© 2008 by G. Edward Griffin 2008 OCTOBER 9
Hello Mr. Griffin. I’m sure you have heard of the popular movie on the internet, Zeitgeist. It had three separate parts about Christianity being fake, the Federal Reserve being a conspiracy and bad, and that the government was involved in 9/11. Well the sequel just came out, Zeitgeist Addendum, and it seems very dangerous. This movie screams controlled opposition/false solution propaganda more than anything I have ever seen.
The movie starts off with why the Federal Reserve is bad. It seems to latch onto valid concerns that the freedom movement/Ron Paul supporters have been worried about. But its solution is really, really bad and is already sending a lot of people in the wrong direction. It goes on to say that money is evil and has caused every problem in the world. If only we abolished all money and private property everything would be great. All resources should collectively belong to all humans of the world. Intelligent management of resources and technology could allow everyone to be free. The world would turn into some utopia. All crime would go away and greed and corruption would go away. We should be a one world community. It even specifically says that voting for liberty candidates like Ron Paul is the wrong thing to do. I guess we should give up all hope and let bad politicians do whatever they want to us.
It is full of doublespeak, wild assumptions, and crazy socialist propaganda. It also put in more about how religion is bad. I am convinced this thing was specifically made to stop the liberty movement from achieving anything. It puts in just enough truths that we believe in to trick people into following the wrong path.
I think statements about what is wrong with this film from liberty organizations like Freedom Force International would do a lot of good and would prevent some people from going in the wrong direction. Some people might think the best idea is to just ignore it and it will go away. But it appears to be incredibly popular online and gaining support. Even the most popular Ron Paul website posted the video. And the most popular Ron Paul message board has three threads with hundreds of posts talking about it. Here is the video link.
Jonathan, 2008 Oct 6
REPLY FROM EG:
Jonathan, I don’t like to criticize anything that is helping to spread the truth about the Federal Reserve and 9/11 but I must agree with the substance of what you have said about this video. I watched it two nights ago and was deeply disturbed by its message. At first, I thought it would be best to just let it play itself out in expectation that most viewers would cross it off as whacky. However, the production value is high, the effects and sound score are compelling, and there is enough truth embedded in the beginning to capture the attention and possibly the trust of many within the freedom movement. So here are my comments on a few items of concern:
1. The information about the Federal Reserve is, for the most part, right on target. However, I practically fell out of my chair when the program repeated that old, silly argument about the Fed not creating enough money to cover the cost of interest on debt; and, therefore, the world must forever be in debt. I knew right there that the writer did not read The Creature from Jekyll Island or, if he did, he forgot my analysis of this common myth. For those who are interested in that topic, it is fund on pages 191-192 of The Creature.
2. The next jolt came when the program praised Civil War Greenbacks, calling them debt-free. Actually, Greenbacks were contrary to the U.S. Constitution and, although they were not fiat money issued by the banks, they were fiat money issued by the government. That was better than paying interest on nothing to bankers, but they still wiped out the purchasing power of American money through massive inflation. They can not correctly be called debt-free, either, because they represented debt on the shoulders of the government, which means, of course, on the shoulders of the taxpayers. It never ceases to amaze me how people think that the solution to money created out of nothing by those big, bad bankers is to have money created out of nothing by those nice, trustworthy politicians. Yet, that is what this program supports.
3. There is a lengthy segment in which the author of I Was an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins, tells the story of how propagandists in the U.S. manipulated public opinion to support military action against several Latin American countries. Then Perkins says that these propagandists scared Americans by telling them that the leaders of these countries were Marxists who were aligned with the Soviets. This, of course, is a half truth that is just as dangerous as a total lie. It is true about the propagandists and their strategy to scare the public into supporting military intervention in those countries, but it is false to portray those dictators as great humanitarians who cared only for the well being of their people. That is total bunk. They WERE aligned with the Soviet Union and they WERE part of a Marxist/Leninist strategy to dominate Latin America; a strategy that continues to this day.
There was plenty not to like on both sides of that struggle, but objective historians would never depict the Rhodesians (the CFR crowd in the U.S.) as bad guys but depict the Soviet puppets as good guys. In his book, Perkins reveals this same slant. He exposes the foul tactics of international corporations, the IMF, and World Bank, but he never mentions a Leftist dictator, such as Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez without praising them. Perkins is a collectivist aligned with the Left, and that strongly influences his telling of this story. Yet the producers of the video make no mention of this bias and give him an inordinate amount of time to present his slanted view without challenge.
4. Perhaps the biggest insult to our intelligence is the main theme of the program. It is that profits are the root of all our problems today. That being the case, we must change mankind to reject profit and we must work together on some other basis. It is never quite clear what that basis is, but, whatever it is, it will be administered and directed by an elite group, at least in the beginning. I was stunned by the fact that this is pure Marxism. Mark theorized that people had to be re-educated (in labor camps, if necessary) to cleanse their minds of the profit motive. He and his disciples, such as Lenin and Stalin and Khruschev, said that, eventually, the character of man would be purged of greed, and then the state would wither away because it no longer would be needed. Sure! We saw that in the Soviet Union and China, right? Yet this Marxist nonsense is exactly what is offered in this video program. It is Communism without using the name.
The profit motive is neither good nor bad. It can be applied either way depending on social and political factors. The desire for profit is merely the desire to be compensated for our labor, our creativity, our knowledge, or even for our risk. Without profit, very little would be accomplished in the world – not even if everyone spent a few years in labor camps to be re-educated. It is a basic part of man’s nature and is the mainspring of human progress, as Henry Grady Weaver described it in his book by that same title. Throughout history, whenever man lived in a system that allows him to be rewarded for his work, there has been great productivity and abundance. By contrast, where social engineers gained control of the state and restricted people from receiving the fruits of their labor, productivity fell, and scarcity was the norm.
The profit motive functions differently in different political systems. In a free system where government does not intervene in the market place, the profit motive always will manifest itself as competition, each person or each company trying to deliver better quality products and services at lower prices. That was how it used to be in the early days of America, and that is what led to the greatest outpouring of productivity and abundance the world has ever seen. However, in a collectivist system where government controls every conceivable aspect of economic and commercial activity (the system that now exists in America), the profit motive always manifests itself as a quest for political influence and laws to favor one group over another. The net effect is to eliminate competition in the market place. Under collectivism, success is achieved, not by creating better products and services for less cost, but by controlling legislators and government agencies. It is a system of legalized plunder, as Frederic Bastiat called it in his famous treatise, The Law . Unfortunately, it is the system that dominates most of the world today.
Zeitgeist Addendum ignores this reality. At one point the narrator even says that the greatest evil in the world today is „the free enterprise system.“ That’s an incredible statement, especially inasmuch as the free enterprise system has been dead for several decades. It lives in name only. The whole world now is in the grips of non-competitive monopolies and cartels that have forged partnerships with governments. All of the evils to which this program alludes are the result, not of the free enterprise system, but of the abandonment of free enterprise and the adoption of collectivism. This program creates a mythological boogeyman and then advocates more of the very thing that has brought us to the mess we are in today.
The enemy of mankind is not profit. It is a political system of big government. Yet, this program is supportive of some of the most notable big-government collectivist on the planet. Marxist/Leninists may be enemies of collectivists in Washington, DC, but they are collectivists in their own right. The Communist model is no better than the Nazi model.
There is much more that could be said about other program topics such as technology supposedly being our salvation, about the a future world in which no one has to work, and about common ownership of land, oceans, natural resources, etc. but, for the most part, these merely are sub issues to the ones already described, so I will spare my readers the pain of further discourse.
In summary, this program does NOT offer a cure. It offers a mega dose of the disease itself.
Ed Griffin, 2008 Oct 9
zeitgeist addendum preaches illuminati communism
Zeitgeist 2: Theosophy, Socialism, and The new NWO
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=Pg5K07c72Tw
infowars-deutschland 
I agree with everything said here. But the point I think that is missed about this film, although naive, is that there is to be no government in this „new world.“
The point the film is trying to make is that humans can evolve past what drives us now, not that an elite needs to manage us. An awakening would occur prior to this society taking over. An awakening that we can’t fully understand, due to the overwhelming amount of conditioning we all endure from birth.
Again, I agree with you, but I am optimistic that maybe some day we can have a leap in evolution that allows us to be immune to the propaganda and conditioning.
I know it can’t happen in my lifetime, but I think the film maker knows that also.
These ideas follow David Icke’s views on the soul/human mind.
Hi Matt
The government will be the machines who will decide for us everything important…. ask yourself if this is true about the awakening why there should be machines deciding what to do…if we awoken …!!
The next thing is 4 the machnines to decide what to do, they have to gather all the informations from us concerning our life. this would be only possible via a absolut surveillance over us.
Who will programm and reprogramm the computer?
ZG fails to explain who they want to change us? What about people who have another lifestyle? What happens with them?? Reeducation????!!!
What if the computer decides there are not enough resources… whats gonna happen with the surplus people? …. etc….
these are just a few open questions witch are important to be ahnswered before anybody is running after this utopia!!
Then you should research also the theosophic society too!
https://infowars.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/zeitgeist-2-theosophy-socialism-and-the-new-nwo/
I talked often with kommunists and they said the same utopic things like ZG 2!
If u listen to the interview Alex Jones did with David Icke, there are differences between Icke and ZG2 in my opinion.
peace
webmaster
hey i just had one comment to your first criticism of ZG2 failing to explain how the venus project would work
I consider, that it is intended to introduce the venus project and catcht the interest of the viewer in order to motivate htem into doing more research into resource based economy and the venus project
I don’t know about you, but when I was a teenager and lost in the world and philosophy of Star Trek (TNG) I was somewhat in a „happy place“.
(no money, mankind thrived to better itself, …)
Just try to imagine what mankind would be able to, if we all pulled at the same end!
Is there really still a need for non regenerative energy or fossil fuel burning vehicles?
Couldn’t all the scientists and engineers of the world develop and produce technology for such an „abundant vision“ if set to the task in unison?
How would we act if born into such a world, not into a „corrupt system“?
Following questions from „infowars“ motivated me to post in the fist place:
„What about people who have another lifestyle? What happens with them?? Reeducation?“
This should never be an argument – just turn it around:
I myself have a big problem with the „current system“ – regardless of conspiracy theories or Zeitgeist movies (no, I’m neither a drugged nut in a mental institution nor a bum on the streets)!
What about all the „unhappy“ people today who clash with our current „system“?
Griffin wrote:
„It is that profits are the root of all our problems today. That being the case, we must change mankind to reject profit and we must work together on some other basis. It is never quite clear what that basis is, but, whatever it is, it will be administered and directed by an elite group, at least in the beginning. I was stunned by the fact that this is pure Marxism.“
„The enemy of mankind is not profit.“
[1] Maybe the pure theoretical/initial ideas behind marxism weren’t to bad – what became of it, was what had to: it simply does not work with other systems present! ;-)
On the other hand, there probably exists a positive presentation of the theoretical/idealistic concept of our current system – look where we are as mankind!
Does this all mean we have to cling to a certain system, which is proven to be „unfair“ when taking the global distribution of wealth etc. into account?
Why not try something different? With currently more than 50 „conflict areas“ (wars) worldwide, „countless“ children dying of hunger/diseases, unnecessary burning and destruction of resources and nature etc. (the list is long), shouldn’t we be inclined to and longing for change? Sure, sensible and careful but true change.
[2] I think „profit = enemy“ is greatly misunderstood here:
How can profit itself not be good?
Something we’d want for all, right?
Ok, how about we differentiate between seeking maximization of „personal“ and „collective“ profit? (Even mathematical concepts like a Nash equilibrium or Pareto optimality wouldn’t „apply“ anymore, due to truly common goals and sensible evaluation and „usage“ of global resources for the common good, not just a few.)
[3] Maybe „that basis“ was simply not spelled out clearly enough:
stop killings ourselves, get over our differences without loosing them/ourselves, work together not against each other to make a better world for everyone and better ourselves ;-)
Ok, maybe that’s just a to simple and beautiful (or visional and naive?) concept to grasp for us „conditioned and corrupted“ poor souls …
The makers of the Zeitgeist movies surly didn’t do everything right – as a very critical person I question nearly everything and I also check up on sources and criticism, otherwise I wouldn’t have found this site. Some factoids and claims are totally unnecessary and also annoy me, but at least it makes you stop and think a bit.
However there is no claim that the alternative system „the venus project“ is perfect, just better (when the necessary requirements are met). As mentioned above, independently I had very similar „visions“/ideas as a child/teenager, hence my fascination.
I related closest to the previous post from delta. I remember the „happy place“…’Ignorance is bliss‘?
We have a choice how we interpret the context of Peter Joseph’s expression and inspiration, just as we can choose to see the basic good in any theoretical ‚ism‘, irregardless of their historical implementations and their shortcomings.
I think the film uses issues like the economy to point out our social and economic structures aren’t evolving anywhere near the pace of technology and that technological advancements are stifled by them. The artist laments both issues and challenges us that the „Zeitgeist“, or ’spirit of the age‘, is a crisis of consciousness. There are varying degrees of profit.
I think the advent of the Internet, the very fact we’re using this system and have the ability to easily enter, share and recall mass communication, puts us at the dawn of a new age in human evolution and perhaps affords a unique opportunity to use collaborative technology and make significant change at reducing global iniquities while increasing symbiotic relationships with our environment. The film stoked a lot of discussion and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Thanks to all for the content.
Hi there. Well, I just watched two movies yesterday – ZG Addendum and Money as debt. Those things about money creation and Fed’s „mystery“ were new and surprising for me. It gave me a bad feeling about all the people, including me, going to be in permanent rush under permanent debt pressure…
1. Money creation, loans and Fed. Before I believed money should be equivalent to the value of existing goods and services…No. They say banks create money of nothing. So this money has no value initially because there is nothing behind it. But. When I take a loan I promise a bank to return this money (with interest). So in fact I promise to earn the money e.g. to create goods or service equivalent to sum taken from a bank. It means that newly created money is going to get its value LATER. The value to both principal and interest is to be produced by me. If I feel I cannot produce value for interest because it’s too high – I don’t take a loan. For me the interest means the cost of my possibility to use a good or service NOW not a while later when I earn enough money to buy it without taking a loan. This is a bank’s service cost I pay. But. What is a service Fed (and other central banks) doing? For what government (and finally people) pay interest rate? Governments and central banks suggested being at service to provide functionality to economy and society but not to make profit for themselves. One more question to ZG – if money doesn’t exist – what will take the exchange function in economy? If I grew up some tomatoes how can I exchange them for coffee? And for the rest of tomatoes go to cinema? What will be an equivalent if there is no money as a system?…
My comment grew too big so I splited it up in several parts:
2. We work hard butt what is wrong? There is good logic in above consumer loan justification, isn’t it? However, I still have some questions. First, what is the reason I cannot buy things NOW? Actually I’m not speaking of luxuries – palaces, yachts, Ferrari’s, personal 747 Boeings etc. But why can’t I buy a four room’s house and a family car without taking a loan? Why can’t I educate my children without taking a loan? Why can’t I go to see for example Japan or South Africa together with my family without taking a loan? I can go on with examples but I hope you understood the deal. And it’s the same for many families – isn’t it? And I’m asking again – what is the reason? I can guess two reasons: we work with low efficiency or some part of value created by our work does not come to us. What we can buy without taking a loan? Basically it’s food and clothes (and huge amount of people cannot afford even those things). And some small things like cell phones etc. Why this happens if we have rights for home and freedom of movement (I mean house and affordable travel costs) by our birth? We work 8 hours a day (in good case) and finally get limited in these (and others) rights? And there is another by birth right – right of self realization or self development the fundamental thing about which – is that it cannot be dependent on your basic needs (food, clothing, living space etc.). And for which humans need freedom, time and energy taken by whole day work just for living. I tend to believe the second reason is more important and powerful. It looks for me that system of depersonalized economical slavery is really running in our world.
3. Technology. I’m content with Mr. Joseph about the technology. At least in some part. It can give solutions to most of the problems humans have now. Energy, food, water supply, environmental problems, transportation, waste treatment and recycling etc. The problem is that the use of technology based on profit, not on problem solving approach. Development and promotion of technology need investment, but why invest if you are a monopolist or part of a cartel and can still get super profits using old ways and some lobbying? And who may guarantee that you’ll keep your superior position in new market created by new technology? And if you are an inventor or smaller or middle sized agency how you can break through all this competition in existing markets? How you can avoid being assimilated by large monsters who want to keep their beneficial positions in the current economy and society? How can pharmacy industry get its profits if people become healthier? How can media monsters get their advertising budgets showing stupid soap opera’s if people become more educated and critical? And more questions I have. What’s a hell we spending so much money, resources and skills for war? Why do we kill with this huge amount of money when we can heal people and give them food? So not only the technology development and promotion is getting slowed down, but it’s also given a wrong direction. I can hardly avoid thinking it’s done on purpose. And the way science is financed in the world? What do you think about it? I mean system of competitive grants. As vice chief of one laboratory based in US, one of the biggest in it’s field, said: 80% (!!!) of time and efforts we spend for fundraising and writing reports on grants and 20% – for science itself. It was an earth science laboratory but can one say the situation is different in other fields? And science is the basis for technology (important but not the only social function), you know. If society really needs science and technology – why scientists have to spend most of their time and efforts for FUNDRISING not for RESEARCH? Something is definitely wrong.
4. ZG solution and communism. Yes, I see the same analogy. But I cannot agree that “we’ve seen it in SU and China”. It’s not so, because most important element – human freedom – was absolutely absent in both cases. I live in Russia and I have enough experience to say that. People have never seen anything like what Joseph suggests. In China and SU there also were elites having luxuries and people having almost nothing. There is NO BASIC difference between capitalism and communism like it was realized in SU. Rich elite and poor people. The only difference is that capitalism masks its face creating an illusion of freedom. Why is it illusion? Ask those families who split up because of economical difficulties, ask those people who cannot implement themselves in their desired field which is not “marketable”, ask those people who cannot compete because of their personal features, those who doesn’t like “the rush”. Or try yourself to swim against the stream. How quick you’ll get washed out? Social Darwinism is not welcome officially but in the reality… Watch TV advertisement how it draws out a “successful” man or woman. And what if you are of different type?..
there is a part about religion which is not finished yet.
I think Mr. Griffin misses the point of resource based economics as opposed to the monetary system. He is right in stating that this ideal is largely, if not entirely, a Marxist ideal. There is in fact very little difference between Marx’s early writings about his ideology and the message of this movie. But it is unfair to call this Communist. Marxist, yes; but Communist? No. The difference between Marxism and Communism is what happened after the death of Marx, notably the rise of Communist governments under Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Marx never wrote about a governmental system and the actual workings of his economic system. In fact, Marx was more concerned with his greatest tome, Capital, which was devoted solely to demonstrate the inevitable failure of pure capitalist systems. Marx too wrote about the same principles of the movie, i.e. from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs; the withering of the state, but you cannot claim that these principles are inherent causes for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the repressive system of China. Note that these countries had large bureaucratic systems which Marx and Zeitgeist abhorred.
The resource based economy overcomes the problems of monetary, market capitalist systems. Resource based economies awards work, real work. What is wrong with that? Stock brokers and bankers do not produce anything. They shift imaginary money from one database to another and yet for that, they get huge salaries. That is complete BS. When we reward people for producing actual things, then we will have a grounded economy. America may not be as rich as a result of such a model but they will more equal, where the pretension of money dies. I see a system where anyone can make a decent living working a full time job, not only for themselves but for their family, no matter what they do. If a worker wants more money, then they would have have to work more hours to make it. Ideas of getting rich fast through investment is truly corrupting because it causes a laziness in our work habit and a lack in the pursuit of producing real things.
If it is incentive that one wants, just look to the table. One would still need to work to eat. I don’t think we are at a point where we can get rid of money entirely but we affect how that money is created and distributed. But the point Zeitgeist was making was that technology can and should improve our lives and our work. And yet our work hours are not reducing as technology improves. There is something wrong with this. Let’s change our mindset about this and make things easier for ourselves. The only reason why we don’t is because those on the top benefit from more work and the same people are the ones who control our paycheck. When the people as a whole take control of the means of production, we can begin to see a distribution of wealth and thus equality, without the harshness of long work hours that has derived so many of us from our families and pastimes. That is my incentive–a better world, a better society with more free time.
Anything man makes is subject to imperfection and corruption. Money, religion, government, and technology are no exception. I’m sure ZG2 is far from the complete truth and stems from someone’s idea or opinion. The world is generally corrupt…….I think that can go without saying.
The one thing that bothered me about ZG, it wasn’t the three very different subjects, it wasn’t the visionary-way they chose to expose their ideals, it wasn’t their view that money is corrupt and we would do well without it. What got under my skin was the blind belief that if they simply took monetary value and capitol away, everything would right itself. All the murderers, thieves, and madmen would disappear. It may be true that statistics show that most criminals are poor, but certainly not all. Take a serial killer who simply takes joy in the thrill of killing, or a woman who can’t conceive who decides she deserves to steal another woman’s child. ZG stated that the utopia they envisioned would require and indeed contain no laws. It is extreme folly to depend on the good of a person, a mistake to assume that no one in the entirety of the world wants you dead or suffering. Of course you should take everything in these movies with a grain of salt, but to definitively state that laws will be obsolete scares me more than anything else these people present.
I do, however, believe that their end all goal is virtuous, if a bit stylized. Seeing as they’ve only just begun to design their utopia of course they’re decades away from working out the kinks in their global plan. They’re centuries away from even turning it into a global realization. And if what they say is true about the economic hitmen, I wouldn’t be surprised if they got snuffed out before they could change anything.
Now, if you were trying to sway someone to your way of thinking, (and lets assume for now your way of thinking really is practical and more efficient in comparison to theirs) there is no way to do it without sounding like a visionary. The other has known no other way but theirs, they’ve grown up paranoid, taught to look the gift horse in the mouth. When it comes to the bare bones of the issue, with so many different sources saying so many different things, even if they’ve done the homework, it’s all a leap of faith. Either they wholly believe you and your ideals and join your side, or they shy away, burn the bridge, and hope that what you purpose isn’t true and that they haven’t made the wrong decision. No matter how many ways you look at it, the fact that there is discussion presents the fact of doubt. Doubt in the skeptic, and especially doubt in the believer. After all, hope is doubt.
The problem with the movie-is that it ignores every aspect of human nature and places blame squarely on „modern day“ capitalism-another oligarchy..
As Alfred Adler said-we as humans stive to move from a position of felt minus to a position of felt plus-how we strive, vertically and individually or collectively horizontally is the question of wellness for ourselves and our community-our planet.A slower collective growth working together is ideal according to Adler.
However, the model proposed in this movie Zeigeist, is a model of ultimate control and is very „top down“ (yes we have to trust leaders with extreme altruism and no greed) to set the wheels in motion. The problem is that people with power and wealth-don’t want to give that up-its human nature. I predict that a small oligarchy would have ulterior motives in this model-our freedoms and individuality taken from us. One problem-is that the population of the world is too big, the camps would be too large and yes there would be military keeping us in these „re-education“ camps…the world is filled with two types of people good and bad-everyone has a shadow, even in Utopia…the human mind and its experiences (logged ancestorially over millions of years) does not just „change“. WITHOUT FORCE and then it hasn’t really changed.
This is communism-research suggests that even small communes don’t last long.
The better solution is too look at „cellular“ models like small communities that do well and are self sufficent-each utilizing specialization and competition but each community lives self sufficient, living modestly in balance with the planet. The Amish and the Traditional Mennonites are excellent examples. A unified community of individuals working toword a collective goal-profits and all.
DELTA, The star trek model is a fantasy-it is never really developed and the writer above forgets that the human shadow-the source of the shows, crisis etc is projected from human living ONTO aliens with bad motives-and a need for power, greed, ignorance etc. Roddenberry was using the other worlds and aliens to talk about us-earthman’s struggles disguised as aliens inspite of the utopia, which is impossible. Everything about life is about struggle.BIRTH, Growth, death and rebirth-its time we accept that fact and find practical solutions to community problems.
http://thezeitgeistmovement.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/g-edward-griffin-on-zeitgeist-addendum-a-critical-response/
Is it just me or does anyone notice how Mr Griffin fails to come up with any evidence, or even a valid explanation to invalidate the main point of the film. He simply dismisses alternate views to dangerous socialist beliefs.
If we pay attention to what is going on around us despite our emotional sensitivities and fears we are able to come to this basic conclusion without the need for such a film, however given our delusions at large we must educate those who cannot see the writing on the walls, therefore this film is absolutely necessary (Not conclusive).
Some of the facts in the film may be incorrect. But here’s a piece of obvious truth at some level you cannot know all the facts and details, and therefore we can be miss lead not matter what side of the fence we sit. Transparency is a luxury in this world. We must be able to step back from what we are told and open our eyes to see.
The evidence:
1) Look up the definition of Terrorism
„You’re either with us or against us“
(Little room for argument one might suggest).
2) Look up the definition of sociopath
(Whilst the majority of people are not sociopathic i assure you a corporation is).
3) Turn on your TV as to see the lies but do not be sucked in to counter knowledge.
Just a few simple points as explained in the film.
They say in the film do not watch the news (I think from memory), but that’s ok however do not be sucked in to false reports and counter knowledge. To be fair there is no shortage of false conspiracy theories, myths, and hoaxes so obviously be aware of that to.
In essence they, the governments, corporations, and religion control our behaviour. If our nature supported this we would not be so indifferent. The fact that we are overcome by confusion, ignore the truth and submit to our fears is evidence that the world population at large simply wishes to survive. Therefore establishment is not only, not a factor of human nature but contrary.
Let us for a moment forget the details. If the ideology, the fundamental starting point are false than irrespective of what good a particular establishment might do the equation simply does not add up.
Not knowing all the facts as no one else does, I prefer Addendum to final cut, as the focus is more closely related to obvious truths than conspiracy theories for which I reserve judgement.
Pure and simple to be wrong and to not know is to learn. We alway’s learn more from our failures than successes. So therefore we can choose to learn from this and therefore improve or sit around and tell ourselves how good we are.
Even if these proposed technologies, or more so if such a resource based society is somewhat speculative it must be a better solution than what currently stands, or a solution of which can be modified to any extent. That’s just the point we don’t have all the answers so just keep thinking. The economy however must go. Not instantly of course, but phased out.
Better yet, lets just kill each other and destroy the earth umm…How about we do something different to that of which we began about 13,000 odd years ago.
I personally can think of nothing worse, what about you?
What makes us think we are so different and more enlightened than the times of The Crusades? Sociology certainly does not support such a belief.
The answer is simple; we are all a slave to the system, which we have created to benefit the few. We have obviously done well in that respect. What about the rest of us? What about you and I?
Last but not least the movie does in fact touch on communism suggest that it’s similar if not the same in it’s core values, remembering of course that these are not the chosen values of the population at large, both are simply imposed on us. Just because we don’t support capitalism doesn’t mean we are forced to support communism. I think we have proven both are unacceptable.
As for the Venus project I have not done enough research to argue for or against.
It was hard to decide what to put in in this (small)comentary post,also most of the topics were mosty covered by Antworten. 2+ comments of his on Mr.Griffin’s review. Point of the movie,in my opinion is that there is no human nature,thing i thought long before watching this movie,and Griffin’s attack on goverments(dictators)in Latin America,and by that justifying USA intervention and pressures as justified since countries WERE part of Soviet block or some other idiocy. Maybe they weren’t perfect but those goverments were those nation’s choice,right? What is USA’s right to say whats right and wrong?And if they were part of Soviet block,what about scenarios repeating in Bosnia,Kosovo,Afganistan,Iraq etc. I make a bet:very soon USA will either have troops or in some way get into Somalia and Kirghistan. Rest of conflict areas and similiar i wont talk about for i dont know much about the topic. As for human nature..i think that our nature(only) is that we have to sleep,drink,eat and thats it. Everything else is a response to things seen while we live,in either negative and positive way.
[…] για κριτική του Zeitgeist εψαξα λλιο στο google: https://infowars.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/zeitgeist-addendum-a-critical-review/ […]
[…] για κριτική του Zeitgeist εψαξα λλιο στο google: https://infowars.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/zeitgeist-addendum-a-critical-review/ […]
THE FOREST PEOPLE!!! – Colin Turnbull
we coulddd live like them, but i prefer the American Dream thank you very much :)
„It is full of doublespeak, wild assumptions, and crazy socialist propaganda.“
This right here shows your unwillingness to even contemplate anothers views or reasonings with reality. I was alright reading your comments up until this point because in this world in order for you to have any real valid opinion on anything, it would be fair to say that you should not downplay another’s beliefs just because they do not align perfectly with your own.
The film describes exactly the type of attitude you are exerting, and in that fact, the movie has a lot more credibility than yourself. How can you sit there and defend an institution that is under no control of the people, yet supplies their currency? The simple idea of it is nauseous yet you sit there and tout like a staunch capitalist unanimously opposed to anything other than that „free market“ attitude.
It’s almost as if you do not have any solutions to our societal problems yet you harp on the ones that are presented. Instead of rebutting everything that makes your eye twitch why don’t you provide some logical explanations and conclusions as to how to clean up our destroyed earth. The capitalism that you support still denies any wrongdoing which is why I know you are a staunch Republican.
What would you have done with your free market when those capitalistic enterprises failed and laid off all of those workers? The very social programs you demonize are the ones keeping them from the brink of homelessness. Who provides these social programs? The people do through the people they elect. The government redirects OUR taxpayer dollars from destructive and counteractive DEFENSE SPENDING BUDGETS which have contracts with HUGE corporations that we, the taxpayers, pay for, and funnel it into insurance programs and social security so that ALL can live a healthy and depression alleviated life.
How can you be against such programs? You are corrupt in yourself as you are admitting that greed is the name of the game and YOU are the one ignoring the core roots of crime, religion, and any other symptom of society. As long as you keep ignoring all these symptoms and keep advocating a monetary system that puts all in at least 2nd place to itself, you will always find that there will never be a cure for diseases or hunger because of the bottom line of another’s.
Take out a loan to invest into the stock market! doing that im not creating anything. It is creating money from money. There isnt a single person here that understands technology and science, All you do is debate in a field of politics. We did that for centuries and all it created is coruption and bureaucracy. Technology and science rely create something useful and needed. System theory is a real science field, and it was mentioned as one of the solutions. Social theories this days are kind of obsolete given the fact that match of the society is run by technology. So you really need knowledge of science and technology to understand the mechanism of human life in society. All you see in this movie is solution given as a politics, i see much more solutions given on a basis of science, technology and knowledge. After all that is the real basis of human progress. Politics, revolution and money didnt get us here where we are now. Revolution of enlightenment not utopian idealism brought us out of the dark ages. Think again what is revolution for you, and what is that you stand and fight for.
I dont really know what is your problem with zeitgeist, I think it’s an amizing eye-opener that encourages people to find the truth, moreover I don’t adknowlege all zeitgueist as truth but I RESPECT the film maker intention, and agree with project venus, the current capitalist system does nothing more than cause scarcity and proberty. I find it ridiculous that 1% own 40% of the planets resouses, and I done the researsh and found out that this planet is capable of hosting the current population time 3. it’s true zeitgeist lacks information but it encourages the seek for solutions for our endanged society
[…] G. Edwards Griffin on the subject (the man who wrote 'A Creature from Jekyll Island'). AugustWest likes this. __________________ […]
the ignorance of man
he does the best he can
but he’ll never see
how to be free
from the cages and chains
he’s made along the way
when the only thing he needs
is just a little key
[…] για κριτική του Zeitgeist εψαξα λλιο στο google: https://infowars.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/zeitgeist-addendum-a-critical-review/ […]
[…] για κριτική του Zeitgeist εψαξα λλιο στο google: https://infowars.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/zeitgeist-addendum-a-critical-review/ […]