as I walk through some of this stuff.

First, I want everyone to take a deep breath...

Exhale...

There's a lot of energy in an environment like this, isn't there?

There's a crowd mentality that reminds us that we are involved

in a singular social organism, and we relate to each other

on a very profound and deep level.

As profound as that is on one side

it can also be little caustic and dangerous on another

if we get too caught up in things

that might move us in the wrong direction.

I don't see that happening here but I do hope

everyone can relax with me for a moment as I begin to speak

this very brief but detailed, intricate talk.

As you all know, my name is Peter Joseph and I work

with an organization called the Zeitgeist Movement.

[cheering]

Thank you.

This movement was founded in 2008 and it's a sustainability advocacy group

without country, without classes

without any religion or race.

It is a global concept working to unify the human species

in a way that's considered humane and actually sustainable.

In the longer-term interest

we actually seek something that I think many of you might share

which is the removal of the entire socio-economic system itself.

The details of which

I'm going to express as I continue this talk.

I pulled out some history books recently to see

if I'd seen anything like this in basic modern history.

Has there ever been a movement that actually goes

against the financial and corporate powers on this scale

and in the community globally, ever and there hasn't been.

That's a very telling sign as far as the awareness of the culture

wouldn't you say? Many people yell at political buildings

and they work to try and engage their political establishment

with the idea that it actually is where the power resides in this world

that we share, when it's very clear that the power is obviously

within the financial structure and always has been.

Even with the Great Depression when I researched these issues

I found nothing that really went after the true powers that be.

There's a man named John McMurtry

which some of you might be familiar with.

He made a very unique analogy to where we are with this state of affairs.

He stated that what we're seeing in the world today

is actually the rise of the social immune system

not the rise of a political ideology

but the rise of a defense mechanism

coming from the very fabric of our culture

that sees that something is extremely wrong and very cancerous

to society as a whole.

We, the social immune system, need to work

to recognize the true root problem, and then move to remove it

as fast as possible before it takes hold

and essentially works for our own termination.

As the cancer has grown since the inception of the system

that I'm going to speak of, it's become more malignant, more caustic

and obviously across the world

absent of any country, nation or political party.

We're beginning to see its caustic effects.

Just as the cancer in our bodies produces different symptoms

that harm certain areas first, such as our lungs or our kidneys

we need to ask the question "Where is the real sickness lying?"

I heard someone yell out capitalism a moment ago

but is that really the psychology that's underlying the problem that we see

or is it simply a manifestation of something even more flawed

at the foundational level?

Are we actually seeing this cancer for what it is

really working to correct it at the root source

or are we just addressing its symptoms?

This is the question I would like to pose, not only to Occupy LA

but to the entire movement related

and all those that are worried about the state-of-affairs on this planet.

How do we diagnose the real issue?

How should we feel about the 1% which own 40% of the planet's wealth?

How should we feel about 400 Americans that have more wealth

than 150 million Americans combined?

How should we feel about top hedge fund managers

that take home over 300 million dollars a year

and for what?

Do these hedge funds managers actually create anything?

Last I checked, the measure of our market system

which justifies its competitive nature

is that those who contribute the most to society

are supposed to be the ones that are most rewarded.

Obviously, the exact opposite is true.

As a quick aside I will state that if there's anything

that can represent the tumor of the system that we inhabit

it would be Wall Street, the Stock Exchange

and the banking establishment as a whole.

But again, the tumors are not actually the source of this disease.

They are symptoms. Symptoms, just as the rampant foreclosures

forcing people out of their homes, are symptoms.

Symptoms, like the ongoing economic decline

and loss of so-called growth, are symptoms.

Symptoms, like the ongoing debt crisis

that is yet to fully hit America

but has already taken its toll in the EU

Greece, Italy, Portugal and many others.

Obviously no resolution has been found. Why?

Because they're trying to resolve the problems that have been generated

within this system by using mechanisms of this system.

Even as our governments continue to bail out banks across the world

they impose austerity on us.

Is that at the result of something negative?

Are these people just evil? Are they just trying to do the worst they can

to insult the humanity of us?

Are they just corrupt, greedy criminals? Anomalies?

Are they aliens from another planet that have come down to fuck with us?

Well, they're people, exactly

and they are likely manifestations of this cancer

rather than a cause of it.

As the world awakens to this financial system and its flaws

I've noticed a very radical perspective slowly being realized

which transcends the economic tradition

many of us assumed to be natural to our way of life.

You notice that we tend to assume

that the systems we're born into, the traditional systems

are automatically assumed to be empirical. Have you ever noticed that?

We might look at politics and governments as we know it

as a whole and assume it's valid, why?

Because that's all we've ever known. Is it any true measure of logic?

Probably not. It's simply tradition. It's custom.

You'll find that we seem to be locked into custom frames of reference

rather than emergent frames of reference

and that is fundamentally what needs to change in our view of reality.

We might look at the market system, our use of money

and assume it will always be there, right?

Not because of any benchmark of our earthly economic measure

of what it truly means to be sustainable, not because of

any scientific realization of what human behavior actually entails

and how we tend to act based on what's reinforced in our culture

but simply because that's all we've ever known.

However, as the bio-social pressures

continue to grind down the global workforce

as machine automation continues to replace human labor

for the benefit of saving corporations' money

reducing purchasing power, your money

and inevitably stifling economic growth

our perspective might just grow a little bit larger

than the traditional norms we've come to understand.

Maybe, human employment for income as we know it

something that I've heard in rhetoric a lot of people complaining about:

"Where's our jobs? " maybe the foundation

of our entire economic system simply isn't going to work anymore

because we realize the non-stop effects of science and technology

hence the emergent nature of reality

clashing with our traditional assumptions.

Perhaps even with the expanding debt crisis

born out of the fractional reserve lending system

and the structural reality that money is actually created out of debt

and sold as a commodity in exchange for interest

that can only come into existence through the creation of more loan sales

and the creation of more money.

Maybe, the debt collapses aren't the result

of some political policy or some corporate or government malfeasance.

Maybe they are the result of the actual structural form

of this system that we inhabit.

With the psychology of growth and consumption

that continues to create

the ongoing social and environmental destruction that we see:

abuse and exploitation all around us

that so many environmentalists complain about

yet they still tend not to realize that the system is based on that.

It's defined by consumption. It's defined by turnover

and we often think that corporations should be held responsible

for their actions because of their abuse of this nature

when the competitive market model of economics

demands that behavior.

Again, it's structural.

How is it in a world that's supposed to be economizing...

What is the definition of an economy? It means the management of a household.

What does that mean? It implies that you have to be thrift.

It means you e-con-o-mize; it means you save; it means you are strategic

in what you do. How is an economy based on consumption

to maintain your employment, economizing at all?

Obviously, it's a complete anti-economy.

It's time we consider among all of this

that the problems we're seeing (that we're here about)

are actually systemically rooted in the core structure

of what defines our economic system

and the psychology that is created, supported and rewarded.

I keep hearing the phrase in the Occupy Movement "We are the 99%"

and while I understand and admire that communicative gesture

I would like to expand back and think about this a little bit more technically.

I think it's a little more accurate to say "We are not the 99%.

We are actually the 100%"

and all of us are to blame.

The only reason the 1% have what they do

is because the 99% continues to support all the elements

that fuel the wealth of the 1%.

The system is literally designed to support the 1% over the 99.

The values that we see in our culture are designed to make sure

you aspire to those that maintain the role of the 1%.

It's called 'The American Dream' remember?

The American Dream which only exists for the 1%. It always did.

Our success is often measured in our material wealth

or how we gain admiration in the culture

our dignity defined by what others think of us.

Is that true success?

No, that is a false distorted value that came from a system

that needed to be based on everyone being acquisitive, competitive

cut-throat and essentially inhumane.

The historical illusion, I have to point out

which continues to this day, which I know is manifest

in a lot of gestures here in this audience and across the world

(rightfully so, but it's still an illusion) is that

there is some person or group that is explicitly to blame.

Rather than focus on the fact

that the 1% of the world's population has over 40% of the planet's wealth

let's instead ask ourselves the question "How is that even possible?"

How is that even possible that our system allows for such a thing?

Do we really have grounds to be surprised

at the way the world is operating?

When the very foundation of what motivates the current social order

is taken into account, should we really be surprised at all?

"What is the economy? " I ask the question.

The monetary market model at work in the world

means that through the movement of money

power and property can be bought and sold at will

within the confines of legal legislation

which is 'for sale' in the open market

just as all politicians are for sale in the open market;

just as all administrations, policies in general

are for sale in the open market. What did you expect

when the whole system is based upon

the buying and selling of property, power and influence?

There is no escape from the influence of money

with respect to governmental policy, why?