Zeitgeist: Addendum

Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
714
Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Watching this a second time. A lot for my feeble mind to process. This movie avoids much 'woo' in comparison to the original Zeitgeist movie.

Peter Joseph seems to have impeccable timing as this movie deals almost completely with the Federal Reserve, Monetary Policy and the complicated concept of fractional reserve banking that has played a major role in the current perceived global financial crisis.

Discuss.
 
Last edited:
This is a very "convincing" film, but I don't understand the need to charge 5$ for the DVD.. one would expect such a 'revelation of truth' to not only be free to the public, but to hit mainstream media.
 
This is a very "convincing" film, but I don't understand the need to charge 5$ for the DVD.. one would expect such a 'revelation of truth' to not only be free to the public, but to hit mainstream media.

It is online for free yo? You don't have to buy the DVD to watch. I'm sure it wasn't free to make the movie.
 
I apologize for having written that last post before watching the film in its entirety.

You're absolutely right. I double checked to make sure.

I gotta admit.. until someone proves facts in this film a fallacy, I am now officially a zeitgeist revolutionary. This is literally the most brilliant documentary I have ever seen. What a breath of fresh air.. and wayyyyyy less "woo" than the first, although to be fair, the first was also brilliant in my opinion.

The ideal world which is portrayed through the Venus project left a few questions unanswered, but all in all this is frighteningly close to my personal view of an ideal world.

I'm going to go all out and say it again.. this film is probably the most important, informative and amazing piece of work I have ever seen.

Highly recommended.
 
I would like to hear the opinions of others on this film.

There will be 'skeptics' here picking things apart shortly.

A Utopian society sounds good in theory but are humans ready for it?

There will still always be a need for some type of heirarchical human work force even w/ a fully automated Venus Project style society. Then you'll be back to human greed, corruption and the like. Right where we are today.
 
Last edited:
I wasted two hours of my life watching a movie that was crap. Now you want me to watch another two-hour movie, made by the same people, and with the same subject, and the same method, and the same logic, as the original movie that was already THOROUGHLY debunked, and you're telling me it WON'T be crap because it "avoids much woo"?

You're going to have to do better than that. What, SPECIFICALLY, is different about this film from the original Zeitgeist?
 
I wasted two hours of my life watching a movie that was crap. Now you want me to watch another two-hour movie, made by the same people, and with the same subject, and the same method, and the same logic, as the original movie that was already THOROUGHLY debunked, and you're telling me it WON'T be crap because it "avoids much woo"?

You're going to have to do better than that. What, SPECIFICALLY, is different about this film from the original Zeitgeist?

I don't give a rat's a** if you watch it or not. Walk on home.
 
I wasted two hours of my life watching a movie that was crap. Now you want me to watch another two-hour movie, made by the same people, and with the same subject, and the same method, and the same logic, as the original movie that was already THOROUGHLY debunked, and you're telling me it WON'T be crap because it "avoids much woo"?

You're going to have to do better than that. What, SPECIFICALLY, is different about this film from the original Zeitgeist?

lolz ignorance is bliss.
 
I wasted two hours of my life watching a movie that was crap. Now you want me to watch another two-hour movie, made by the same people, and with the same subject, and the same method, and the same logic, as the original movie that was already THOROUGHLY debunked, and you're telling me it WON'T be crap because it "avoids much woo"?

You're going to have to do better than that. What, SPECIFICALLY, is different about this film from the original Zeitgeist?
something ive never understood about CTers is that they seem to think taking the same old claims, bundling them in a new video somehow un-debunks them

it wouldnt be so odd except theyll fully admit a previous video had been debunk, or claim its "not representative" of all theories, then push a nearly identical video

full disclosure: i havent seen either zeitgeist video, im just commenting a general trend ive noticed
 
something ive never understood about CTers is that they seem to think taking the same old claims, bundling them in a new video somehow un-debunks them

it wouldnt be so odd except theyll fully admit a previous video had been debunk, or claim its "not representative" of all theories, then push a nearly identical video

full disclosure: i havent seen either zeitgeist video, im just commenting a general trend ive noticed

which completely devalues your post.

The addendum isn't a "nearly identical video" and doesn't use CT to push it's agenda.

why don't you watch it?
 
I apologize for having written that last post before watching the film in its entirety.

You're absolutely right. I double checked to make sure.

I gotta admit.. until someone proves facts in this film a fallacy, I am now officially a zeitgeist revolutionary. This is literally the most brilliant documentary I have ever seen. What a breath of fresh air.. and wayyyyyy less "woo" than the first, although to be fair, the first was also brilliant in my opinion.

The ideal world which is portrayed through the Venus project left a few questions unanswered, but all in all this is frighteningly close to my personal view of an ideal world.

I'm going to go all out and say it again.. this film is probably the most important, informative and amazing piece of work I have ever seen.

Highly recommended.


There is a sucker born every minute.
 
the complicated concept of fractional reserve banking that has played a major role in the current perceived global financial crisis.

the complicated concept of banking that has played a major role in the current global financial crisis.
Fixed for you. I'm not eager to abolish banking, which is inherently the lending of one person's money to another.
 
A lot for my feeble mind to process.
So educate your feeble mind by listening to people who work in finance, instead of watching agitprop films that say "Dude, it totally doesn't make sense!"

Here are the timestamps for some howlers within the first 20 minutes. I'm not going to discuss them in detail because there are other things I'd rather do.
7:48
9:07
10:37
12:43
15:05
17:10
18:15
19:04
19:14
19:23

Like the first film, it's impressive propaganda filmmaking. Like the first film, anti-semitism and its anti-capitalist underpinnings still lurk beneath the surface (22:30).

All to provide people with an excuse for not living within their means, even though their neighbors are somehow able to. Pathetic.
 
So educate your feeble mind by listening to people who work in finance, instead of watching agitprop films that say "Dude, it totally doesn't make sense!"

Here are the timestamps for some howlers within the first 20 minutes. I'm not going to discuss them in detail because there are other things I'd rather do.
7:48
9:07
10:37
12:43
15:05
17:10
18:15
19:04
19:14
19:23

Like the first film, it's impressive propaganda filmmaking. Like the first film, anti-semitism and its anti-capitalist underpinnings still lurk beneath the surface (22:30).

All to provide people with an excuse for not living within their means, even though their neighbors are somehow able to. Pathetic.

(22:30)? I tought it was about 2 hours long?

What is pathetic is a few 'skeptics' claiming prejudice by using prejudgments. :confused:
 
I'm watching it all, and I'm taking notes. I'm not wholly impressed, to be honest. I'm about 1:27:00 into it right now. Some parts of it are, well, laughable.
 
(22:30)? I tought it was about 2 hours long?
Is there a problem? If the film starts off with false premises, am I supposed to watch it build layer after layer upon them until excrement runs out of my ears?
 
Why would someone start a thread asking people to watch a film and then claim he doesn't care if people watch it or not?

Weird.
 
I would like to hear how the debunkers deal with John Perkins' testimony, a whistleblower of the first order.

I don't even know why these guys call this Zeitgeist Addendum. They might as well have named it something completely different. It's essentially calling for the elimination of the monetary system and false premise of scarcity and replaced with a resource based economy facilitated by technology and science.

Strap on your debunking boots, it's going to be a wild ride.
 
I don't know if I'd call myself a debunker, but I certainly didn't buy that tripe. I watched both excruciating hours of bad editing and public domain filmstrips and I feel a bit dumber now. I took notes. They aren't what anyone might consider good (I never could take useful notes in school), and I sort of lost it near the end. I will be honest, though, I didn't recognize anything particularly antisemitic, but I'm not sure how well I'd notice it unless it was blatent (like "jews are evil, EVIL!!!"). I wrote it as it went, occasionally pausing to type or take care of something else.

---------
Part one: Basically comes off as a sinister, though naive, attempt to explain the US's economy, but ignores many important aspects of the economy (like its need to grow constantly to meet the growing population). Overly sinister, but probably not exactly lying. I get the impression that it isn’t trying to be as much deceitful as just what the author actually believes.

Part Two: Starts off with multinationals and economic super powers using their economic position to influence small countries (privatization and what not). Seems to suggest that corporations acting out of self interest and greed is evidence of evil scheming to control the world’s population. Rather silly, I think. Then talks a bit about CIA assassinations of third world leaders who wouldn’t play ball. Says Al-Qaeda is fictional. Shows that the American government has weird budgetary priorities (more money to fight terrorism than heart disease), and accuses corporations of being the “real terrorists”. Everyone loves opium! “False flag terrorist attacks” “Covert institutions such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group” Not very convincing.

Part Three: Societal indoctrination, pretty normal. Governments want to stay in power? Shocking. Apparently corruption is just not changing how a government works. Moving on to capitalism and its faults, mostly selfishness. Says competition leads to limited technology, exploitation, class, rich ruling elite, wealth gap, corruption. A bit redundant, I think. Money = power, amazing! McCain and Obama are predecided to be acceptable by the “established financial powers”. The “same broad social view” is, of course, middle America, the political extremes may be far different but to that large swath the only difference between who is elected is sound bites. “Honest, ethical politicians” while showing a Ron Paul ’08 graphic. Subtle. Dear god, this thing has been on for an hour. An hour of public domain video from the 60s (which can be fun) and black screens (which are just dull)… Moving on.

Technology is important. I agree, but I’m a techie. Cool, it appears to be pushing a Star Trek federation like utopian socialism, do we get space ships too? Hmm, economics 101 type logic about scarcity. Who does that man remind me of? Now that’s going to bother me. Second person from this “Venus Project”, I wonder if that’s going to be important anywhere. I believe we actually are born with a certain of bigotry, a natural dislike of things that are different than ourselves (like insects), and it becomes focused on people by our culture. Gasp! The Venus Project! And all I’m seeing is Star Trek CG rejects. Yeah, this sounds like someone has been watching way too much star trek. It’s delving into the economic philosophy and it seems far too… weak. Resource based economy? He who controls the resource controls the economy. Sounds like a very poor understanding of solar and wind technology. Not wholly impressed with the video’s understanding of, well, anything. Cars should be electric, yes, but I don’t think battery tech is as advanced as they claim. Somehow I don’t see trains being used for intercontinental travel anytime soon.

The video implies that the “Venus Project” is about the technology, but the people they interview who are a part of it are only talking about the philosophy of it. They argue that as automation increases the workforce will always decrease, suggesting this will lead to massive unemployment. There will always be an equilibrium. If no one is working then no one will be able to afford the products being produced by machines, and companies won’t be able to afford the machines, and so forth. I think they are being intellectually lazy. There was a bit about crime and poverty that was sort of true, but the solution is naïve. When you take money out of the equation a barter system will probably fill its place, eventually leading back to a monetary system. Yes, better education is one of the best solutions. This video would be so very different if the author had been watching the terminator films. I think I’ve thought up a more thorough utopian socialist society than this advocates. Ain’t gonna happen.

Part Four: The old technology appears to be magic argument. Ooh, pretty flower (1:34:22, coolest part of the video). It says that people tend to feel insulted when shown to be wrong when they should be grateful (the video says “celebrate”) being shown truth. Something about that is very, very funny to me, considering some of the silliness in the rest of the video. Mentions sheep, but not sheeple. Now it’s delving into atheistic arguments, no real pattern here. I think only part 1 was singularly topic in its entirety. Strange focus on Christianity. Wow, I think these people have taken high school level earth science. If they had the rights to it they could totally play “Circle of Life” over this part. Err, weird, its like a bit of new age spirituality thrown in for fun. I think the video’s editor had a seizure or something, it went a bit wonky. Co-opting Carl Sagen for a weird new-age oneness type thing. Are “Weapons of Mass Creation” like the GECK? To recap: Capitalism = bad, Utopian Socialism = good. Don’t support the system? Oh, that’s just funny. As I see it, the worst thing that would happen is the collapse of the economy (yes, very, very bad) and a new country and a new economy will grow out of it.

Ooh, “suggestions”: Expose the fed cartel, and “boycott”. Oh, dear god. If you have an account with one of the bad banks, move it to another bank, because that bank is obviously less bad. You don’t boycott the banking system by using the banking system.
Boycott the news networks and use independent interweb news sites. But no suggested news sites, what a bummer.
Boycott the military. War is bad and soldiers and vets suffer. That’s pretty much the gist of it.
Boycott energy companies. If you are using energy, stop! You don’t really need heat in the winter, that’s just energy company propaganda!
Reject the political system. Dems and Reps are more or less the same, at least to those on the extremes.
Go to our website, cause we rawks!

But I love vain entertainment and materialistic garbage.
The first revolution is the one inside you. Stop being a douche and do what we tell you!

Overly dramatic ending. “You blew it up!” moment. Followed by girl meets crazy man moment. And a guy remembering a Chicago song. I was hoping it was going somewhere, so of course it didn’t. And now the earth is about to explode.
 
Why would someone start a thread asking people to watch a film and then claim he doesn't care if people watch it or not?

Weird.

But (by their own admission) this person didn't watch it, yet proceeded to judge it.

That is not going to generate good discussion. And if that is the M.O., then I would not care if they watch it or not.
 
Last edited:
I didn't recognize anything particularly antisemitic, but I'm not sure how well I'd notice it unless it was blatent (like "jews are evil, EVIL!!!").
Discussions of the "Hazard Circular" referred to at 22:30 consistently trace back to one source, which is a 1913 speech by Congressman Lindbergh during the hearings that led to the Federal Reserve Act. Other congressmen cited Lindbergh when referring to "the famous Hazard Circular of 1862."

The odd thing about this "famous" document is that there seems to be no record of it prior to Lindbergh's speech, nor did he mention how or when it came to public light. Despite being attracted to Federal Reserve conspiracy theories for several years, I had never heard of it. Yet it does seem to circulate quite often in anti-semitic commentary, where it is attributed to the Rothschilds.
 
Discussions of the "Hazard Circular" referred to at 22:30 consistently trace back to one source, which is a 1913 speech by Congressman Lindbergh during the hearings that led to the Federal Reserve Act. Other congressmen cited Lindbergh when referring to "the famous Hazard Circular of 1862."

The odd thing about this "famous" document is that there seems to be no record of it prior to Lindbergh's speech, nor did he mention how or when it came to public light. Despite being attracted to Federal Reserve conspiracy theories for several years, I had never heard of it. Yet it does seem to circulate quite often in anti-semitic commentary, where it is attributed to the Rothschilds.
The quote provided, though, does not ring to me to be antisemitic. It just sounds like something chosen to support their argument. Of course that ignores the validity of the quote or any meaning in its context (I assume there is more to it than just that bit), but by itself I can't really see claiming that the video is antisemitic. Of course my experience with conspiracy theories is more casual observer and I imagine there are trends or references that would just go over my head.
 
I just finished watching the film. I have to say it is better than the first by far, and did exactly what I wanted it to do. If you want a better understanding of the banking system watch The Money Masters. It is basically a 3 hour extension of part one of the new Zeitgeist. If you want a better understanding of economic hit men and disaster capatilism read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Kline. The ideas presented in this movie are not new and have been circulating for years now. I am so glad they are getting to the surface.

I can tell you why this movie resonates with so many people...because it gets at the core of who we are as a species. We are so dumbed down and distracted by everything in our society we forget our place in the universe. I love that quote by Carl Sagan towards the end of the movie. So powerful, so much wisdom. Any Star Trek fan will love this movie. The Venus project is like a think tank that Gene Roddenberry would have started. I love it.

I think this movie also resonates with artistic people. For some reason artists seem to be more in touch with the human side of things. Any humanist will love this movie as well. Its a shame that the people who bring this message to us are often killed eg Ghandi, John Lennon, MLK, Lincoln, JFK. Good thing the internet ables us to spread our ideas without too much hub bub. Protect the internet. I cant say that enough times. It is a gift from God.

Anyway I encourage people to watch this movie. Bring on the debunking too. Peter Joseph even says in the movie that society shouldnt associate being wrong with failure, it is how we learn. Discuss Discuss Discuss!! Be nice though! We are one. Not borg style though ;)
 
1. dudalb, I'd like to hear three points made in 'Z:A' which you think are bogus, misleading, lies or propoganda.

(and it would help to actually watch the movie before you go around calling people you don't know 'suckers')

Tell me that money isn't the root of so much human misery, especially in the Third World.

Tell me that theistic religion isn't a complete fallacy.

Tell me that we aren't destroying this planet with fossil fuel emissions.

Tell me that our health care system is fair.

Tell me that Bush invaded Iraq to get WMD's.

------------

One of the things I like the most about this whole concept is that the people behind it aren't trying to sell themselves. That's what Alex Jones does. That's what politicians do. There's no money to be made here by anyone (besides purchasing the DVD for 5$ which you can watch online for free anyway). No one's telling you to go out and physically or emotionally harm someone with a different race, belief system or nationality.
 
Wow, that was two hours of my life I can never get back. That was the most error-ridden, populist, anti-capitalist propaganda film I have ever seen. Which is why the CT woos will love it.

There are only three themes here:

1) Same old populist anti-capitalist propaganda: Everything is run by elite bankers, even though money is worthless they still (somehow) want more money (funny how they never explain that). Capitalism is evil, industry is evil, anything that requires work is evil. Its your typical tin-foil hat "the federal reserve is the root of all our problems" woo. The federal reserve stuff has been debunked time and again, and the fear mongering is a classical part of CT - telling everyone a shadowy group is bent on controlling them and world domination (in this case, the group is the bankers).

First part was just an amalgamation of your typical bank CT - none of it true. Just a way to make people feel like the fact that they are poor is not their fault.

2) The solution is to create a environmentalist socialist utopia, a "resource based society." Its the naive idea that somehow without the evil banking elite, we'd just be a bunch of environmentalist hippies and give all of our time to technology, creating a world with no laws and no state where everyone just got along. Everyone gets everything for free. They, of course, forget, to explain how it is that anyone will maintain these machines when no one has to work, and what will happen when the technology breaks down. They also forgot to explain why anyone would feel the need to be innovative when everything is provided to them.

There are also a billion other problems with this. They claim all crime is due to the money system, forgetting that crimes of passion exist. What happens in this woo society where there is no law and I kill someone because I feel like it? There is no police and no state, so whose going to hold me responsible? Do other people just to kill me in response? What if they didn't see me do it and just think I did? Oh, looks like anarchy to me. While were all busy killing each other whose going to be repairing those machines that are letting us all live for free, again?

3) The anti-religion ecumenical woo is thrown in at the end. Typical Zeitgeist propaganda here, nothing usual from the first propaganda piece.

Frankly I'm disappointed. The whole thing falls apart on even the first surface analysis. All you have to do is consider that all the things the woos bash: government, religion, capitalism, etc. have all been responsible for innovation. Profit has caused innovation, and you will not be able to create a socialist environmentalist hippie society without that profit motivation. Someone has to do the work. When you give people everything, they do not work - you can see it in both the rich who inherit all their money and in those who live off the state.
 

vlcsnap2822739ma8.png


vlcsnap2831252ha3.png
 
Last edited:
So basically, I should watch this movie because it's less full of crap than the previous one.

I didn't see Mannequin Too: On the Move either, but would rather watch that because at least it has Kristy Swanson (the original Buffy) in it.
 
1. dudalb, I'd like to hear three points made in 'Z:A' which you think are bogus, misleading, lies or propoganda.

(and it would help to actually watch the movie before you go around calling people you don't know 'suckers')

Tell me that money isn't the root of so much human misery, especially in the Third World.

Tell me that theistic religion isn't a complete fallacy.

Tell me that we aren't destroying this planet with fossil fuel emissions.

Tell me that our health care system is fair.

Tell me that Bush invaded Iraq to get WMD's.

------------

One of the things I like the most about this whole concept is that the people behind it aren't trying to sell themselves. That's what Alex Jones does. That's what politicians do. There's no money to be made here by anyone (besides purchasing the DVD for 5$ which you can watch online for free anyway). No one's telling you to go out and physically or emotionally harm someone with a different race, belief system or nationality.

1.The idea we can get rid of money is laughable. The problem is not Money itself as a medium of exchange, but good old fashiioned human Greed. And that will show up in any economic system you can name.

2. I am a total skeptic when it comes to religon in general, but I don't consider it the root of all evil.

3. To a degree yes, but better Technology will solve the problem.

4.No it is not.

5.One of many reasons given for Bush's disasterous invasion of Iraq.

And even if there is validity for these five points, one of the oldest tricks in the book is to include a few valid points to lend credibility to total nonsense.
 
One thing I find compelling about the bank stuff is that many presidents have tried to fight central banking. Andrew Jackson fought them to the death, Lincoln tried to end it with the Green back and the founding fathers were very very aware that European banking interests were trying to get a stranglehold on the US economy. If central banking isnt a bad idea why have so many people tried to stop it?
 
One thing I find compelling about the bank stuff is that many presidents have tried to fight central banking. Andrew Jackson fought them to the death, Lincoln tried to end it with the Green back and the founding fathers were very very aware that European banking interests were trying to get a stranglehold on the US economy. If central banking isnt a bad idea why have so many people tried to stop it?

Probably because, like most things in Zeitgeist and in Zeitgeist: Addendum, the "documentary" makers make up large parts of it and love leaving out critical details that would hurt their case.

Presidents who disliked central banks didn't like the system at the time. The banks before the Federal Reserve were very different in nature. The current federal reserve is not a private bank (no matter what the woos say) unlike its predecessors, and all interest on money loaned from the fed is paid back to the treasury.

Also, you can't advocate for something on the basis of whether or not US presidents liked it. Lots of US presidents didn't mind slavery, and yet no one uses that as a gauge to figure out if slavery or good or bad.

Like much of this film, its a propaganda technique and a logical fallacy: appeal to authority.
 

Back
Top Bottom