re: The Zeitgeist Movement & the NWO


Richard Moore

Bcc: FYI
Zeitgeist the movie

The Zeitgeist Movement & the NWO

Prognosis 2012
The elite agenda for social transformation
Rob wrote:
Hi Richard,
I tend to agree that Zeitgeist 2- The Addendum may be going in the wrong direction with the plenty for all Venus Project idea.  But the beginning of the Addendum is an excellent primer on banking and money that is great.  And I just watched the updated first Zeitgeist and it is mind-blowingly fantastic.  I don’t really see that it “denigrates religion” but I am more of a universalist, curious and open as a spiritual seeker exploring the mystery and am admittedly not invested in a specific story or religious mythology. 
So coming from my perspective I see the questions and ideas posed in the first part of Z one as fascinating and probable.  I do know that for the fundamentalist this part is extremely agitating and even blasphemous.  And potentially shuts them down to receiving the valuable aspects of the entire film.  I heard that this part of the film was the most controversial and even prompted death threats which in and of itself is revealing and not surprising.  Fascinating how those that proclaim to be the religiously devout are often the most violently reactive which is a direct violation of all their religious tenants!
I agree that either leaving the religion part out of the film or putting it at the end may allow the film to be absorbed by a wider audience.  But I loved that part and realize it is equivalent to an atomic bomb detonating in the minds of many.  But isn’t that what is sorely needed at this critical point in Humanity’s collective psychosis?  How delicate should one be in the long overdue jolt that seems essential to attempting to awaken people from the Matrix?
There is enough in Zeitgeist One to more than sufficiently agitate and motivate all of us to demand answers and radical change!  Forget about Zeitgeist Addendum and the Venus Project, don’t let the direction of the second half of that film water down the potential impact and brilliance of Z 1.
  Please invest the 2 hours in watching the updated Zeitgeist.  
 Thanks for all your excellent work!

Hi Rob,
I took your advice, watched the new version of Zeitgeist, and took notes. Its presentation values have been improved a bit, and its messages are the same as in the original.
You suggest that the order could be changed, or certain parts could be left out. This is true, but the folks producing it have chosen the order and contents, and so we need to examine the film in that light, in order to understand the intentions behind it.
Part I, “The Greatest Story Ever Told”, is devoted to denigrating religion, and it is very hard-hitting and well-produced. Besides lots of damning facts, it has several comedy segments where the whole audience is laughing out loud at religion. At one point it says, “Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery”. I think it is clear that anyone who is conservative religiously would stop watching the film very early on, and have a very bad taste in their mouth about Zeitgeist and its movement. Right away this eliminates something like 40% of people from the audience and the movement.
Part II, “All the World’s a Stage”, is devoted to documenting and surveying the various conspiracies and false-flag events we’ve been subjected to. Again, very hard-hitting and well-produced. And as we have discussed many times on cyberjournal, there are a lot of people who cannot accept these realities for psychological reasons, who immediately reject them as ‘crazy conspiracy theories’. Zeitgeist is not going to convince these people; they will reject Part II just as they rejected Loose Change and all the other excellent documentaries that tell the facts about conspiracies. Part II eliminates something like 60% of the remaining audience. That leaves us with about 25% of people who are likely to watch the rest of Zeitgeist.
Part III, “Don’t Mind the Men Behind the Curtain”, is devoted to explaining the grandaddy of all conspiracies, the Central Bank scam. A few of the remaining audience might reject this part, because it points to a conspiracy that’s been going on for a very long time, and that might be hard to accept. 
What we end up with is about 80% of those who start the film who reject it, and about 20% who see it as perhaps the best statement of truth they’ve ever seen. And for these 20%, Peter Joseph, an incisive narrator, has become the ‘voice of truth’. He ‘tells it like it is’ better than anyone else, and he doesn’t pull punches.
Let’s consider the red-pill value of the film, as something that ‘wakes people up’. For the 80% who reject the film, there is no red-pill value at all. And for the remaining 20% there is also no red-pill value: some new additional material may be taken on board, but there’s no major shift in perceptions. If you’re in the 20%, you’re seeing a confirmation and expansion of what you were already thinking. Indeed, because of the order of the film, great pains were taken not to wake up any of the 80%. It is not a red-pill film in its actual effect on people, and was not intended to be, even though most of the 20% would probably call it a superb red-pill film.
The net effect of the film is to draw the 20% into accepting Zeitgeist as ‘their voice’, and Peter Joseph himself as their ‘best spokesperson’. They will tell their friends, and those who are already in the 20% category will appreciate that, while the 80% will learn nothing. Because of the quality of the film, and the fact that people tell their friends, the 20% potential is likely to be fulfilled. That is, we’re likely to end up with 20% of the population in the Western world who have seen the film, and who see it as ‘their voice’.
20% is a very large segment of the population. To the extent people identify with being in that segment, they will see ‘hope for change’ in Zeitgeist. Whenever you get lots of people unified behind anything, then they feel ‘the power of numbers’ and get hope that ‘together they can change things’. These are the same ‘dynamics of hope’ that motivated lots of people to join the Tea Party Movement, and before that, lots of people to support Obama. 
Which brings us to the Zeitgeist Addendum, and the new film, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, both of which are about the Venus Project. Again Peter Joseph is the narrator, and again he speaks with great confidence that what he’s saying is ‘the truth’. Because of the hypnotic nature of his voice, and the fact that he has captured his audience’s minds as a ‘truth teller’, a great many of our 20% are going to accept the new films as truth as well. And those who don’t will feel pressured to endorse them anyway, otherwise they would be dropping out from the 20%, and losing the ‘hope for change’ that the original film gave them.
You say yourself, Rob: “The Addendum may be going in the wrong direction” (emphasis added).  To me this implies you are struggling with this problem of whether or not to be a Zeitgeist ‘true believer’. You feel pressure not to reject the Addendum out of hand, because you want to keep your ‘hope for change’.  And you say: “There is enough in Zeitgeist One to more than sufficiently agitate and motivate all of us to demand answers and radical change!“. You use the phrase ‘all of us’, which indicates you are eager to grasp on to ‘hope in numbers’. 
The Zeitgeist Movement itself is not about the Zeitgeist film at all; it is about the Venus Project. As they say themselves, “The Zeitgeist Movement is the activist arm of the Venus Project”. The purpose of the Zeitgeist film is to deliver the 20% to the Venus Project message, just as the purpose of a television show is to deliver its audience to the advertising messages. And the dynamics of ‘hope in numbers’ makes the 20% a lot more susceptible to the Venus message than television viewers are to advertising. 
Some of the 20% will drop out because they can’t accept the Venus project, and some will drop out because they’re not joiners. All in all, we are likely to end up with some percentage of the population, say 10%, who become ardent supporters of the Zeitgeist Movement. Probably about the same percentage who are ardent Tea Party supporters.
A cult is characterized by:
  – a charismatic leader who has ‘the true message’
  – a set of radical beliefs that create a clear boundary between who is in and who is out
  – a belief by members that they have ‘the truth’, and outsiders “just don’t get it”
  – very little possibility of dialog between members and non-members
  – a top-down action agenda, which members either follow, or else they’re out

The Zeitgeist Movement and the Tea Party Movement are both cults, and both probably designed by the same crew of cult specialists at Langley. This would be the same crew that practiced with Reverend Jim Jones and David Koresh, and then went operational with the Islamic Jihad movement. The Tea Party Movement sucks in 10% of the more radical conservatives, while the Zeitgeist movement sucks in 10% of the more radical liberals. Both groups are sucked in by messages that ‘speak for them’, and then both groups get channeled into devoting their energy to the two fringe action agendas.
Just as voting for Republicans will not give us ‘less government’, so joining the Zeitgeist Movement will not dethrone the ‘men behind the curtain’. Both cults are ways of diverting the members from achieving those goals that drew them into the groups in the first place. They are both radical fringe groups with negligible direct political effect. However, the media can give them lots of publicity, as with the Tea Party in the recent elections, and make them appear bigger than they are. This makes the outputs of the rigged voting machines seem more believable. 
So far I’ve been talking mainly about the standard political process of divide-divert-and-conquer, the process that has always characterized what we naively call ‘democracy’. There is another element to the Zeitgeist Movement, however, an element related specifically to the New World Order.
As I argue in Prognosis 2012, the market-based economy is being replaced by a carbon-based economy, as a central part of the NWO. Instead of being driven by profit and competition, we’ll have a dole-based economy, where each nation will get an allotment of carbon credits, and must somehow find a way to survive within that allotment. Fear of global warming and peak oil will be used to make the allocations small, so as to serve the depopulation agenda. We already see this beginning with carbon taxes and the biofuel regime.
This is all very much in line with the Zeitgeist Movement, with it’s ‘resource-based’ economy, and it’s denigration of property and money.
And of course a centralized world government is also an important part of the NWO. We can see the nature of this government by looking at the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. These are all elite institutions run by ‘experts’, with no element of democracy or room for citizen inputs. And already these institutions trump national sovereignty in many areas.
This is very much in line with the Zeitgeist Movement’s ideas about ‘ending government’, and having society run by science and computers. The men behind the curtain won’t go away, rather the curtain of government is to be replaced by a curtain of experts and science. 
Finally, the NWO is to be based on a pseudo nature religion, a centrally-controlled pagan cult. I’m all in favor of genuine spiritually-based paganism, but not a cult version. The rituals of this cult-religion are being tested out at the Bohemian Grove gatherings, as was revealed in Alex Jone’s first important documentary, which he filmed inside the Bohemian Grove.
This is very much in line with Zeitgeist’s denigration of religion. Also toward the end of Zeitgeist, we have this statement:
…If the people ever realize the truth of their relationship to nature, and the truth of their personal power to effect change, the entire manufactured zeitgeist that’s preyed upon [us] would collapse, like a house of cards.
Anita Sands Hernandez wrote:
Please do Zeitgeist ‘Lite’ for folks sans PHD!
your prose makes us ‘regulars’ need to FLEE!
You’re way too literate, too high falooting
The minds of the PROLES your text should be SUITING!
Designed for the masses, the soldiers the grunts.
Cuz to read you thru dictionaries I hunts and I HUNTS!
The coming revolution needs to have fists
to prep us we need intelligible GRIST!
Your language is Kings English to the last
but it’s nothing Everyman can ever GRASP!
Shorten your antonyms, verbs and the like
Tighten your metaphors, From limo to bike;
Then I can get sad or mad reading your words

Hi Anita,
I appreciate your concerns, but I can only express myself the way I do. If you or anyone else think the ideas are important enough, I encourage you to translate them into other languages or to simpler English, and publish them wherever you think they would be useful. 
subscribe mailto:

2012: Crossroads for Humanity:

Climate science: observations vs. models

related websites: