An eclectic zeitgeist

"Zeitgeist: The Movie" was a sensation on the web five years ago, but (of course!) I missed all the fun. The film, made by Peter Joseph, is an eclectic rehash of various conspiracy theories. Or alternative worldviews, if you're more appreciative.

Often, the message sounds suspiciously similar to that of the John Birch Society: the Federal Reserve is a conspiracy, the Federal Income Tax is illegal, our money are debt-based fiat currency not backed by gold, the U.S. should have stayed out of both world wars and the Vietnam war, LBJ colluded with the Russians and VC's, public schools make students dumber and are probably a conspiracy as well, the U.S. elite wants a One World Government, etc.

A very different kind of conspiracy theorist, Lyndon LaRouche, is briefly featured. A whole section of "Zeitgeist" is devoted to the claims of the politically amorphous Truth Movement. Our old friend David Ray Griffin is shown. Curiously, the film starts with an extended attack on Christianity, an attack based on the ideas of Acharya S, Gerald Massey and Jordan Maxwell. Peter Joseph believes that Christianity is a fraud, separating man from the world, thereby serving the establishment and being the psychological soil for other (secular) myths.

But what is the point of the exercise? It turns out that Joseph is the leader of a group called the Zeitgeist Movement, which calls for international communism! According to Wikipedia "The Zeitgeist Movement is a global nonprofit organization founded in 2008. It advocates the abolition of money and private property and promotes a global socioeconomic system in which all resources would be equally shared. According to the movement, such a system would increase social equality and sustainability. The Zeitgeist Movement also believes resource allocation can be managed by computerized systems and most manual labor can be fully automated".

But why would such a group be so heavily dependent on right-wing conspiracy theory (or right-wing truths, if you're a conservative libertarian)? For instance, why would a left-wing group criticize FDR or the abolition of the gold standard, claim that LBJ colluded with the reds, and criticize public schools, not just for educational failure, but for simply being public?

My guess is that "Zeitgeist: The Movie" is deliberately eclectic, since its intended audience consists of young, politically raw seekers who treat all "alternative" and "anti-establishment" sources as equally interesting or veracious. Hence the attempts to combine ideas which are really incompatible - 20 or 30 years ago, a film like "Zeitgeist" would have been roundly condemned as "fascist", and that would have been the end of it. Today, this potpourri of conspiracy theories, or at the very least widely divergent alternative ideas, becomes an instant viral hit.

Well, I suppose that *is* the spirit of the times...

"Zeitgeist" does have obvious similarities with Foster Gamble's "Thrive". Indeed, "Thrive" might have been inspired by the success surrounding the earlier film. Gamble attempts to combine libertarianism with left-liberalism, and has said that he would like to see Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinic as running mates for the presidency! However, "Thrive" is at bottom somewhat less eclectic than "Zeitgeist", perhaps because Gamble is more consistently libertarian. It's also more overtly spiritual than "Zeitgeist", which sounds non-religious or even anti-religious, despite featuring the Buddhist teacher Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

I award "Zeitgeist: The Movie" two stars. It's not bad as a film production. But no, this is not really my cup of tea. Nor, apparently, my zeitgeist.

Originally posted in 2012. Today, "Zeitgeist" *would* be condemned as "fascist" and quickly suppressed, showing how fast the zeitgeist can change, at least in cyberspace... 

Utopian Zeitgeist or Quasi-Marxist Addendum?

"Zeitgeist Addendum" is the sequel to "Zeitgeist: The Movie". Both films are made by Peter Joseph, who is also the leader of the Zeitgeist Movement. While "Zeitgeist: The Movie" was an eclectic mishmash of right-wing conspiracy theories, critique of religion and vague pantheistic spirituality, "Addendum" is more obviously left-wing.

In fact, the ideas in the film sound like a parody or caricature of Marxism. I frequently gasped when watching it. Joseph believes that all problems in society are fundamentally caused by scarcity. The solution is to create a global, classless, stateless, moneyless society of super-abundance based on free energy and very advanced technology. Work will be abolished by complete automation. Nanotechnology will make even surgical procedures automated. "Addendum" is filled with futuristic animations of UFO-like cupolas in the cities of tomorrow, and, of course, really fast trains.

In other words, "Addendum" calls for communism and the immense development of the productive forces. Of course, the narrator doesn't use those somewhat tainted terms, preferring to call it "a resource-based economy" and "sustainability". However, I think it's obvious that Joseph must have studied Marxism. Even dialectical materialism with its thesis-antithesis-synthesis is included, but once again under different terms ("emergence" and "the best thing is to be wrong").

"Addendum" also sounds like a caricature of the Red-Green left, with its contradiction between Green sustainability and modern (state-run) high technology. Murray Bookchin comes to mind. Thus, the film claims that *all* of our present energy needs - and more - can be solved by developing wind, solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power. (I didn't know there were still people who believed in the blessings of wave power.) All cars could be run on electric batteries, and airplanes could simply be abolished in favour of magnetic trains. I admit that I also used to believe in a kind of "bright green" cornucopianism such as this. Then I discovered the books of Vaclav Smil! I won't belabour the point here, except to state that the proposals in "Addendum" are completely utopian.

Speaking of utopianism, I compared the message of the movie to Marxism above. However, there is one crucial difference. Marx could point to a very concrete social and political force that (presumably) could carry out his program: the international labour movement, with its unions, cooperatives and political parties. Later, the Soviet Communist leadership added national liberation movements to the list, and (of course) the political and military might of the Soviet Union itself. This, after all, is how social change happens: by the play of powerful social and political forces, or "class forces" if you like the Marxist terminology better. Today, Marxism is (to put it mildly) very much on the defensive, but it did "work" for a century or so. If in doubt, call the CIA!

But how does the Zeitgeist Movement propose to change the world? It turns out that they are completely clueless. The labour movement, feminism, left-wing nationalism, the remaining Marxist or "Marxist" regimes, even the Green movement - they are all conspicuous by their complete absence. Instead, "Addendum" heavily promotes one Jacque Fresco, a lone genius who has discovered the correct vision of the future. Frankly, who the *hell* is Jacque Fresco?! Another force for change is "technology", but since machines can't function by themselves (yet), this means that technologists are the real movers and shakers of the revolution. Fresco and his Venus Project presumably see themselves as such. Shades of Saint-Simon and Positivism?

If entrusting loving and caring technocrats with out future is a bit too much, "Addendum" has yet another proposal: individual spiritual transformation. Jiddu Krishnamurti is featured twice, and an extended quote from Carl Sagan is given a spiritual spin. The "symbiosis" mentioned by the narrator is presumably a form of pantheism. This explains the strong hostility of Joseph to established religion, monotheism in particular. It's a challenge to his own religion...

The movie ends with a couple of concrete proposals for action. Most of them are meaningless, and simply amount to taking a purely personal stand against some particularly egregious institution. Sure, it's not "wrong" to boycott big banks or nuclear energy, but so what? No meaningful social change will happen through personal statements of this kind. These proposals are also illogical from the movie's own perspective. I can understand if doomers, peak oilers or Anthroposophists prefer to "drop out", individually or in small groups, but Joseph has a more statist, globalist and technological perspective on things. Why not demand that the federal government takes over the banks and starts issuing debt-free money, instead of calling on a few individuals to switch their bank accounts? Oh, I forgot, politicians will never accomplish anything, no really existing movement is even remotely interesting, only technicians like Mr. Fresco counts! In fact, after an extensive propaganda pitch for the Zeitgeist Movement's political perspective, the proposals at the end feel like a complete anticlimax. The most important "action" is simply to make more people watch the Zeitgeist movies...

Marx would have seen "Zeitgeist: Addendum" as a perfect example of utopian socialism. A genius comes up with some brilliant ideas, they are propagated by a small group of devoted followers, the propaganda is often moralistic in tone, but since they have no political strategy, ultimately nothing comes out of it. Of course, it could be argued that Marx himself was a utopian socialist. In the end, his program also failed to transform the world. However, it can hardly be denied that old uncle Karl created more mischief than Peter Joseph or Jacques Fresco will ever do.

Thanks for the entertainment. :P

Looking backwards

"Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" is the last part of the trilogy that gave us the Zeitgeist Movement. I admit that I didn't bother watching all of it, nor shall I do so in the future. It seems to be a rehash of the ideas in "Zeitgeist: Addendum", the main difference being that director Peter Joseph has added interviews with a number of scholars to give his little movement more clout.

If anything, "Moving Forward" sounds even more absurd than "Addendum". The film advocates a world-wide planned economy, but without mentioning that tainted term. Instead it uses the flashier monikers Global Resource Management System, Global Production Management System and Demand & Distribution Tracking System, all part of a Resource-Based Economy defined as "the scientific method applied to social concern". The planned economy controls everything through computers, which work independently of humans. Science and technology are unbiased, neutral and objective. "There is no Democratic or Republican way to build an airplane". Therefore, a strictly scientific economy will truly solve our problems and take care of all our needs.

Apparently, all (!) private ownership should be abolished as well. Everything you need can be borrowed gratis from local "access centres". Production is based on an assessment of human needs, including the need for leisure, recreation and music. It's not clear how these needs can be assessed or quantified by computers, but we are assured that they will. Strangely, there will be abundance despite the fact that the planned economy will be strictly sustainable and in harmony with Nature.

Our old friend Jacque Fresco is featured again. He is virtually unknown, but presented as an important inventor, political thinker and social critic. According to Wiki, Fresco used to be both a Communist and a Technocrat before striking out on his own. Indeed, the Technocrats seemed to have had some ideas similar to those of the Zeitgeist group.

As usual, we are not told *how* the brave new world should be brought about. What groups, strata or classes in society have an objective material interest in creating an international planned economy? Who could carry out such a program? How? Using what strategy? Presumably, scientists, engineers and technocrats are the vanguard of the future. But then what? Why should scientists support Joseph or Fresco?

I'm not against sustainability or even state intervention in the economy, but please, this is demented. I'm not against technology either but, once again, the over-reliance on technological solutions in "Moving Forward" sounds almost like a parody. A parody of Murray Bookchin or Sam Dolgoff, perhaps?

The Zeitgeist Movement is something as peculiar as a utopian socialist sect based largely in cyberspace.

And there it shall remain.