who do you think is going to pay for that? I'll give you a hint; it's not the banks. In fact it's the taxpayer. Honestly Miss Goldberg, how much more can the economy of the U.S. take before it's essentially bankrupt?

Are we really that apocalyptic or are we realists? Maybe we are not the ones sticking our heads in the sand? It's also always startling to see when the derogatory word 'cult' is thrown around every time a person disagrees with the philosophy of a certain social group. It's a convenient way of dismissing and discarding the ideology of that group without having to confront the points it raises. Quickly labeling a group as a cult is in reality a very weak intellectual argument, and it also shows the character of the one making the claim. Cults can be found everywhere when applied loosely. Republicans, New York Yankees fans, the Amish, Apple users. Take your pick.

Brenton Eccles, a former member is hallowed more or less as a cult member who broke free from the clutches of the 'evil cult.' I don't know all the details about Mr. Eccles departure, if I'm not mistaken he divulged personal information to third parties and was asked to leave. Can the ideology of Zeitgeist leave you with a sense of disconnect to the current world? Of course it can, it presents a more optimistic environment. You can also ask yourself why some people find the ideology in Zeitgeist so appealing compared to their own current reality. There are a lot of people who have to work 40 to 50 years, doing less than fulfilling jobs in order to acquire the necessities of life, paying off a mortgage and so on. All of this under the constant risk of losing it all when they lose their jobs and can't pay their bills. Many Zeitgeist members are aware of what lies ahead for them. In the final run, what really occupies the mindset of Zeitgeist members, cultism or altruism?

How the author can come to the conclusion that Zeitgeist is right wing and anti-semitic is beyond my comprehension. You really have to connect some strange dots yet the author manages to do exactly that. A fantastic journey is made through the bowels of the intellect and when the end of the mental digestive track is reached a sticky and steamy pile of conclusions is produced. It goes something like this; Peter Joseph used material here and there which could be interpreted, if you dig really deep, as having anti-semitic tones - therefore he probably is an anti-semite even though he works with Jacque Fresco who's actually a semite. Although the author can't prove her assertions that Peter Joseph or the Zeitgeist Movement are directly and in plain sight anti-semite, she even admits this by saying Zeitgeist says nothing about Jews, the (conspiracy) theory is forwarded nonetheless that they are just that. Well, excuse me if I press the flush button on this one and don't stay around to take in the aroma.

What this amounts up to in my book is that Michelle Goldberg is just using her background in order to expedite an outcome. Over here in Europe we call that "positive discrimination" and it is often used by groups who were genuinely victims in the past but use that fact strictly for their own advantage. For example, a black man can walk into an institution applying for a job there and at the same time demanding the institution should hire more black people and if they do not they ought to be deemed racists. Goldberg employs a similar method by forcing the outcome that Zeitgeist is anti-semitic (without providing clear evidence) while simultaneously leaning on her Jewish back ground. And to be clear, I have nothing against Jews. Drama queens are an entirely different matter altogether.

To finalize, I think it's sad that a person like Miss Goldberg, who is in fact educated and highly literate, can come to these conclusions. I'm not even sure if she's serious about the article. Several times I got the notion that she must be joking. Playing the Jewish angle is also a convenient vehicle to get where you want. That also seems to have been the main trust of the article, at least in my opinion. The critique on Zeitgeist is also a reminder that while some people can be experts in their particular fields and are well educated, it doesn't mean they can step outside the confines of their ideological box. Not everything that shines is made of gold.


Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Zeitgeist & The Redneck Rebellion

Zeitgeist translated means 'spirit of the time' and it's more accurate as a definition for the times we live in than you might think. While there are a number of supporters of the Zeitgeist films and the Venus Project in particular, there are also a number of detractors who are very vocal. We live in a free society of course and everyone is entitled to their opinions but some of the accusations I see lately are cause for concern. Some comments are taken to the extreme and personally I fear that someone might take that in too literally and in the final run will hurt somebody in the physical world instead of just throwing words on the internet.

Let's take some examples from the internet. The gentleman above is a person who goes by the handle of Lonestar1776 on YouTube. His particular problem with Zeitgeist is that according to him it's part of a NWO plan and that 94 year-old Jacque Fresco is "evil." It's not hard to detect that this person is from Texas and he's not an exception since there are more folks from that state who are vocally anti-Zeitgeist. You have to wonder if this particular aspect is the handy-work of Texan Alex Jones who called Zeitgeist a "luciferian sun-worshipping cult" and part of a scheme planned by the equally evil new world order. Jones himself is a conservative Christian and anti-government, it seems only logical that he would attract followers to his show that are of the same disposition.

How much influence Jones had on the outlook of Zeitgeist is uncertain but it's easily detectable that a number of people adopted his methodology concerning Zeitgeist. I've seen many blogs, articles and videos that criticize Zeitgeist and the remarkable thing is that (in my estimation) 90% of the people come from the United States. A few come from Canada or the U.K. but the majority come from the U.S. That in itself is a sociological phenomenon. It shows which culture generates the most friction with the ideology that can be found in Zeitgeist. Sharing all the world's resources, doing away with the monetary system and establishing a society based on equality seemingly somehow gets lost. Yet that is no accident. Barriers in the minds of people will automatically do just that. Culture will do just that.


James Kush excels in coming up with negative viewpoints towards the Zeitgeist Movement which he'll jam into his articles that he produces like a conveyor belt. Kush probably spends many hours scouring the internet looking for dirt, seeing how many websites he visits for source material. It's quite remarkable that a person can come up with so much negativity that you have to wonder about the motivation, what drives people to act in this manner? Judging from his comments above there seems to be more than one thing. Religion, the occult, cult mechanics, anti-Americanism, conspiracy theories and so on. It's quite the list but is that really the truth?

I don't think it is. What you'll often find with critics is that they borrow from each other. Kush clearly lists other websites from other critics. If you check up on critics in intervals you'll find sometimes that they have added certain types of critique. Kush first started of with claiming that Zeitgeist was into the occult. That was based on the first Zeitgeist movie that criticized religion and used alternative sources to convey the point. Those sources are on the opposite side of religious dogma so for a conservative religious person it's easy to take offense. Later on Kush adopted the 'cult' angle, more or less claiming that members of the Zeitgeist Movement are (being) brainwashed.

What it boils down to is this. It's not so much one particular aspect of all the critique that is so important, it's using critique, any type of critique they can find, just to do some damage. I think people like Kush even don't believe that all the people that make up the Zeitgeist Movement are into the occult or anti-American and cult members. Such a claim is untenable to begin with. People from all walks of life join the movement and not all are atheist myself included. I wouldn't have anything to do with satanists to begin with, my religious upbringing is still a factor if I would detect such matters. I would surmise that something else is at the core with critics and their behavior. Something aroused them that resulted in acting the way they do.


Couple of days ago I found a video on YouTube by a guy named Maynard. He doesn't waste any time and fires on all cylinders claiming the Zeitgeist Movement is (and I quote) "a neo-satanist cult looking to convince the masses that they need to be rounded up for their own good and the good of the planet." There you go! Um, so as a member of a movement that strives for a better world I can be regarded as a 'neo-satanist?' Call me strange but isn't such a statement highly derogatory to begin with? Of course it is. Maynard's message isn't really about that we are "evil" people (let alone that he can prove it), it's about portraying the movement in a bad light. It's about how that person wants another group to be perceived. The actual truth has nothing to with it.

I asked that person if he was a conservative Christian or a religious person in general and he claims he was not. That automatically begs the question; 'why would you use a heavily charged religious word like 'satanist' if you're not religious in the first place?' The answer I think is very simple. It enables the person to smear. Other matters such as nationalism or patriotism are far more likely to be at the root cause. In another video Maynard can be found holding a speech with the flag of America and the Tea Party in the background, as the picture above shows. It is a culture conflict that drives people like the ones I described above to act in the manner that they do.

Where it gets more than a little discomforting is when people start to throw the 'terrorist' accusation around, like the YouTube user below. A bit more research regarding this person reveals that he's a religious fundamentalist. Now we at least know the cause of his argument(s), but stating that Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows should be arrested on the grounds of terrorism is more than a little bit whacky or derogatory. It enters a field where people are so upset that the next possible thing is actual physical harm. This is a realm we shouldn't enter of course. I would rather be called a "satanist" than to see someone getting hurt or killed.

I think that only in a few cases there's an actual religious person that is genuinely offended, most critics I've seen so far like to use the religious angle but aren't really that religious to begin with. It is more a means to an end than anything else. Other influences are far more likely to be the core generator for discontent. As stated previously, nationalism and patriotism play a big role. Most Americans are raised to pledge allegiance to the flag and are taught by their parents that they live in the greatest country of the world. If anything would present itself that challenges that perception they would react and sometimes (if not most of the times) not really fully grasping why they do it.

If the Zeitgeist Movement suggests that all the world's resources ought to be shared, well that's not something they were brought up with. Apparently they are locked in a certain mindset. From my perspective the great irony here is that many of the critics I've seen on YouTube or who simultaneously share private information on their websites or blogs, are not bathing in luxury themselves. In fact most of them have modest means, live in a small apartment or house and drive old trucks. It's a bit shocking to see that they feel the need to vehemently defend what little they may have while the Zeitgeist Movement will be the last to take that away from them. Chances are that their current government but most of all the banks will have that questionable honor.

I sincerely hope it doesn't devolves to physical harm. Name calling can still be tolerated, injuries can not.


All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Cesspool Science

The Zeitgeist critics were in full flow last week. Maybe they felt the need to throw in more rhetoric now that Zeitgeist Moving Forward is being released. It was fascinating to see the endless stream of negativity coming from the Cesspool Science forums, I mean Conspiracy Science forums. Basically the Zeitgeist Movement are a bunch of people that strive for a better world, but the CS forums make it sound like we are anything but. Absolutely mind blowing to see how a person can dig up shit (that isn't there) just for the sake of letting it fly around. Someone once called them 'poop throwing monkeys' which they took as an insult, but you only have to visit the forum in order to find out just how utterly correct the reference is.


James Kush, a blogger and critic of the Zeitgeist Movement tried to make friends with the people at the CS forums but he ran into a little trouble since not many conspiracy theories are allowed there. Kush himself likes to play the 'occult' angle but seemingly he forgot that there are not many religious folks on that forum. Ironically, I personally think if he's really religiously oriented and committed to exposing 'dark influences' he can find more occult stuff over at the CS forums then on TZM, seeing how some members are into metal, tattoos and carry dark persona's on the internet. But it's probably best to let him figure out on his own what his 'team' is made off.


Which brings me to Muertos who excelled in writing the most scathing posts last week and must be the main contender for this years 'Most foulest anti-Zeitgeist smear' Award. Seriously, I think he can win that one. It was even more offensive then what another contributor, a guy named Matt, produces on a regular basis, and that's saying something. Both also milked the Jared Loughner angle to its maximum potential as if the first Zeitgeist movie was responsible for the atrocities in Arizona, totally omitting of course that he was probably raised badly as a kid, that he probably is a paranoid schizophrenic, that Loughner's YouTube profile mentions a whole range of material (not Zeitgeist), and lastly that bullies like the ones you can find on the CS forums are far more likely to damage a person's mental health then anything else.


On a more positive note, Zeitgeist Moving Forward is doing great in most theaters. Stockholm (Sweden) 150 seats, Wellington (New Zealand) 450 seats, Vancouver (Canada) 400 seats, Toronto (Canada) 820 seats, Dublin (Ireland) 400 seats, Zagreb (Croatia) 500 seats, all sold out and these are just a few samples. Los Angeles and New York were also a huge success with the former holding 900 seats if I'm not mistaken. I visited Studio/K in Amsterdam (with 160 seats) and the place was packed, it was sold out days before the premiere. OT301, another smaller cinema in Amsterdam that holds 70 seats was filled to the brim with people sitting on the stairs and before the front row (not an uncommon occurrence in other theaters around the globe). They even had to send 60-70 people away mind you. I guess we can surmise that the release of ZMF is already an astounding success with thousands of visits.
It's in stark contrast as to what the people over at the CS forums are portraying, but then again it should be obvious to most intelligent folks what they are all about and just like when you visit a zoo and look into the cages - you'll probably get the same sensation visiting their forums. Just don't stick your hands inside the cage.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Kush Kush, Dang Dang 2

Looks like different people have different bones to pick with the movement.

Above is an excerpt of a comment I received pertaining to my previous blog about the claim that Zeitgeist is into the occult which is forwarded by a person named James Kush (on his website). A person named Paul made the comments (in quotes) and judging from the things he has to say I assume he's a friend of Kush. His opening statement is correct and I can't argue with that. There are a number of people who developed a beef with the Zeitgeist Movement. Being a supporter of the Venus Project I feel inclined at times to respond but I must also admit that from a psychological and sociological perspective I find these social mechanics absolutely fascinating. I enjoy a good debate at times, provided it doesn't turn into a shouting match, because in the end I believe you can learn something from the interaction. The foremost question in my mind is; 'why do some people have a bone to pick with the movement?' Answers to that question vary, but lets move on for now.

The movies have so many areas of nonsense, it's hard to choose a place to start. Zeitgeist bases it whole money comes from thin air nonsense on a huge misunderstanding of the whole process. Then it just goes on and on to dig itself into a huge pile of steaming poo.

Quite a mouthful but lets address the specific claim that 'money created out of thin air is nonsense.' Actually it's spot on because we use something called 'fiat currency.' Here's the definition from Wikipedia;

"Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law. Historically, money originated as commodity money, based on physical commodities such as cowrie shells, copper, gold, or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith in the government issuing the money."

Meaning, fiat money is backed up by nothing of physical value but entirely on the belief that it holds value! Something more interesting is found further down the article under "loss of backing";

"A fiat-money currency generally loses value once the issuing government refuses to further guarantee its value through taxation, but this need not necessarily occur."

Basically what it says here is that the value of money is only guaranteed through taxation. One can not exist without the other and are profoundly connected. Since money relies on taxation you can already get to the concept that 'money is debt' simply because its creation demands an immediate obligation. A repayment through taxes, and what should be clear by now is that with that repayment interest must paid as well. The article also mentions this; "In monetary economics, fiat money is an intrinsically useless good used as a means of payment." Conclusion: money is paper and is entirely subjective and relative.

Zeitgeist Addendum, the second movie made by Peter Joseph is in fact accurate in more ways then you can imagine but he did make an omission regarding the Federal Reserve. As you know the Federal Reserve is the central banking system of the United States. It's structure however is not that transparent since it has both public and private aspects. It's quite easy to get lost in maze that is the Fed and all the regulations that go along with it but one thing to remember is that the previously mentioned private aspects is something that should get anyone's attention. Private, commercial banks such JPMorgan and Citigroup also make up the Fed.
Joseph was correct that when the U.S. government needs money they go to the Fed who prints the money. In turn government bonds are issued. A bond is in a fact a debt, an I.O.U. yet government bonds are deemed risk-free because the government can raise taxes to redeem the bond at maturity. (Money creation linked to taxation - money is debt.) What Peter Joseph didn't mention in Zeitgeist Addendum is that all proceeds made by the Federal Reserve are transferred back to the U.S. Treasury, but that's not the entire story (from the Wikipedia article);

"The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained."

While the Fed gives up the appearance that no profit is made from the creation of money, there definitely is. The member banks such as Citibank and Chase Manhattan who put up capital in the Federal Reserve are getting 6% interest on their 'investment.' This completely supports the 'money is debt' scenario because with its creation an immediate debt (dividend) is paid. Money is created out of debt. What Zeitgeist Addendum portrays in its first section about the creation of money and the Federal Reserve is in fact spot on. Who actually pays that 6% dividend? The American taxpayer!

But lets get back to the notion that 'money is created out of thin air.' Yes, in fact it is. It's called Fractional-reserve banking. The Wikipedia article can be found by clicking on the link. Money creation is where it all happens;

"Modern central banking allows multiple banks to practice fractional reserve banking with inter-bank business transactions without risking bankruptcy. The process of fractional-reserve banking has a cumulative effect of money creation by banks, essentially expanding the money supply of the economy.[...] When a deposit of central bank money is made at a commercial bank, the central bank money is removed from circulation and added to the commercial banks' reserves. Simultaneously, an equal amount of new commercial bank money is created in the form of bank deposits. When a loan is made by the commercial bank (which keeps only a fraction of the central bank money as reserves), using the central bank money from the commercial bank's reserves, the money supply expands by the size of the loan. This process is called deposit multiplication."

A private commercial bank can create money out of thin air. They loan an amount from the central bank and are authorized to create more money on top of that. This is of course digitally. The money created (out of nothing) is loaned out to consumers who have to pay it back with interest. Money becoming debt once more. The only poo I see here is an inherently unstable monetary system which condemns people into economic slavery.

I think the problem James sees, is it's resemblance to a religion or cult. You have devoted followers, all following the magical handwaving of Jacques Fresco and Peter Joseph. Fresco and Joseph are in it for simply one reason: make plenty of money to retire on. It is so much like a religion and rather ironic that it's followers are what they often preach against.

When I said in the beginning of my blog that reasons vary for people who have a beef with the Zeitgeist Movement I wasn't kidding. In my opinion, claiming that the movement is a cult (or into the occult) is just a smear tactic. It's a convenient way of painting someone as faulty, and the aim is to intentionally undermine the movement's reputation and credibility. Many social groups could fall under the definition of a cult once you bring in the aspect of devoted followers. The thing is, I haven't seen Zeitgeist detractors employ the same tactic on lets say members of the Tea Party, or hardcore Republicans, or dressed up fans of the New York Mets. That inconsistency in applying the cult angle shows the lack of sincerity.

Claiming Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco are in it for the money is also somewhat of a lame tactic. I believe that Peter Joseph is talented enough to secure a decent income in the corporate world if he would set his mind to it. He's a gifted speaker, an experienced filmmaker. He would have no problems earning a living outside the Zeitgeist Movement. Making money doesn't seem to be the dominant factor, otherwise he would sell his dvd's for $20 a pop. And what do you think Fresco will do should he earn a million dollars? Buy a new Hummer, a mansion and some bling? The guy is in his nineties. Playing the money angle is just another smear tactic.

Which brings me to the why. Yes, Zeitgeist ticked off some people. It's understandable why some folks would feel offended after the critique on religion in Zeitgeist 1. However, from what I've seen a number of detractors aren't religious at all. It's highly probable that a number of folks had their ego's bruised when they were kicked off the Zeitgeist forums after misbehaving. What happens next of course is that these folks develop a grudge and need to find something to strike back with. Hence the critique that the movement is a cult (or into the occult) and that Joseph and Fresco are in it for the money. Most of the time you can bring it back to psychology. What the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project also do is to challenge a persons ideology which in turn can create an internal conflict, but lets be honest, how many people are aware of that?

Kush Kush, Dang Dang

Yesterday I came across a blog when it was briefly discussed on the Zeitgeist forums. It's named "Zeitgeist Movements Sources" and contrary to what you would think it's highly anti-Zeitgeist. A person by the name of James Kush has gotten the impression that the Zeitgeist Movement is into the occult, which is a slight deviation from other hate blogs who claim among other things that the movement is a cult, are made up of whacky conspiracy theorists, fools that want the machines to take over or are darn red communists out to create a scientific dictatorship. Forget to mention that conservative radio talk show host Alex Jones also claimed the movement was made of sun-worshipping Luciferians. The latter is more in line with what Kush is claiming and both he and Jones are from Texas. Hmm. Maybe he listened to his show. I'm assuming of course that Kush is a conservative Christian (if he's not than he's just a smear artist).

It's not totally impossible to think that the Zeitgeist Movement is into the occult but you have to make a number of leaps and bounds in order to get there. It goes something like this. Zeitgeist 1 criticized (Christian) religion, it used some alternative sources (New Age and Theosophy), Christians regard those sources as outright false and/or even blasphemous when they compare it to their own religion, therefore the entire Zeitgeist Movement is made up of occultists. While I can certainly understand that religious folks were ticked off by the critique in the first Zeitgeist film, taking it to the extreme by playing the occult tactic is just an act of vengeance if you ask me and it holds no water whatsoever.

It has been said many times that the first Zeitgeist flick was a personal project of director Peter Joseph, but I guess there are a number of people who are too angry to accept that and simply try to find fault with something that offended them in some way. I watched Zeitgeist Addendum before I watched Zeitgeist the Movie, maybe that's why I'm in a better position to put it into proper perspective. The second film really is about the ills of society and why a redesign is needed, hence the Venus Project and a Resource Based Economy. It's exactly that which I found appealing, not the critique directed at religion. A better society is what fascinates me and how to get there. Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater because of a personal grudge.


I also reckon that calling the Zeitgeist Movement occult is a gross misrepresentation if not outright derogatory. People from all walks of life join the movement, some are atheists, some are religious. Even I'm not an atheist, although raised a Roman Catholic I'm more of a pantheist these days. Having a Christian background it doesn't make me oblivious to what some would call dark or satanic teachings and if I would detect such matters within the movement I would be the kind of person that would be upset with that. I presume that there are more people like that in the movement so I guess James Kush has nothing to worry about.

Religion or theosophy is not the main trust of the Movement, it is in fact science and applying the scientific method for social concern. Has religion (in general) ever managed to create a peaceful society? Lets take a few passages out of the Bible and compare that to what the Zeitgeist Movement stands for in order to find out how "occult" it is.

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (Luke 18:25)
Yet in our modern day society most people are just focused on accumulating wealth and the "American Dream." The Zeitgeist Movement advocates the abolition of the monetary system, rich people wont have to go to Hell.
"And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves." (New American Standard Bible.)
Yet here we are right now as a world people primarily focused on the what the stock market is doing and if our economies and GDP's show an upward curve. If you have the slightest grasp of what the Zeitgeist Movement stands for then these matters (money, banks, stocks) would be a thing of the past. Jesus, apparently agrees.
"Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven." (New American Standard Bible.)
Heaven, I presume, is a place of peace and what this part of the Bible is suggesting is that we should create Heaven on Earth. From my perspective the Venus Project stands a good chance of exactly accomplishing that. Since the Venus Project is advocating that we share all the world's resources and provide for the needs of all the people (be it food, clothing, housing, energy etc.) through the use of technology, aren't we members of the Zeitgeist Movement (the activist arm of the Venus Project), in essence, more spiritual then most religious folks?

It's sad that people like James Kush simply don't get the basics of being human and rather go off on a tantrum. If you share with everyone there's enough to go around. If you are selfish and ignorant, you wont create a Heaven on Earth. It's that simple. Most religious folks somehow don't get that. Dang.

TVP Critics & Hypocrisy At Its Best

again im being attacked by people, i am not a troll, you are basing your judgements on ignorant belief structures, i have made more valid posts on this forum than you have had truthful thoughts.

Those are the words written by the infamous "Anti Cultist" (a.k.a. Paul Jones) on the Zeitgeist forums over a year ago. I ran across them after having some time to follow up on an article written by "Mr T." on his website. When you read the thread over at the Zeitgeist forums you'll actually see that Mr Jones is responding to an allegation made by another contributor and where "Anti Cultist" is addressed as the 'local forum troll.' As you can see above in the quoted text Mr Jones strongly denies the charges, and lays the blame on the ignorance of others. It's in stark contrast compared to another post, written on another forum some 5 months later. Here Mr Jones actually admits trolling the Zeitgeist forum in a debate with another former ZG member.

Considering you have absolutely no idea who i was on the forum. I had many different accounts on there over the year + gone by. I created a complete agreeing character who was all into the movement, then I created a final character who outright disagreed and said so. Which do you think got into trouble the most ? And might I add the disagreeable character was threatened with banning and being watched from the top level admins and mods. I also had a famous character in their movement, in fact one of the most respected members they ever had, talk about them lapping up people who agree with them.

To make matters perfectly clear once more, 'Anti Cultist,' 'Edward Scissorhands' and 'Mr Jones' are all the same person. He is one of the fiercest vocal Zeitgeist critics. While he maintains that he was once a supporter of the Zeitgeist Movement, I have ample evidence - in his own words - that he was nothing of the kind. The evidence shows that he was one misleading person. I reckon that some folks would possibly label him as a 'cointelpro,' since he was a person who joined the movement - pretended to be genuine - only later to discredit it by any means possible. But, I wouldn't go that far. Not that I'm that opposed to conspiracy theories but I think it isn't the case here. Personally, I think Mr Jones joined half-heartedly and simply couldn't take half of what he himself dished out. Perhaps you know those kind of folks, those that make fun of others yet get angry when the same stunt is pulled on them. I think something similar happened here. Someone stepped on his ego one too many times and a grudge originated. Isn't it remarkable how you can bring it all back to psychology?

Who Is Peter Joseph? (Behind The Scenes)

Charles Robinson put out a new video. A behind the scenes look from the original video 'Who is Peter Joseph?' which was contested on it's authenticity by a number of folks which I addressed in my previous post. As you can see it's pretty much proven that Charles Robinson made the original film. Peter Joseph is wearing the same cloths, it's the same room with all the equipment in the proper place and Charles is talking in the background with PJ responding. The video was also produced within a day which suggests that the maker had stock footage - easily accessible and ready to go. It does turn out that the last name 'Robinson' is fictitious, done so as a precautionary measure to protect his identity. Not unwise since PJ himself is practically attacked on a daily basis by fanatics on the internet.

One of the most peculiar matters is how many people went along with the accusation that Peter made the video himself. While PJ has a number of detractors these people also strongly contest the conspiracy theories in Zeitgeist 1, saying you need more factual data in order to come to a sound conclusion. Setting this notion aside, many contributors on the Conspiracy Science forums went along with the accusation, probably fueled by their dislike for PJ, the films or TZM. Perhaps they understand now that convictions based on pure emotion can also leads to false assumptions (conspiracy theories)? The Anonymous guys who started all of this still seem to struggle with the 'behind the scenes' video but these are not the kind of folks you can expect intellectual honesty from. Still, eventually even they will have to eat some humble pie.

TVP Critics & Their Antics 4

Well, pay close attention to what a person is saying, how he is saying it and when, can provide some insights. I made a few comments on the YouTube video 'Exposed: Who is Peter Joseph?' made by Anon13AllOfUs, one of those anonymous guys who make anti TZM and TVP videos. Just a moment ago, as of this typing, I received replies by Anon13 in the comment section of that YouTube video. Here's what he had to say;

No one's running away from you Ed V. But yeah, we're forward to this BS that Peter Joseph Merola makes up. He'll probably try to hire some actor to act like Charles Robinson. It's just pathetic.

One hint is that he knows my name (which I only present on my blog), meaning that he has knowledge of it. Links to my blog have only been made on a couple of blogs and forums, Conspiracy Science forums being one of them. More revealing is that Anon13 makes the suggestion that 'Peter Joseph would probably try to hire some actor to act like Charles Robinson.' While this is somewhat of a (personal) theory it's also convenient as a 'fail-safe' should Chris Robinson present more convincing material. Where that suggestion stands out for me is that I read it in identical phrasing over the CS forums in the topic 'Peter Joseph is Charles Robinson' just an hour earlier. The post was made by 'Billll' and here is an excerpt;

I'm awaiting for Peter Joseph Merola to make the next Charles Robinson video. I'm wondering if he's going to higher actors to play Charles or just put Charles voice out there possibly by someone else, Peter's brother or a computer modified voice and pretend that's Charles. Pete your found out your a conartist you made the videos...

Again there's the suggestion that Peter Joseph would hire an actor to cover things up. The thing is, I haven't seen others make such a suggestion. Just around the same time I also checked out the anti cultist blog and the post 'Who is Peter Joseph part 3.' In the comment section of that article again I found a post by 'Billll' and the following words he used;

I’m awaiting for Peter Merola to hire an actor or use a voice modify and pretend it’s Charles Robinson, it’s a bit to late Pete your full of shit con artist…

I think it's highly likely that 'Billll' is 'Anon13AllOfUs.' The suggestion, wording and overall criticism is strikingly similar and all those statements were written on the same day in the space of a few hours. More information on a person named 'Billll' can be found on this blog. It seems his real name is Bill Matriark and that he's no stranger to the Zeitgeist movement forums. Unsurprisingly Bill has been banned several times by the moderators yet kept coming back by creating false accounts. (This seems to be a repeating element.) Seeing all the things he wrote it's not hard to imagine that he holds somewhat of a grudge against the movement and one avenue of continuing with his criticism is his Anon13 13AllOfUs YouTube account. The last reply I got from Bill on that YouTube channel was this one;

1. We're not former TZM members.
2. Stop pretending to be someone else Ed V. : blogger . com / profile / 07812856583998219366
3. You just got bit in the ass by shame.

You're not former TZM members? What a joke, but by now it's pretty evident that you have zero credibility and can't be trusted.

TVP Critics & Their Antics 3

I wonder how long this video will be up since there are so many (false) assumptions and accusations that when the truth comes out, it will severely embarrass the creator(s) of this video and the people that supported it. Above is part 1 of 4 but basically the accusation is, is that Peter Joseph created the video named 'Who Is Peter Joseph?' and that the maker Charles Robinson is a non existent character and PJ himself.

While the creator of this video is 'Anon13AllOfUs,' who also uses the Anonymous meme to his advantage, anti cultist apparently is also involved. Coincidentally enough, anti cultist already addressed his suspicions that Peter Joseph was behind the Charles Robinson videos on the 16th of February with this blog post. Oddly enough some 6 months later a video comes out addressing the exact same issues followed up by another blog post from anti cultist confirming the statements in the anonymous video and the reference to his earlier 'work.' This is not the only occurrence where possible connections seem to exist between anti cultist and some anonymous YouTube users. Anti cultist made a blog post where he claims TZM and TVP are a cult, involving the work of Dr Robert J. Lifton. Again you can see a similar content in one of the anonymous videos. Lets also not forget that both anti cultist and the anonymous YouTube users both use the cult claim in a derogatory manner in order to smear the Zeitgeist movement. It's evident that there are many similarities and quite possibly they are working together.

Rather quickly comments have surfaced from Peter Joseph and Charles 'Robinson.' Here's what Peter Joseph had to say on the Zeitgeist forum about the video and the claims therein;

I'll email Charles and have him post something to put this bs to bed. He isn't in the movement btw and he wanted his identity to be confidential due to the overall tensions associated with me. I asked him to post a picture he took of us and he refused - as he is afraid it would hurt his career to be identified with such a controversial association... (his last name isn't actually Robinson)
Hilarious- I just saw the vid they posted and they point to the fact that one of the screen grabs shows my name logged into amazon. All the images given to Charles were from me, and yes finally sent them the day before he posted the vid online as he had been sitting on the edit - waiting to add them. I hope everyone here appreciates the bs I endure on a daily basis to do what I do. This new hate subculture is just incredible... and pathetic.

Charles 'Robinson' comments on the YouTube channel;

Listen you morons. I am a real person. My last name is actually not Robinson and your trophy issue with the amazon date is because he sent it to me the night before. I was waiting for the images for weeks. I'm also going to make the work copyright so you can't abuse it like you have. a-holes

Questioned if he had any footage of the interview where he was asking questions directly to Peter Joseph;

Yes, I do and I will making a video very soon to show you jackasses how painfully stupid you are.

I can't wait for the video to come out. Do you really think Peter Joseph would be that stupid to create a video where he pretends to be interviewed? He would ask a co-worker or a family member if he felt inclined to give an interview about himself. I'm confident that the future will show to what lengths some hate filled bigots will go in order to discredit Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist movement.

TZM/TVP Critic 'Anti Cultist' Side Steps

Well, I was expecting a truthful and revealing reply from 'anti cultist' (Paul Jones?) regarding my previous post exposing him as a troll. Nah, who am I kidding. I fully expected him to side step and skirt the issue of him trolling the Zeitgeist forums. When caught with their pants down frauds often turn and run away instead of facing the music and you only have to read up on anti cultists blog to see that he's not the type to admit any wrongdoing. He's pretty good at accusing others of foul play, I can tell you that straight up. Providing details that don't work in his favor? Well anti cultist has a bit of a problem with that so it seems. So, no big blog post response. Just a comment in his original response (about me). Lets take a look at that than.

OK the guys done another retarded response to this post attempting to yet again label me as a person who did not join the movement with good intentions, again he has no evidence who I was in the movement or has seen any of the posts I made there. Yet he thinks that because I am now anti TZM this means my intentions werent sincere initially, this is flawed logic because people do do 180′s in real life son, have you ever heard of religious people becoming atheist? It happens in real life, and any which way you try to twist it about me is disingenuous and lies from you.

First of, often people's opinions change incrementally. What you're saying is possible but still quite often people retain a partial support of their initial conviction. The essence of my argument was - is that matters most of the time are not totally black or white. There are many shades of grey and often people move along those tones over time. With you, after researching your blog, I saw nothing of the sort. While you claim to have been (partially) positive of the Zeitgeist movement, after examination of your contributions on various internet venues it becomes clear that there's nothing left. Right now it's pitch black and that in turn makes me wonder if there was any light to begin with.
No, I don't have any evidence who you were in the movement and I haven't seen any posts you made on the Zeitgeist forums with whichever name you used. I do have evidence in your own admission that you used at least 3 different names on the ZG forum. That qualifies as something tangible, right? Why do you have a problem with showing the names you used? That could confirm your claim that you were a pro TZM kinda guy. You got nothing to hide, right?

You are not even worth a serious debate because of simple facts like this showing how stupid your argument is.
What he also did was take the multiple account thing out of context, I intially had one account for over a year, as the forum began to twist and turn into a shit place I created another account to test the waters and see how they would react to my different opinions. It wasnt to troll it was to test how they would react if they did not know it was me.
Simples…experiment completed and I found out that the movement was gimped.

Ah, a sociology experiment after all. Just "testing how they would react if they did not know it was me." Dude, that still falls within the definition of a troll.
"A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response. [snip] Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players."
See? The one that is (mentally) limping here is you, but lets go back to the post you made over at the CS forums.

I had many different accounts on there over the year + gone by. I created a complete agreeing character who was all into the movement, then I created a final character who outright disagreed and said so. Which do you think got into trouble the most ? And might I add the disagreeable character was threatened with banning and being watched from the top level admins and mods. I also had a famous character in their movement, in fact one of the most respected members they ever had, talk about them lapping up people who agree with them.

Call me strange, but when you say that you 'created' a complete agreeing character who was all into the movement, I get the impression that this is a pure falsification, an act of fraud. Is it that strange then that I (and others) question your sincerity when you claim you were a pro TZM guy? Do you see how you muddied your own water?
And what about the 'famous character,' was "he" part of the experiment as well or were you just having a bit of fun? No matter how you twist and turn this, the fact remains that you were actively, by your own admission, trolling the forum - pushing peoples buttons, hoping to get a reaction. I call that evidence that questions your motives, and this puts a whole different light on your criticism of the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project. It turns out you weren't participating in the process of a movement, you were manipulating it. And that anti cultist is an entirely different situation.

Also he bounces around the cult label happily without addressing any of the points or the posts made about it, this guys a lamer he is using arguments that have been refuted dozens of times by many different people to argue his cult innocence. He provides no science, he has no evidence he just has his own claims, seriously not worth my time and hardly worthy of another blog addressing his nonsense.

I stressed a couple of times before that when using the term cult loosely, it can apply to many if not all the group structures in our society. (Btw, ironically enough, outside the realm of TZM and TVP, you don't make any cult claims for any groups!) What's there to stop me from making the claim that all the guys over at the CS forums belong to a cult. Hell, you all act in a similar manner, have the same type of criticism, you have some dominant vocal guys (leaders). I'm gonna label you the CS cult. Luckily for you, my definition of a cult is somewhat different. But lets get to the heart of the matter. The real reason is not the question if TZM is a cult, the real reason is that by calling TZM a cult you created a method of discrediting the movement. Seeing how you're actively engaged in digging up any dirt possible, collaborating with other notorious critics, the cult claim is just another extension in debunking the Zeitgeist movement. Your actions culminate to nothing less then deliberate anti TZM/TVP propaganda.

When you address any point I have actually made Ed V I might consider you worth a debate, for now you’re just firing blanks. Oh and yeah Ed all those quotes of mine you’ve posted I still stand by, because I think the venus project is a pile of shit and anyone who blindly believes in it like you I also think are retarded and lacking critical thinking skills.

Not to worry anti cultist. I don't expect a straight answer from you regarding your deceptive trolling exploits or the names you used over at the Zeitgeist forums. A troll wants to hide out in the dark. Chances are that you would only incriminate yourself even further so the best thing you can do and are doing right now is to skirt the issue and avoid further exposure by any means. The truth doesn't work for guys like you. Hopefully that much is clear for the objective reader. Besides, if I would accommodate you on every demand you had you would probably still remain silent on the issues I raised. There's always that possibility that a black propaganda monkey like yourself works that way. Having said that I might address some other points you raised but until then I'm perfectly satisfied with informing the public about you and the shit you're trying to pull with posts like these.