Peter Joseph: We Are All Subjected To The Same Natural Law System

my name is Nicola aka Socrates and you’re watching singularity one on one singularity one on one is a regular podcast feature of singularity web blog where you can go and listen to it or download it in full if you guys enjoyed the show you can help me make it better in one of several ways you can write the review on iTunes you can click the light button on YouTube or you can simply make a donation as always I will be the man with the questions and today the man with the answers would be Peter Joseph Peter Joseph is a musician a filmmaker and social activist best known as the men behind the zeitgeist film trilogy as well as the founder of the zeitgeist movement so thank you Peter for being with us today Thank You Nicole I really appreciate you having me on fantastic I’ve been looking forward to having you here for a while so let’s see if we can make the best of it let’s do that uh Peter I used a lot of adjectives and different words to describe who you are and I want to ask you to describe yourself in your own words who do you think you are well since all language is based on relationships I would have to answer that by thinking of the most appropriate distinction that would qualify me in the view of others we always forget that communication is really an extension towards trying to relate to somebody else I would say I’m a social critic more than anything else but within that I’m not just a critic in the sense that I want to call out this or that flaw or this or that corruption or this of that social failure I also like to pose solutions and think about solutions and in the end I prefer to be solution oriented than skeptical mmm-hmm so would you qualify yourself as an optimist in the end of the day then absolutely I’m also a realist too I I don’t you know I’m I try to really maintain a very steady balance between what is possible what is feasible within a certain period of time for example in the course of this conversation will be talking probably about singularity and all of the very whimsical possibilities for the future and I think those are all great things to speculate on but I also think that we have to be realistic about where we are and this in this time frame in society and about where we should be going and putting our focus in but yes I am optimistic but maybe maybe not as optimistic as some people I talked to who are interested in science and technology as applied to society you know well I also hope that we’ll be able to talk about the singularity but before that I want to talk about zeitgeist sure so let me ask you first what does that right guys mean for those of us who may not be familiar with the term and why call your first movie the zeitgeist site-geist as defined with the German word buzz define a few different ways to break it down semantically but really it just means the intellectual spirit of a period which means the dominant cultural ideologies that are pervasive in a society at any given time so the whole film series being zeitgeist I felt was appropriate same for the movement by the way because it deals with that very fundamental notion of what we as a global species actually believe and why do I sort of notice some kind of niche chiyan connection there or am I reading too much in it perhaps I’ve I try to be versed on different philosophical philosophical views but I don’t really associate with any particular idea law ideological distinction I don’t I’d really try my best to stay away from identification with any person and ironically any group and as we talk more about the zeitgeist movement this is a pass-through entity I don’t ever pitch this as an institution to people I say well this is a train of thought it’s completely emergent so I make that distinction but no I wouldn’t say need to use any particular massive influence but as with anything everything is serially generated in knowledge everything we know has been communicated to us by some medium so yes I’m sure those influences exist somewhere in my in my brain so let me ask you about the story of how you decided to make the first movie and perhaps you can tell us a little bit about the power that led you to that moment what you were doing before that and how you decided that you have to do that or what sure well the whole reason I’m sitting in here and here in front of you is a consequence of a series of events that could never have been predicted and certainly were not of any intention based on you know my development years ago I grew up as a musician and basically graduated from high school moved to New York City to be a professional musician went to college

there for a while and through during the course of that having maintained general interest in religion and society but never to the extent of being an activist or anything like that something happened to me where I just sort of realized that there were so many flaws in the world I started to feel particularly narcissistic about my own interests as a musician and of course all the things that I was doing to make money and this as you all if anyone listening knows the core of cultural driving factor of our lives is how we gain sustainability for ourselves our family and society and that’s built entirely up out around a monetary system and that really kind of polluted a lot of my life I felt it a lot more than I think others did so I worked in advertising oddly enough which I despised to this day I also worked in the financial markets as a day trader and I spent years investigating and learning and trying to gain independence from the financial system by ironically being most intertwined with the most crude of all financial mediums which is the stock market so that was my form of escapism during this period of development and then zeitgeist which was a performance piece I did in 2007 emerged as a catharsis that’s the word I use because I just I kind of just broke and said what am i doing why where’s the meaning in my life what does anyone doing why why do i why do these people over here have all of this well that these people who were here have none all of these fundamental questions and I think that many of us eventually start to ask when we look at the world around us so what many people don’t know is that zeitgeist the first film as it is considered was actually not a film it was actually a performance piece it was never intended to become anything more than a perform piece the the data was well researched it was put out I spent a long time putting this thing together but I never expected to release it namely because I had no rights clearances and I wasn’t about to get approval for the clearances but once it hit the internet it went viral on its own accord and I didn’t expect that to happen no one did but it went very very viral and they created an energy it opened up a conversation in many ways I think as other people have put it regarding the issues that are presented and then that inspired me to do zeitgeist addendum which again I was never intended to be with third of the trilogy and zeitgeist addendum was an attempt to give the train of thought towards solutions and then from there an experimenter more I said well let’s see if we can get people behind an actual movement globally and I threw up at the very end of that film please join the movement the zeitgeist movement calm when that happened though I didn’t really consider it to actually go anywhere I mean this what everyone thinks everything is deliberate in the unfolding of these types of events and they’re really not you can’t be reductionist in our perspective when it comes to the emergence of these types of events and that’s why I go back to my original point I have how I’m sitting in front of you right now with this is very contrary to where I was when I started but today after all the films are out and you know after I’m still continued of course communication projects and I have a lot of other larger social design projects that I want to get going with with a lot of interaction globally that’s a big thing is generating interaction within global society rather than just saying stuff I this is this is the path that’s been carved out and I think those listening to this that also feel these pressures my recommendation is for you to have just let yourself be pushed a little bit to see where you end up and did let yourself be vulnerable to the type of change that is what embodies us anyway I mean we are all amalgams and we are all being pushed and forced in certain positions whether we like it or not and nothing is ever wrong everyone should keep that in mind there’s no such thing as a wrong path because it’s going to self-correct one way or another but I could go on a another tangent on the course of humanity in that regard as well and how we can look at the suffering of our world as both a very horrible circumstance but also a rite of passage towards what’s what will most probably be in the end a very fortunate for fortuitous a new way of looking at the world new level of social organization once we get the education out there and these types of projects under people’s belts so I bet there’s your long answer that kind of reminds me a little bit I think it was Macbeth perhaps where Shakespeare said there’s nothing good nor bad but but thinking makes it so anyway so what’s your motivation then and are there any either explicit or implicit goals behind you your your sort of path personally and then the movement yeah so well as a communicator I’m not a scientist by any definition of the word in a traditional sense I’m not a specialist in at least I try not to consider myself a specialist I try to be as much of a generalist or as but mr fuller turned in a comprehensive assess the great failure of our awareness is that we’re not thinking broadly enough and everyone gets so rigidly and that explains why you know the vast majority

of our information technology has gone in the form of Applied Technology of the military systems so you know to call people in the military well reason scientists is a bit of an oxymoron want to put it that way military intelligence I think would be the most hilarious oxymoron if you look at in the broad view so you know my I’m a communicator in in most circumstances but I’m you know I think that my skill set basically what I’ve come to terms with is my skill set is trying to write and produce media that can change people’s minds so that’s on one side that’s why I have a new film series and I do a web series and I do writing and I have a lot of other stuff that I intend to keep pushing forward with to educate but simultaneously we need actual action so the movement one big flagship project that has been talked about in the movement for some time and we’re trying to figure out a way to facilitate it without too much of a financial burden is a programming project that will be online called the global redesign Institute and this is a very simply a very powerful way of getting that the world to look at the earth as a system getting the work looked at humanity as one species and one family and realizing that there is an overarching technological generalised principle orientation to all of our economic and social concerns which has to be approached on the global level through a macroeconomic redesign of all all topographical regions now what I mean by that is we are going to redesign the surface of the earth in 3d imagery using API programming and show region by region how efficient how X number of people will be getting the surplus of energy how X number of people in a certain larger design will only have to work X number of hours a week and really relay the data of what the world could be on this macro Xie I used the term macroeconomic obviously not the financial sense but in the larger order structure of society the infrastructure the transportation energy utilization things of that’s such and of course that conversation opens up all of the lower tier technology that for example singularity University the advents of all the advanced technology using system governance using of course the rapid advancement energy tools photovoltaics all of the incredible efficiency that’s been increasing over the course of the past 100 years so this is the ultimate in my mind the ultimate design revolution concept it’s gonna be fairly minimal istic because there’s only so far you can go down into that type of zoo we’re not gonna go down to the meter you have to be fairly general but as it expands as the programming becomes more advanced it will get more and more interesting and more and more detailed and to finish that point it will eventually evolve into conferences right now the zeitgeist movement has its main intellectual day it’s called z-day and we do this once a year we’ll have our sixth annual ZD I believe in Toronto this year and it’s a it’s a lecture type of event where we present you know all of the basic ideas of the movement so should we design technology everything else but eventually that will morph into the global redesign symposium at least it will either be built in or will be a separate a separate event and this will go region by region to show each region for example I’m in Los Angeles to show everyone in Los Angeles that attends how Los Angeles could if we wanted to take a ground-up reasoned rational systems approach to macroeconomic surface design to facilitate efficient transport energy forget the market economy forget the free market chaos of trying to piece all this stuff together through property ownership let’s just show what the world could be if we just applied this fundamental systems governance premise so that’s a very exciting project that we’re trying to get underway it’s not an easy one as you might imagine it builds very much upon just to make the association of what Buckminster Fuller did in the in the 70s called the buck mr. fuller world game where he had a very crude type of educational thing where he took his big math he laid it out and he had school children mostly decide how to do certain things on the planet to create world peace create an abundance all of those things so this is a high-tech version of that and I think it’s well needed I’m really frankly surprised no one’s done it yet you know let me ask you that’s fantastic actually before that you said that the the the the meeting might be in Toronto I’m actually located in Toronto Canada okay for those who may be interested in attending what stirrer can you give us the date and the place perhaps but this I’m sorry to say this is still a discussion right now we’re in the organizing stage but it will exist in March you’ll probably be in mid-march it’s usually around the 13th or 14th during a weekend and that’s actually great that you’re there maybe we can have you come we should talk to you about that to see if if you have any interest and speaking we take it’s not just you know we talk about obviously the movement but it’s also bringing in other speakers that have unique impressions that are ultimately interested in social Jake well and some challenging Outsiders like me no I I everything challenging is welcome as

long as it’s respectful so you know if we all agree there’d be no progress so any I I’m so confident in this very fundamental worldview this train of thought that I just wait for challenges for anyone I’m not the kind of person to step back and want to dismiss those that have objections because if we’re all thinking clearly and relatively rationally we can find solutions for for the the objections in this type of systems approach I very much agree with what you just said actually that’s actually one of the reasons one of the few reasons that I brought you on the show today that and why I’m so happy to have you here so let you ask you this what did you learn after making three movies that from what I hear have had perhaps hundreds of millions of views well the numbers of views it takes a different kind of feel than what a what a commercial success would be a lot of people hear that and they they automatically equate that to to some type of public notoriety in the larger world but that actually there’s like a film series while it’s while it’s known it’s still underground it’s really not it’s not is money people know of it as much of zeitgeist as a household name in a lot of respects it’s still very much a hidden sort of phenomenon and I’m both I’m both enlightened to say because it gives it a certain a certain integrity but then simultaneously I wish that more people in the in the larger echelons of society would kind of get their head around this stuff it’s also had a lot of influence too so what have I learned I’ve learned that first of all the new film series I’m going to work on I’m gonna try and make it as big as possible I don’t mean in the sort of sellout manner but I’m going to take a more traditional route I’m gonna release it of course on the internet but I’m gonna do my best to release in the largest institutions I possibly can because this series for me is even more important because it basically builds upon as you suggested what I’ve learned and what I’ve learned in most part is that information only goes so far you have to give people an aesthetic to hold on to when it comes to understanding in the world especially understanding the future and what the future could be they it’s very hard to conceive of the future because we’re also locked into the present therefore there has to be something to show it to make it make it ethereal to make it real to make a visceral I should say and that’s what this film series is gonna try and do I’m gonna build upon I’m gonna build upon a lot of the memes that are existing from from the counterculture revolutions and the mass protest to anonymous to occupy to a lot of these institutions that are coming from underneath the surface and when people watch this film they’re gonna see the world as it is it exists now but through a particular filter and I’m gonna relate all of this stuff into a transition into what the future may hold in the point and this goes back to what I’ve learned is that we have to we have to begin to isolate and this distinct distinctly quantify the attributes needed for step-by-step transition into a new sort of a new social model and I get frustrated because I speak with a lot of people that have something grandiose ideas and they’re so scattered you know it’s such a scattered world the information overload is so dramatic and I think again back to what I’ve learned it’s a matter of reducing we have to unlearn a lot of things and get to a small point of basic understandings and work from these generalized principles as they should be called and then we can facilitate a step by step maybe use the word revolution but you know my entire interest is to see global change on the social level the greatest technological institution we have the most important technological institution we have isn’t the computer it’s actually the way we think about society it’s the global program it’s it’s the monetary economic political even religious and spiritual associations it’s the zeitgeist as that term denotes and that’s that’s my biggest interest and technological design revolution is the social system itself and they I’m start going yeah so it sounds like you want to create sort of the step-by-step guide or the roadmap towards creating that social change yes that is what is deeply needed you know a lot of again a lot of great thinkers are out there that have been talking about change and they can tell you what change is but we really need to think tank to figure out how to get there and how to make a hybrid economy which i think is the next step or we we we are able to utilize all the beautiful things that are happening in science technology for the betterment of humanity but yet we don’t have to completely dismiss the current system in order to do so I’m jumping a little bit ahead here I’m not sure what your awareness is regarding the dispute that I perpetuate with respect to the incompatibility of the of the socio-economic system as it exists today and the incompatibility of that system with this newly understood scientific overlay and scientific awareness that can facilitate incredible change in problem resolution but I feel they’re completely incompatible I want to come back to that a little bit later but I want to do it step-by-step so the police build it for our audience what may not be familiar with your work

okay let’s say so let me ask you this what was the most surprising thing things that you didn’t expect that you discovered in that journey of making three movies like that sure well what is is the fact that the conversation continued and it has morphed and taken a life of its own I really I don’t I don’t have a big ego with with my general work I really and not a filmmaker I haven’t really wasn’t a filmmaker so when these things came out it was very intuitive it’s very not sure the word to describe it I’m not heavily invested in that type of communication so the fact that it caught such it caught flames so quickly and so many people identify with it reinforce something that I never expected which was the fact that so many people saw the world the same way that I did so that was a very powerful thing for me to see it created a deeper unity for me as well to see that I wasn’t alone and that’s a unique email I get very frequently from others in the community that are trying to see Seif social improvement is that oh I really felt I was alone and I felt I was crazy until I saw your film series and that’s a very wonderful email to get that identifies with my perspective as well yeah so let me let me ask you the flip side of that coin then would you change anything say for example in the first film that you made looking back at it now almost five years ago six years ago would you change anything if you could well I made necessary changes in 2010 so I updated that film and removed some temporal things about about points that were date oriented that no longer would serve the purpose because the date had passed but I get your question because I think first film is a fish out of water in a lot of ways with respect to the other films at least by Nettie’s interpretation but I think it’s important and it’s a little bit sophisticated for people to understand when they watch something like this because everyone thinks in a reductionist way if everyone’s reductionist they component a component bracket all the subject matter in the first film and they don’t understand how it relates they understand how it evolved through time and an emergence in so it’s literally synergistic in its development so no is the answer even though even though many people still take objection and in a lot of ways a lot of the controversy towards the movement sadly enough has been propagated by people that are so angry at that first film that they just equate it to the movement in me and they dismiss us based on that premise and it’s a it’s a very mature in this position I don’t take it very seriously but you see this rhetoric all over everything you see it on Wikipedia you see it you see it everywhere but that is the natural course of events so nothing is wrong everything is working on its own level if I hadn’t done what I did I wouldn’t be in the same position I wouldn’t have attracted the diverse audience that I did so I think it’s important people will step back and really look at this as an evolution and I think when someone begins with that first film then they get the second film then they get to the third film they are following a very not only a train of thought intellectually about about the issues that were raised they’re also following a development of concept of me you’re actually watching me change and alter and mix and emerge in different ways and that’s exactly what I will persist to do and I don’t regret any of it I entirely agree with with the fact that it is an evolution perhaps a little later I can share with you my thoughts on it but sure the more important thing is that I’m trying to figure out what exactly do you mean by the word evolution here because you know I am here doing what I’m doing right now and part of the evolutionary process that led me here went through many many mistakes that I would not repeat today and if I were to do it over again now because of the things that I learned along the way so yes I had to make those mistakes to be here talking to you today but again if I could go back I probably try to avoid them because now I recognize many of the things that I have done three or four years ago when I started doing this we’re mistakes so I’m trying to figure out if you have any personal regrets about things that you think you could have done better things that you think may be mistakes well of course I mean anyone that has any objective view and recognizes recognizes the path of a constant self correction that is life would always regret probably certain number of factors every day of their life so when it comes to the film series yeah I again it’s a difficult point because I look at it in a less reductionist way if I didn’t make so-called mistakes so to speak that there wouldn’t have been progress the

first film had a very deep Aidid criticism of religion for example now that alienated a lot of people in in my future work as far as the association of my work because if you’re religiously minded which is still a very powerful powerful philosophical institution on the planet field meaning theological irreligious you’re gonna make you’re not gonna make many good friends with that so if I could if I could go back to that I would try to wreak Walla Phi that my criticism towards religion isn’t trying to offend anybody it’s to make a very legitimate case intellectually so yes I think there could be improvement across the board with a lot of those issues that were so taboo so I agree with that you know I mean you could we could talk for hours on things that we feel that we should have done differently but again that’s the process I mean I could jump the site guys to den demand I could say that the the overarching emphasis in the third section on the Venus Project was over-exuberant and it was actually misleading in a lot of ways towards the community because it created an identification with an institution this is something I learned later I learned that institutions are detrimental across the board so if you come across anybody I’m great respect for Jacque but if you come across anybody that has one identification that’s to an institutional Association where say for example in the course of this conversation all I say to you over and over again is yes people should learn about the zeitgeist movement become the zeitgeist movement that doesn’t give any real information that doesn’t all that does is presented as institutional Association and the dangers of that is with guru status associations I watched this experience with Jacques he had to endure heavy guru status which I would argue is also of his own creation because they take a institutionalized perspective so if I could go back to zeitgeist addendum I would have rephrased that entire section introducing The Venus Project and I would have made it about the train of thought I would have made it what I made it when I made moving forward which was a much more balanced depiction and educational type of activism where you’re not just focusing on one particular person or one particular idea you’re trying to give the audience the tools to think to think about the relevant concepts as opposed to saying go join this institution or go look up this individual I am rigidly anti institution and anti individual I knowledge and social development is absolutely absent of the human interest meaning that our forms that we take in our brains completely irrelevant we could cease to exist and in a certain sense knowledge would continue to evolve obviously that’s a ridiculous statement because it’s our brains are in this group mind that do that but knowledge is utterly independent of the human being and that’s the one thing I think that has to be driven forward more than anything else in our society is we need to create thinkers not followers the entire political social system is based upon people following and that’s a great disaster and so that’s the point you know we’re jumping a little bit ahead of my plan here but I throw in an audience question here from Christopher Jeannette who says how has the zeitgeist movement evolved since the infamous schism with the Venus Project where do you want the zeitgeist movement to be ten years since its inception those are critical questions sure the zeitgeist movement has in my view the zeitgeist movement gained maturity once the separation of The Venus Project commenced I think that people look and stuff like that they say oh I wish that didn’t happen but they don’t really look at the process as we talked about a moment ago of evolution it’s like a tree nothing stays the same things break off and everything is constantly changing and emerging we have to accept this fact that’s why again why institutionalized establishments are a detriment to development the schism that he referred to it as was was uh of a natural consequence now leave it at that I can say a lot about that because our people was asking me about it but it was a natural consequence the zeitgeist movement has matured to the extent even though it’s been very slow because we’re all volunteers in this movement we don’t take donations and we’d have no financial support I basically underwrite all projects that happen on the global scale myself but it’s been incredibly powerful the people that have come into this that the the independence of thought but yet harnessing of this group identification towards common means and common ends has been absolutely profound it’s unfortunate many people don’t see that as far as the second question where that was where the cycnus be in ten years is that what he’s asked yeah since inception I I see the movement existing as an overarching umbrella organization pass-through seeped through organization I can’t emphasize that enough where lots of other like the global redesign Institute I just mentioned isn’t going to be a part of the zeitgeist movement per se it’s an underneath it the zeitgeist movement is a worldview it’s a train of thought you don’t have to wear it as like guys women t-shirt or or buy a book or join some club online to be a

part of the movement you have to simply look and accept and understand about what the movement is pretty putting forward with its train of thought towards rationally thinking about social organization and a systems approach and take it into account all of the applications we currently have recognizing the trends such as the singularity concept and ephemeralization and seeing where we’re going because I really believe once you plant these seeds forget the institution everyone is gonna find the fundamentally same conclusion I’m really confident that once this fundamental education has received everyone even if they don’t know the terms will find the same conclusion in the end because that is the natural natural process of logic and reasoning that exists in our brain independent of everything ideology and philosophy it’s a wiring issue let me cut you here just for a second and talk about the difference between being a scientist and being a filmmaker because you know I interviewed Jacque fresco and I asked him more he thinks about you and I am paraphrasing here from my interview with him which is public record so anyone can go and listen to it but if I remember off the top of my head he said something like Peter Joseph is very well-intentioned he’s a good guy but he’s not a scientist he’s a filmmaker and that for him that’s a very important distinction because to do it in reality in practice you have to be a scientist the way I get it you cannot be a filmmaker or you cannot be a philosopher like I am and do that well I I think judging by the look on your face I think we both know the nature of of what that type of statement how isolated and elitist such a statement is first of all Jaques one of his catchphrases has been there are no scientists and I argue the opposite I say everyone is a scientist whether they like it or not going back to my prior statement every single on individual on this planet uses a form of rational scientific reasoning in certain ways they might be deeply truncated even the most religious people that speak with will try to prove that Jesus existed by numerical calculation and regional Association and anecdotal evidence of this and that everything that you see in application and the scientific method runs through people’s brains at all times it doesn’t mean it’s aligned correctly so I think that Jockin is in his age and I again I’ve great respect for him but I don’t really listen to him anymore because he has developed a tendency that’s an incredibly defensive and very offensive in a lot of respects with respect to how dogmatic he’s become with his worldview and how deeply egotistical his association with The Venus Project and his work has become it’s not his work Jacque is just as much of a scientist as anyone else that’s thinking clearly and I think anyone that anyone you speak with it creates that type of elitist rhetoric you should you should watch out for you should watch out for okay I think we’re getting to the point where I think we’ve exhausted that specific topic of our organization and I want to move on let me ask you about this then actually I would read you a quote and you’ll see what you what you think about it so an atheist by the name of Kim Callahan wrote an article called the greatest story ever garbled and in it he says perhaps the worst aspect of the greatest story ever told part one of Peter Joseph’s internet film zeitgeist is that some of what is it asserts is true unfortunately this material is liberally and sloppily mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus and then towards the end of the article he finishes by saying zeitgeist is the da Vinci Code on steroids well I’m gonna say – to a criticism like this well I would say that the vitriol and the the bias inherent in those statements is unnecessary for one – I would say anyone listening that wants to see a rebuttal to that can go to my consultant well a well researched excuse me a woman who has done incredible research for years called Acharya s who’s written novels on this subject hundreds of thousands of notable historical sources that relate to everything that’s in that film there’s a great ego in this sort of truth world and I find this a lot with people those some of the most hateful people I meet are the ones that agree with some of the things that are spoken of but disagrees so vehemently with with other parts that’s interesting how they how diverse the responses are listen anyone that wants to look at the history of of religion anyone that wants to look at it the after Theologica theological basis the natural world influence of religious thought which is extremely obvious can go in fine texts that do this I strongly recommend people be independent in their thought and not take the extremely biased and slanderous insults of different reviewers which

there’s been no no loss of in my world and actually go back and read things for themselves religious history if you want to talk about that is one of the most ambiguous I will agree histories because it’s been systemically destroyed the you know the great the Great Library of Alexandria which housed most of the wondrous texts of all the great early scientists and philosophers a lot of these excuse me a lot of the frames of reference which Christian Islamic texts were built upon we’re lost it’s been well noted in that in the this destruction of that library just like they’re destroying knowledge to this day for leaders purposes so we don’t have all the information but I think that if you take a larger logical view of the entire whole of religious development it’s very very very very difficult not to break it all down and the fundamental conclusion that’s presented at the first in the first section of zeitgeist and that had come in and that it’s so obvious that it comes from the natural world we can nitpick about this or that fact but the overarching issue is so blatantly obvious I it blows my mind how people get so upset over the minutiae of it well I have to share with you that I personally kind of time another unabated atheist myself so I’ve been very sort of merciless at different points in attacking religion myself but I kind of do not really I was not convinced by your astrological argument in that first part of the first movie the astra theological basis or the acidemia astra theological or the astrological there’s a difference between the two which d-beam the astrological not the astra thea large so you you’re referring to the fact that a lot of these pagan notions of astrology you don’t feel that they made their way into the judeo-christian Islamic all day they absolutely did but well the we I think we’re going to go to different details here but that’s okay the parts where you know Jesus the Jesus story basically was found and everywhere from ancient Egypt to ancient Greece to ancient India – I don’t know Babylon etc you know I’ve studied a little bit of ancient Greek history and mythology especially ever since I was a kid and especially with the with the Greek references I have tons of very very serious problems I’m not an expert on Indian stuff I have done a little bit of studies there I have problems there too and I have very little knowledge about Egypt so I can’t really say about the series for example and whether that’s true or not but with Greek references in particular I had serious issues well I’ll state this I’ll state this that and in general summation because again if you want to be if you want to be explicitly specific you’re everyone’s in a fault or any type of specifics because of the the loss of history and the ambiguity of the writings as which they are written by historians and and all of the all the fascinating people that documented these issues but the early Egyptian philosophy has been proven by Egyptologist to have a deeply cosmic relationship to the Association that is the core driver once you understand that and you superimpose the religious notions found the judeo-christian Bible the cipa symbology I should say the confluence poetically is so ridiculously overlaid there are so many examples that are obviously lifted I’m not saying it’s a one-to-one correlation I’m not saying they didn’t have a great variation of the way they rewrote these stories but the confluence is is so outrageously outrageously obvious and again it I don’t want as you point out you have to read and you have to divert it I’ve read I’ve spent thousands and thousands of hours probably during the course of of the emergence of zeitgeist one going back and reviewing this information over I wrote an enormous text with Acharya s called The Zeitgeist movement Campania excuse me there’s like guys movie companion guide it’s up a 220 page text the big chunk of that is a complete defense of part one of zeitgeist if I think it’s all very obvious so again it depends on what your sources are and how they relate and the only way you can decide if what’s true or not is to average them together and see what is most dominant and the astra theological basis is the most fundamental and most logical explanation that i can think of for the symbology apparent in the judeo-christian texts well let’s let as i said i’m unconvinced but let’s accept for the sake of the argument that you you’ve got it right lead me through the logic of the sequence of parts of that movie sure so why start with religion and prove that foundation the Astrotech theological foundation and then go into the consequent issues that you go into and why are they so important to go through because here’s my problem

personally speaking here I’m laying myself you know I’m being straightforward as always with you I’m always with all my guests my take on your work is this the fool the fool the first movie I was probably about 20% in agreement 80% in disagreement okay the second movie I was in about 40% agreement and 60% disagreement with you okay the third movie I was in about 60 70 % agreement with and about 30 percent disagreement with okay so I see that evolution that you’re making which are movies I think they’re getting better I also think that you’re sort of getting more focused with more relevant points but perhaps I’m missing something so well through the logic of that first movie and why such a constructor structure the argument is helpful towards the goals that you’re setting for yourself the very first section deals with the mythology of philosophy and the displacement of truth and the fundamental earthly Association of humanity and a to the earth I should say and of course this vast powerful political system known as religion that is a press society for thousands of years you see the first part of zeitgeist one isn’t an atheistic argument at all it’s actually a historical document to show how much people have been misled in general in the mythology that has become normality and across all of society mythology has become normality I’ll jump to the third section before I approach the second because that’s the deepest mirror the monetary economy and the entire political construct the notion of wars 99% of what people believe on this planet regarding those issues look it’s a little better today I’ll say 95% of what people believe is absolutely dead wrong People’s Association what’s actually going on in the world is so backwards and twisted and so heavily influenced by propaganda zeitgeist 1 was an attempt to shake and break those those associations now getting the more specific terms the middle section on 9/11 was a specific focal point a specific instance of Mythology that was both religious in its orientation and of course socio-political economic in its outcome so if you remember from zeitgeist one the very first section the very the segue into part two which is the 911 section all the world’s a stage has a speaker who’s actually religious who talks about myth and the power of myth and how it becomes a sanctimonious reality after a certain point when so many people have such a powerful emotional identification with a specific idea and and while I don’t consider 9/11 to be a true issue anymore in the sense I don’t pursue it I do very much question what was given forward by the US government which has been widely accepted internationally as being completely false the u.s. pocket and all the mythology in the United States yet people still tote this line even though you’ll get a pretty much a 25 to 30 percent statistical poll of people that don’t believe what the government said outside the US the statistical polls off the chart so this is important because it’s mythology in the common sense right in front of you religious nonsense put forward right in shock and awe in the form of a social manipulation act that led into if what has been numerous Imperial Wars I can count off at least 10 of them since 9/11 that is mythology once again so to answer your question the entire film is based on social pathology on different degrees lower and higher degrees and at the end of the day it’s an anti-war film it’s an anti division film it’s saying religion is a cause of conflict and division 9/11 is this huge catalyst that’s been pulled over the eyes of the whole world to make a new Imperial move on that behalf the United States and then the entire economic social political construct is one massive scam ultimately consequentially and necessarily by the way I don’t relate this to conspiracy this is a natural outgrowth of the type of social model that we’ve been Pecha waiting for a thousand years so I don’t blame anybody I don’t say this political institution is at fault there’s a reason why there’s been an empire throughout all of human existence it just keeps shifting and the United States fails China will most likely pick up the Empire status once again these are patterns these are social patterns that have a system result and that is the big argument that I put forward over all is that we have to scrape the system or it’s gonna destroy us so I could go on a larger tangent on the relevance of this a logic that lose forward but I think if you really look at it it’s about breaking these mythological systems that are keeping Humanity in a very detrimental place and ultimately lead to our demise if we don’t shake them and I appreciate that but I don’t want to go to too much in detail here because I want to leave openness to my audience to make up their mind for themselves despite of my opinion because

I was liable to making mistakes too and yeah so I’d rather set up the environment in which we can all grow so I appreciate that kind of a reply that you gave now let me ask you this have we not made any progress for the last night and on several thousand years in your opinion well of course of course you’ve been progress the question is how do you define progress progress an example right okay several examples so if you read Steven Pinker’s book the better angels of our nature he says that today we have 500 times less chance of dying violent death then say our ancestors just a hundred years ago sure one example another example is that today a child born in a first world country is likely to live in their 90’s at the very least right yeah sure so we have life expectancy and we have 500 times less chance of dying a violent death so that’s for example for me the way that I measure progress two examples just well let’s think about what that really means if you argue that life expectancy or a specific category of violence not occurring is progress then that’s one definition I wouldn’t argue that at all I look at things based on quality of life and based on balance and sustainability as a form of progress progress is not technological development it’s not even an increase in public health in the sense of those of those fundamental distinctions that go back you know a couple centuries on the lifespan of an average person was 30 years we look back on that we say let’s farm let’s just that must just have been terrible but then again we might go into the future as you well know and we might be able to live to 100 to 200 years is that progress what if we lived 100 to 200 years and had limited violence but yet everyone is as neurotic and as detached and as broken as they are now and everyone is completely desensitized from the world around them we have the individualistic neuroses we have no sustainability imagine a dystopic view which is very very feasible where people might have these these amazing technological capacities and AI but yet this social system is still the same it’s ever been for thousands of years so I appreciate Pinker’s analysis and I appreciate those that look at technological development as a form of resolving problems and then assuming progress but you have to step back and look at this from a balance and sustainability as systems recognition standpoint so yeah I don’t really care about the technological tools that we have at our disposal unless they have a legitimate role in creating equitable distribution hence cultural sustainability coupled with the acknowledgement of the natural dynamic dynamic equilibrium and balance protocols inherent to the natural world that we live in those are the two fundamental issues real success will not be driven by a greater and greater technological advancement or greater and greater reductions in certain forms of violence or greater lifespans or any of the materialistic notions that we’ve before a real success will be when we finally realize exactly what we’re a part of in the natural world and gain complete alignment with that so that’s the distinction I would make let me let me ask you about the natural world though because in the natural world you know we observe a situation of survival of the fittest we observe what Thomas Hobbes called the merry state of nature we observe a dog-eat-dog world we observe infanticide we observe you know lots of violent death and suffering so when you tell me about being in sync with the natural world you know I myself the only organization that I’ve been a member in right and I probably shouldn’t say that but the only organization that I’ve ever been a member of in my life was Greenpeace and I was paying my dues for about seven or eight years I stopped about five years ago which is a whole other story but in other words I care very much about nature but I realized that the way I am right now I would not be able to survive in it for very long for a number of reasons and and I don’t like to see the world being based on the so-called natural laws actually those same natural laws are the one the laws pushed by social Darwinist like Herbert Spencer and the ideology of survival of the fittest what you bring up is what’s called the naturalist fallacy this is a long-standing pattern where the new even go back to early racism there were early notions of it was even a Nobel Prize winning scientist to have these absolutely distorted views of african-americans and how all these basically related them to monkeys in the wild of their association so the

naturalist fallacy you point out is not what I’m pointing out at all yes we can look at the the horrors that are possible in a world based on scarcity we can look at our evolution from a very early primate a very aggressive primate origin where yes these types of violent acts are there because there’s no intelligence otherwise I look at things not have a reductionist standpoint but from a trend standpoint and again the emergent standpoint and when you take that angle you see the potential for using our brains to reach a new level of comprehension of society I completely agree that it’s completely natural for somebody to be pushed into a corner and being loss of resources and begin to act very very violently in society just by the way like we’re seeing all over the world right now everything is natural again nothing is wrong but we can take control of what we do see in this natural association are certain things that we did not recognize before I’ll go back to my economic point we have a whole system based on growth detachment competition which in a certain point of time would have seen natural it would have been necessary I would relate that back to the early handicraft industry of the post mercantilist period that was about the end of when the market economy about the age of Adam Smith when the market county really was fruitful but it’s utterly and completely decoupled and it’s like putting a square peg in a round hole when it comes to the way the natural order and on that finite planet actually works when it comes to major of cultural sustainability when I say cultural sustainability I relate that directly into social sustainability which I directly relate to environmental sustainability because they’re actually one big thing if you create massive imbalance speaking of the natural law world and you create people that have a whole lot of stuff that have a whole lot of positive ego they have a whole lot of success association and you contrast them with another group of people that don’t have any of that you’re gonna get conflict you’re gonna get conflict one way or another you’ve always had that every revolution that’s ever occurred throughout the whole of human society I agree that but my point is that you are also creating something which you call system theory approach towards a global dynamic equilibrium which in a sense right it will be run by computers etc etc with sort of a smart idea about you know product production and things like that resource-based economy but but my point is that that’s also not natural in some ways it’s in some ways to s artificially created as the capitalist economy that you really know yeah I’ll give you an example of why that’s wrong one I kind of just usually the concept of growth and consumption in this system the reward for more processing and consumption is more income there for the betterment of some group it is advantageous in our society right now on the financial system in the financial system to generate and to excuse me to consume as much as possible that is in stark contrast to a natural law based resource based economy which says we can’t do that we have to monitor equilibrium and we have to adjust our values our economic and social system for it so there’s your contrast one is much more amiable natural and sustainable than the other as we’ve seen around the world you built I agree with that in theory but but how do we monitor and adjust that in practice my concern is because I grew up in communism allegedly and and you know it’s one thing to say Oh daddy I want ice cream and there’s no ice cream anywhere to say to what to be booked because somebody somewhere far away decided that we don’t need ice cream right now we need tanks right right cause we were Bulgarians so we needed to have tanks not ice cream but when I was five years old I couldn’t care less about tank I cared about ice cream right well my concern is aren’t you removing again that decision from people giving it into the hands of a computer or some kind of statistical device calculator you call it in your last movie I think a complex calculator but in a way well okay that’s a that’s an excellent question first of all the best way to think about this is not the form of a scientific technocracy where a bunch of people are sitting around making decisions and the idea of the computer has been deeply misunderstood and it’s become a sci-fi thing with a lot of critics though it’s just a system run by a computer know it’s a system where people understand things like what I just explained the dynamic equilibrium you could easily calculate the current mass of all the rainforests and lumber sources in the world put them into a system look at natural regeneration look at how far we can go this is a fundamental calculation premise for sustainability all we’re doing is extending that outward to include every notable resource at every notable process you can think of completely objective it’s not an issue of someone saying we can’t do this and can’t do that if there is if there is something that’s gonna make that decision it would be this sustainability program if you will now people say to me all the time I say well who’s in a program this computer like well science and these fundamental laws a

sustainability program this computer the decisions have already been made that’s another one that’s a funny one say who’s gonna make decisions the decisions have already been made it’s at a matter of us to decide now that’s your point about choice and this is a great criticism people where’s our choice because they’re so used to this monetary driven illusion of choice verse you have that power because of the money in your hand what if you had a system where that type of power was also available but without money it was actually a true democracy of orientation balanced against this constitution of the natural law programming system so no one can go out there and decide at a whim just because they want to to knock down every single tree in the rainforest why because we all need that that would be against fundamental programming for sustainability so I I always try to it’s very difficult to talk about because people are so foreign to this concept of calculation of society if you look at an airplane or you look at anything like you know as you’re working singularity you know that in the future design will be automated ai systems are already around the corner we already have architectural programs that can allow an individual to design anything pretty much and the internal intelligence of this design program puts it all together and makes it rational beyond the scope of the individual this could be one application that the whole of society can be used used for the creation of anything that is needed within the bounds of natural law sustainability does that make sense that that doesn’t make sense and again in principle I very much agree with with with what you’re saying I just want to figure out for myself the specific means that’s why in a way before in the beginning when you said that you’re doing a road map with specific action I also agree with you that that’s very important because the devil is in the details of course because that’s where you succeed or fail right you’re opening a can of worms that I could talk for probably 10 hours on and I the importance of it is breaking through the excuse me the communicative problem here I don’t say necessarily with you but probably many that are listening to this is that they just people can’t conceive of this because they’ve never been given a natural law frame of reference they never learned in school about what sustainability means I never learned how the periodic table emerged it’s been very recent they don’t understand how a component parts actually have a legitimate propensity for action so certain components that we use from plastics and polymers to all of the metallurgy there are built in natural laws if you will that create propensity for these materials and yes you can calculate Society you can calculate and the amount of freedom and this is what I want to talk about the amount of freedom the real freedom I don’t mean freedom from some oppressive group anymore I don’t mean freedom from a lot of the historical things that have happened the de Trude oppression and society is the labor roles and the hierarchical labor system that is a form of slavery in the world today whether it’s the third rule being exploited for a 50 cents a day or whether it’s your average $60,000 a year dude working in a job that doesn’t do anything so late advertising for example like I did that generates millions and millions of dollars for a very tiny percentage of the corporation we live in a slavery driven system that’s becoming more and more irrelevant when it comes to what labor even means so you have probably 70% of the population doing things that aren’t even applicable anymore this freedom if you have a freedom of calculating society and getting balance in society everyone can be free of their hideous slave job that they exist in today and I think that’s the real notion of freedom and getting away from that oppression that specialization and being open and sharing the world in a very legitimate practical way and again I could talk a great length about how the Devils in the details won’t you give me an example of one specific point and then I can talk about that because I’ll just go on a different tangent if you don’t know before that I want to ask you we’re exactly the 60th minute since the beginning of our interview and I know that that’s how much we agreed so if you want I can close it down if you’re busy cuz I know you are very busy I can close it down with the next two questions or if you could give me another ten or fifteen minutes I’d appreciate that too 15 minutes okay and by the way I agree entirely with you on on the specialization issue and one of my favorite quotes from a previous guest of mine course quoting a science fiction writer is specialization is for insects so that’s good and and the full court is actually much much better than that let me ask you a couple of the relevance of a couple of topics that are more closer to the discussions I usually have for my audience in that how is artificial intelligence fit in the hole zeitgeist vision of the future artificial intelligence which is really kind of a loaded word these days because how it’s been manipulated by science fiction is really just a detached non brain oriented process of computation

and digestion of information and it’s very obvious how it exists that that is the fundamental premise of calculation no calculation again in the context of zeitgeist of the social system and again back to that global redesign Institute and go back to any form of design in fact it doesn’t matter if it’s a computer or society as a whole it’s a process of thought and calculation and determining certain logical associations based around a given construct so what do you have a computer that’s calculating it has a particular uniform process and the movement would utilize that for the sustainability approach that I just explained to you so you want to remove objective decision excuse me subjective decision making the only way that we can comprehend the world around us is through AI because we can’t we can’t put enough brains together to do this anymore and this is one of the beautiful things about our evolution technologically is that we have this capacity now we didn’t a long time ago to sit around and defer us with all of our biases and our emotional reactions and think about how to navigate but not to mess with all of our baggage of history with all the fears that we have I mean this is what I get I run to run into all the time we need an objective system of calculation to meet certain ends and on the global scale global calculation will happen in this means with us interacting with this system and I think it’s a very simple practical idea I don’t know why people have such a hard time with this you see this in dentist’s office you see this in mechanics mechanics have systems that they you know as soon as you bring your car in to any modern mechanic they plug it into a system that has the full spec of that car it can often isolate problems that are already in existence so this is intelligence as a tool artificial intelligence is a tool and it will be one of the most life-saving phenomenon that we can put forward yeah because that’s my take on it to it the way I understand the whole vision of whether it’s the Venus Project or the zeitgeist movement artificial intelligence is a crucial foundational part to make it work without it it cannot just like mechanization optimization of the production process right you’re replacing human labor with large-scale optimization of everything so that people are free to create out of their own free will and to to not be enslaved by selling their labor basically well you could argue philosophically if artificial intelligence and mechanization are defining attributes of this new societal awareness we could argue that because in in their defining but they’re required I think they’re very necessary yeah we we fight as we like without them right well again that’s that is a deep philosophical question about what it means to live like for example if you and I and say ten other people went to a little island somewhere okay now that that context I I get it but I’m thinking about a text of nine billion people yes planet like ours right I’m not thinking of if we go on a desert island and we there’s there enough brains the world that could work together to do the type of computation necessary at this stage of our evolution given where we are now complexity required today is just yes incredible now let me ask you this though what’s your take on the technological singularity in general and on the work of people like Ray Curto if you’re familiar with them in particular of course I’m a big fan of Ray Kurzweil I just wish you know obviously singularity as a as a as a as a theoretical postulation where we’re obviously our computer intelligence exceeds us so greatly that we have to start to adapt to it I think there’s a lot of truth to that and I think that’s already been happening for some time however I do think it gets a little over exaggerated I think it also misses the social concern attribute and I wish I could sit down with people like Kurzweil and talk more length about really the greatest barrier to this type of development for the good for good which is the economic system I really think that the system works as a deep viscous molasses against technological I don’t think that singularity is gonna hit when raised thinks it does because I think that the actual processes are gonna be slowed tremendously by the established commercial institutions for the technology in many different ways I think the first group the first group on this planet that will realize this will be the military and no one will know about it and that’s dangerous to me I think it’s extremely dangerous to have this type of development that is almost working on its own accord within the social model that we have now that’s my biggest biggest concern they’re not they’re not compatible we are in a fast-paced race for global maturity we have to get out of the the weaponry military institutions that are basically ruling this planet as extensions of the corporate RC the corporate establishment because that’s what the protectionism really means that’s what these military institutions really represent in this mafia orientation we have because if we

don’t the level of destruction possible once we continue this rapid advancement of information technology as it spreads to them to apply technology which it’s always gonna go to the military first keep that in mind always has and always will as long as we’re in this system the destruction possible is just off the chart and that really deeply worries me so I think it’s incredible what’s happening once I also think it’s a great wake up call it a great call for global maturity and to give people on the same page so we’re not and so we could utilize it utilize that utilize this stuff for the betterment of everyone not some select group I agree with you about the concerns with the military but yet again we have positive outcomes like for example the internet the internet was invented in order to coordinate the might man nuclear missiles by DARPA and late 60s sure and yet it wasn’t the military who figured out how to use it and adopted it on a white scale first it was the public right yes and so we have a great example of how things can arise in the military and yet come out for the benefit of everybody yes and so that’s one of the examples that keeps me optimistic of course that doesn’t guarantee it will happen again but but we are at least it happened so it worked it’s funny if you bring that up because that’s a point I made recently in another interview and that’s the fact that the military system which utilizes more money than most countries in the planet they are a completely socialist organization system orient I say socialist and looses possible terms I mean that they don’t have a rigid democratic process the form of equity moving decision-making process they actually exist in a microcosm or I should say microcosm works in the type of in the type of ideological and structural organization that society as a whole should be but without the intention of killing other people so the military has not only been the source of the Internet in many ways it’s been the source of microwaves it’s been the source of the stoves I mean the Navy was the first to have the home the whole housing issue and all the things we have in our homes originally was built in technologically thought up by people in the Navy so they could cook and clean and do everything so what it really represents that was not the military it represents what true focus can actually do the military in its organization is brilliant but its intention is absolutely awful mmm-hmm now let me go back to the timeline issue here you raised with reycarts well and shift it a little bit and ask you about it like this do you agree with me so putting aside the weather curse walk has it right or wrong do you agree with me that this century is likely to be the make-or-break century for Humanity it’s hard to say but I I would agree that the amount of change that’s on pace is so dramatic that will take so many people by storm that will create so much confusion you look at the world right now and there are at least at least 10 or 15 countries that have massive global global the massive international protests happening right now we have strike you mean yes exactly we have terrible failures and in the wake of these terrible failures we have this tremendous progress in the technical sense and indeed it’s just it boggles my mind and I’m very worried I agree I agree that either we come together and begin to look at the world as being capable of housing the whole species we declare all the natural resources common heritage as Jacque would say which is brilliant notion also stated by Buckminster floor and many before him we have to come together realize this or we’re gonna get the best of ourselves and all it takes is one person with really advanced nanotechnology and some weaponry based on it to wipe out a whole continent in time so when it comes down to ours true sustainability it has to be a social concern the individual concern has to be put aside to some effect at least based on how neurotic it is now and through personal concern needs to become social concern because we’re all at risk we’re all at risk right now so yes I completely agree with you so so you have the goal of bringing everybody to that kind of collectivist social concern in a world where at least in America it’s it’s not earlier that’s pretty much apparent that most of us are pretty much individualistic now even if assuming that’s possible to get there wouldn’t that process create a strife or a revolution on a global scale that in its own right would require I don’t know rivers of blood because I don’t know it’s one one of the French revolutionaries put it revolution is a bloodthirsty monster once you let it out you cannot put it back I think I think that yeah I understand I understand the evolution I think the difference now is that the revolution all the revolutions of the past have been revolutions that instilled systems that were just right

for further revolution so in other words we keep replacing the same systems with just variations of the prior system I right now I think that the the turmoil and the unrest is so obvious it’s it’s so it’s so viscous it’s so there that the next transformation should move into a much more dramatic place that is unlike anyone anything the world has ever seen you have to think beyond and you have to educate people about what the world can be and if they can’t understand that then they will know the direction for themselves you got to get rid of the bandwagon associations you got to get rid a political ideology we have to take a scientific perspective of what’s possible how to get there and how it will benefit the whole of humanity will everyone agree of course not but if the vast majority of people that are suffering which I don’t want to go through the statistics on that but I think you know them very well if they were educated enough right now to know what’s possible to know they live in a world that they live in a circumstance that is utterly unnecessary and they can organize themselves it would happen overnight and the power establishment the 1% as its rightly called by the the Occupy movement that’s a very very small element to the population and they’re not they really wants the military establishments come to terms of the fact that they are also suffering just like everyone else as they well again that’s a big tangent the military might be a respected institution in play but people that are participating the military are shoved to the side just like any other degenerate one in for homeless in America are a prior and veterans all of this stuff paints the picture of a massive movement massive movement towards new broad social change if everyone can see the same goal and that’s what the zeitgeist movement is trying to put forward so you believe that we can it can happen in a more or less peaceful process I do I mean I I do believe that holistic I don’t believe it’s gonna have to be war oriented I really don’t believe that I think that a Martin Luther King type of civil disobedience that says okay we’re not gonna show up for work today we’re not gonna do this we’re gonna go on strike for this until we see this this and this and once the train of thought emerges based on the fact that all the things that are possible from solving poverty from creating energy abundance and all the things again that you’re very familiar with once they’re understood the powers that be will have no no no recourse anymore but to to cave to these fundamental human interests and I think it will serve them in the end as well I think they will live better and everyone will be much better off now this isn’t utopia I’m not saying that this is the end of all human development this is just the next step where we start to share our resources in a very liberal way and the shara technology and create an open-source world absent of the property and neuroses and the and all of the wealth these things that have become so normal which they’re not really normal they’re really impractical or they’re unsustainable as value systems repair I only have about four minutes left of the generous extra fifty that you granted me so I have the last two questions here sure and even though I’d like to talk to you for at least another hour and a half but I value your time so let me ask you first this where can people find more about you and your work what’s the best place well I really don’t associate my work as much as I do this overarching issue with the movement but obviously I have my film work you can go to zeitgeist movie comm which anyone can see my films for free I have a general bio biography page called Peter Joseph info I also have a number of other auxilary pages but when it comes to the subject matter we’re talking about I don’t care about my own interests with this I really just want to see people come in and look at the zeitgeist movement’s material we have a big orientation that’s in development that will be completed a number of weeks a big text is being produced that will be the definitive site-geist movement orientation and so the zeitgeist movement calm is where people should go and you’ll get a there’s a whole web ring of course there’s about 50 different websites I should mention by the way if anyone watching this or listening is in Los Angeles next weekend on Sunday I’m doing a media festival we have a big zeitgeist media festival which is an arts and science and communications festival we do here in Los Angeles is the third annual one just like we have zeitgeist Day which is a heavy intellectual event in the state because I’ll publish this in a couple of days let me great it’s August 4th ok in Hollywood California and I will be there talking and also performing that along with many other people from around the world so that should be its again its attempt to inspire people and show the world what’s possible so Peter we’ve been talking for an hour in 15 minutes and I feel like I didn’t approach perhaps our conversation in the best way possible so perhaps I might use that as an excuse for the future to get you again on my show absolutely but the very last question that I always ask of my guests is always the same and that is what do you want for people to take away from this conversation with you after 75

minutes what is the most important thing the one thing that you carry the most to send out there that we are all subjected to the exact same and the exact same natural law system that we are emergent emergently discovering and that we are all sharing the same basic values and interests if we want to maintain we need to share the same values and interests if we want to maintain basic sustainability on this planet and continue progress which to me means cultural and social and ecological balance so we’re all on the same page we’re all in the same sea of natural law dynamics and until we recognize that we’ve got a very difficult road ahead of us Peter Joseph thank you very much for spending so much time with us today thank you very much Nicole I appreciate it