focusing on the root causes of our society's problems.

[Are you going to do all six now?] - No, no, sadly not, no.

There will be 6 one-hour lectures. They'll be available online.

They're really to give people a sense of idea

of how our movement came about because the fundamental root causes

that have informed our world views are not to be summed up

in a nice kind of ten-minute elevator speech.

This is the first one, and as this is already telling you

this one focuses on the monetary system specifically.

It should be noted that a complete understanding of the tenets

social goals and understandings of the movement I represent

can't be achieved through this lecture alone, but I think it will be

a very useful starting point and I hope that by the end of today

if anything, you will have a look at some of the societal constructs

that affect us every day with fresh eyes.

Before I begin, a word on the two organizations that I speak on behalf of.

I'm primarily a member of The Zeitgeist Movement

a global, decentralised grassroots organisation

founded at the very end of 2008.

The term "zeitgeist" means the dominant intellectual

moral and cultural climate of an era.

The closest transliteration is the German "spirit of the age".

The term "movement" simply denotes motion or change.

As such, The Zeitgeist Movement calls for a change

in the dominant intellectual, cultural and moral climate of the time.

The Zeitgeist Movement is an activist and communications arm

of another much older organisation called The Venus Project

which under the direction of Jacque Fresco and his associate Roxanne Meadows

has focused on the technological redesign of an entirely new social system

known as a Resource-Based Economy.

At its core, the application of the current state of science

and technology for social concern sits

using the scientific method and practicality

to maximise the quality of life for all people.

This is to be achieved through tangible solutions to our problems we face

instead of hollow rhetoric and opinion.

Our reasoning behind our conclusions are not based on political opinion

nor are they idle speculation nor are they stop-gap measures

to treat the symptoms of a society as a psychiatrist will treat

a psychological aftermath of a patient's experiences.

We would rather minimize, and if possible

wholly preclude the situations that got the patient

in front of the psychiatrist in the first place.

Our main focus therefore is to pinpoint the root causes

of these ill-effects and to propose straightforward concrete solutions

based on the inferential logic and the scientific method

and applied for global concern holistically.

I wanted to address in the introduction some common barriers we have

when it comes to the analysis of economics in our current society.

In today's world, many of us question the institutions

we're brought up in and by which we're influenced.

In fact, it has become a slightly more promoted disposition

that questioning authority is healthy than in prior human history.

After all, questioning religion no longer is

tantamount to being burnt at the stake.

And the development and adoption of the scientific method

has allowed humanity to update and revise its knowledge

of the physical world by systematically adopting

a viewpoint of skepticism while hypotheses are tested

and until they are proven true or false and adopted or not.

Indeed, any and all social protest

is essentially a questioning and a conscious rejection

of some pre-existing or presented framework.

Yet, of all the institutions common across the globe

be they political, social, religious or national in origin

none has remained so thoroughly unquestioned

and even beyond the most basic analysis or understanding

by most people than the monetary system itself.

Even as the system of monetary finance is displacing

more than six million American homeowners

and half the world's six billion people are now

classed as suffering through poverty, one billion starving

a figure is up, by the way, by 80 million since the early 1990s

the system remains unscrutinized despite its global presence.

Here are some reasons why:

Economics is often viewed as a rather dull and abstract subject.

In fact, I'm amazed you're even all here today.

Financial news tends to be presented

and dominated by complex-looking graphs

which don't allow for any real understanding of the subject being discussed

silently promoting the idea that this is an area best left to the experts

to well-paid economists and bankers.

Abstract terms like derivatives, mortgage-backed securities and

strangely named institutions like Fannie Mae

and Freddie Mac are not only hard concepts for me

I don't encounter these abstractions in real life.

No one has ever sold me a mortgage-backed security.

I've never been contacted by Fannie or Freddie

and I'm sure it's taken quite a few days for some people other than myself

to even catch onto the fact that these aren't even real people.

They're institutions. Economics isn't like football.

It's not like the physical process of shopping.

And even worse, it sounds like it might be about maths.

We shy away from this mess of abstract terms

and we fear that we might not understand them

and suspect that we would dislike them if we did.

Others simply don't see a need to question the monetary system.

After all, isn't simply the method by which goods are transferred

and so, anything that simply represents that method is

natural, necessary and will function as dictated by the needs

of a populace to earn, buy and survive in a social construct.

We do all rely on resources in some form or other

and since we don't have absolutely everything

a unified, preferably, global exchange mechanism

seems the necessary steps in easing

any process of acquisition and hence, survival.

How can it be questioned any more than we question the need for air?

For others still, the monetary system which applies to their community

and day to day routine seems to be embedded so heavily in the framework

of their lives that it appears not to even be a system at all.

It is part of the landscape, invisible to their day-to-day lives

exactly because it is a function of their day-to-day lives.

Like the ancient music of the spheres which was theorized

by ancient philosophers when describing the nature of planets in orbit

it is this ever-present thing from birth

and therefore invisible and undetectable.

It's not so much that it's hard to single out for people.

It's the very idea of singling it out [that] seems impossible

for it doesn't even occur as a possibility.

It doesn't even appear as a separate entity.

Maybe it's also because economics relies on a numerical bias

on mathematics, equations and graphs.

It seems therefore likely to be based on logic, measurability

and as true and immutable as those of physics

biochemistry or other sciences.

And while elements of physics are questioned, revised and updated

upon their receipt of proof, physics itself remains entirely intact.

In fact, once revisions and corrections are made

physics has itself become a more established entity than it was before.

Yet, as we'll find later on, not only are the supposed laws of economics

not only based on no real-life referents whatsoever

when the analysis of the processes of money creation

its tangible negative effects upon society and the behaviours

it instills upon and encourages in members of society

one sees that there is almost nothing in the system

of modern economics as it now stands

that is of any real value to our process and well-being.

And yet the most powerful force that has rendered the system of economics

as it stands now beyond analysis, is this closed-door brotherhood

of the initiated "Guardians of the Status Quo"

who form the population of modern economics

authorities, credentialed economists

trained by the already established institutional logic

CEO's and other lofty and well-paid positions.

These are the men and women who should be dealing with economics

not average Joes like myself, right?

Let me remind you that throughout the glorious period

of history known as the Dark Ages precisely this mechanism of initiation

and separation was employed by the Church

to avoid its institutional power being questioned

and to keep education, anything it deemed a threat to its establishment

or even reading out of the reach of the remaining inhabitants

of that socio-cultural landscape.

This sentiment is particularly well-expressed by John McMurtry

author of the "Cancer Stage of Capitalism" who writes

"We might say that economics is to the corporate market

what theology was to the medieval church.

Just as ancient Latin operated in the medieval church

to reify dogmas into ritualized sequences

untouchable by the vulgar passage of time

so econometrics functions in today's economics.

It conceals the value judgments it assumes

in an atemporal algebraic apparatus

that is severed from natural language, living referents

and the accountability to its effects."

It's a remarkable book.

This, however, is changing.

And it's changing quite rapidly, much quicker than I actually thought it would

given all of the above reasons why we don't tend to lock in

and engage in questioning of the system.

In researching this monetary system I have many a time carried with me

large and boring-looking books detailing the history of finance

and the way it operates today

which does mean wading through thousands of pages of literature.

One evening in a bar, no less than 3 unrelated strangers

asked me what my book was about.

I've been approached on The Underground, that standard haven

of uncomfortable silence by strangers asking me

not only what is the book about, but even asking me upon hearing

my relatively brief 3-minute elevator talk summary of it

what the answer might be to our problems raised.

And more and more people are beginning to agree

not only on the problem that they see

when they are presented with the simple facts

but also upon the solutions as well. People aren't stupid.

They know something's up. And they think it might just be something other

than having voted for the wrong politician in the last election.

All I wish to do today is to have that

same London Underground conversation with you.

It's time to question the system that in recent years

has become notable by its failure and its damage.

First off, the assumption that monetary economics is too complex

for normal people like us to understand is completely erroneous

nor is it a natural part of society anymore, although

as we'll see, it once was, and served fairly interesting functions.

And once you understand the methods by which modern finance

is operated worldwide, you will understand the dire need

to question every aspect of this vast

all encompassing system and its validity.

So, in order to provide an understanding of economics

as it presently affects us, it is necessary

to give a brief history of the history of money.

Contrary to popular belief, it is very new in the human race's history.

Ostensibly, the rationale for money at all

existed in ancient times to manage scarcity.

In order to ensure that enough labour was contributed to a social system

and that it was proportional to the natural resources

that people then extracted out of that system that they were in.

Coined money appeared around 1500 BC, possibly earlier

and many credit the Lydians with introducing gold and silver coined money.

This coined money system is termed commodity money

being formed or created out of a good or material

that is perceived as valuable or has some tangible use.

And while there are two materials we would commonly associate

with this, being gold and silver, in fact many materials or objects

have been used as a base commodity value

such as copper, another familiar one, still used today:

salt, pepper corns, which pretty much takes care of restaurants, doesn't it?

[Others are]: large stones, decorated belts, shells

(The Far East used shells quite a lot.)

alcohol, cigarettes, which makes me a millionaire

chocolate, and candy generally, and barley

and my favorite one, weed.

This one is particularly interesting. One can only surmise as to