|Hi! I saw you're a new member so here I am to review your work!
Right off the bat in terms of formatting: don't make it one large block of text. Split it up into paragraphs, or at least make the text bigger and make it double spaced. Right now, it will scare off the reader, especially a layman to the subject at hand, which I am (which should be a hint that I may be totally wrong about some of my assessments, so bear with me).
As for the prose, it is fairly choppy, doesn't read well, and is pretty monotonous. I would suggest reading the work aloud to yourself and correctly places that don't flow off the tongue well. It will improve readability greatly.
Now to the actual substance of the piece. Right off the bat, I disagreed with your claim in terms of what consciousness actually is. I agree that the zeitgeist suggests a connection, and it is a connection. However, it is a connection between separate consciousnesses that operate similar to one another but nevertheless apart. They interact but are not the same. An intelligent alien species would likely have the same connection with each other, but no such connection with us due to differences in how their consciousness operates. If I am misinterpreting this, please let me know because I really don't know the basics when it comes to philosophy outside rudimentary political philosophy.
I agree with your second sentence but I'm not entirely clear on how it relates to the first. A little explanation would be helpful here. In fact, this is a suggestion that would extend to the whole piece. You say a lot of things without actually explaining them, which makes it tough for people to see your point of view.
Toward the middle of the piece is what I find the most interesting. I will quote this so that you can see directly what I'm talking about in the following analysis:
"This is the fundamental teachings of all the world philosophies and religions: we are all made of the same substance therefore we should all treat each other as equals. It is a simple notion but one in which the majority of the world’s inhabitants seem to be unaware of. Selfishness and egoism predominate in the worlds of repetitive cyclical experience and oneness remains hidden and illusory. The search for God is in reality the search for the zeitgeist of the age."
I agree with quite a lot of this. I think that you have very concisely explained something that I had not thought about in relation to religion. I think your assessment that philosophies and religions are simply the search for the spirit of the age is absolutely correct. I also tend to agree with the idea of a cyclical human experience. Regardless of technology or culture, the same things happen with evolving tools and techniques, due to human nature.
As for your first sentence (I know I'm going a little out of order but this is just how my mind operates), I disagree. Just because we are made of the same substance (which I in part deny in terms of consciousness) is not the reason why we should treat each other as equals. Instead, it is a part of evolutionary human nature and it is called compassion. Compassion is not only for humans but also for some animals, especially animals that are cute and remind us of our own children. Compassion is what helps us through mutual protection and aid, child rearing, among other things. However, selfishness and egoism are also evolutionary and highly necessary for survival. While mutual support and group compassion are important, so is individuality when it comes to surviving in the wild (whether that be a metropolis or a jungle. We seek to help ourselves because if we didn't we could not survive in any environment, especially as a group.
You lost me in the last few sentences. I would suggest not dividing people based on their understanding of a subject, especially describing them as the accursed many. Additionally, this is seemingly contradicted in the next few sentences when you claim that it is better to not know than to know. Assuming you are referring to the claims you have just made, the leader is left to ask why you were telling them this at all if it is better to not understand.
Overall I like the piece quite a lot. I think there are a few formatting issues, problems with flow, as well as parts that could have more explanation, but in terms of substance only it is an interesting and thought-provoking piece. Good job.
kee ponw ritin gon, and welcome to WdC