Comments on: Zeitgeist: Addendum

Zeitgeist: Addendum

Baldons — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:40:49 -0800

We already talked (self-link, sorta) about Zeitgeist: The Movie. Its author, Peter Joseph, recently released Zeitgeist: Addendum. (beware: last two links are two hour movies) This time, it's about money and debt, scarcity and resources. The first, financial part may look like an extended Ron Paul ad, but then there's a sudden turn towards resource-based utopian techno-communalism, and an endorsement for The Venus project. It seems to me like "Kropotkinian anarchism meets The Matrix". In these rough times, is it time for a big leap? [Also announced: The Zeitgeist Movement, still not active]

By: Monsters

Monsters — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:05:03 -0800

I sometimes wonder whether films like Zeitgeist are designed to remove any credibility from the concepts presented therein. ZOMG BILDERBERGERS! No, seriously, films like these ones (and yes, I sat through their endless hours) take a few reasonable premises and take them off to the land of bullshit where they can die, safely ignored. At first, it seemed like Z:A was actually making a bit more sense than its predecessors. Then the Venus Project folks showed up and started talking about the coming techno-utopia. My impression was that the Venus Project folks are well-intentioned- but if they have actually studied economics in detail, it's not apparent from the interviews in this movie. Their argument was, basically, once robots do everything for us we'll all be rich and can pursue world peace or whatever turns us on. Meh. If it is indeed time for a big leap-- and I think it is-- then a movie is, sadly, not going to get us there, especially if that movie is Zeitgeist (although I can dig the idea that a movie might be enough to get someone to consider a different point of view). Other resources have been posted on MeFi that ably explain the current financial crisis better than Z:A can hope to. And if you're looking for alarming docutainment, you'd do better to check out Adam Curtis' series The Power of Nightmares (parts 1 2 3). His entire series Pandora's Box (but especially parts 1 and 2) are also relevant here, in regard to The Venus Project's starry-eyed technophilia.

By: basicchannel

basicchannel — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:35:07 -0800

But have you watched this utter horseshit.... ON WEEEED?!

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:46:07 -0800

So...the zeitgeist was the zeitgeist?

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:24:31 -0800

Gosh, now that I think about it, my standards for independent documentaries sure have sunken over the last few years. Cause, I was just pleased it wasn't another cult recruiting video.

By: shii

shii — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:34:58 -0800

Apparently the solution to the mortgage crisis is to build modernist houses on enormous artificial islands in the Pacific Ocean.

By: 1adam12

1adam12 — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:45:11 -0800

I liked the Smashing Pumpkins album better.

By: philip-random

philip-random — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:01:34 -0800

Question from one who hasn't made it through more than three minutes of any of these Zeitgeist related presentations: Are there any laughs, or is it all as dead serious as it seems? Because if there's no laughs, it can't be true.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:27:01 -0800

Post about the revised edition of Loose Change next, since we're doing this shit.

By: dydecker

dydecker — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:27:57 -0800

zeitgeist? gimme a fricken break

By: fuq

fuq — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:38:21 -0800

Does Z:A mention reptilians? I'm pretty sure it's the reptilians.

By: mattholomew

mattholomew — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:52:59 -0800

We watched this at the Bohemian Grove this summer.

By: moxiedoll

moxiedoll — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:08:45 -0800

thanks for the heads up - I love shit in this vein, and this movie sounds especially intriguing. Usually the utopia presented by NWO-fearing-types is a dream of the past when men were men and muskets were ready to keep the King of England out of your face... so a paradise enabled by future technologies is something I look forward to hearing crazy discussion of!

By: cowbellemoo

cowbellemoo — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:23:54 -0800

~~These meats is tender.~~ These links is weak.

By: wastelands

wastelands — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:46:03 -0800

If this is the film I'm thinking of, I remember the first one at least having some interesting content on the origins/symbolism of religions.

By: Monsters

Monsters — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:34:31 -0800

The Venus Project is selling its commune.

By: GoingToShopping

GoingToShopping — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:32:29 -0800

Wastelands: You're completely correct. I actually really enjoyed what the movie had to say about religion, but unfortunately it devolved into the same bullshit 9/11 conspiracy theorist bullshit that the Internet is famous for. As was previously mentioned, it's awfully irritating to see valid assertions dragged through the muck just because someone who's stupid happens to have the same opinion.

By: alexwoods

alexwoods — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:23:20 -0800

All right!!! More macroeconomic analysis from people who failed out of Evergreen! Try reading this or this instead. Of course, anyone who was moved by Zeitgeist probably thinks the internet and the media are controlled by [Jews/aliens/Cheney/the Saudis/the Illuminati], but for some of you it may not be too late. GoingToShopping et al.: their religion stuff kind of sounds interesting, but based on what I've read about what they have to say about the Fed and 9/11, it's clear that they are paranoid retards, so why bother? Read a real book instead.

By: Baldons

Baldons — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:42:29 -0800

By reading the comments, I get the impression that many of you was disappointed in the first Zeitgeist and didn't watch the addendum. It's a pity: because it's really different and, in my opinion, much better. No New World Order, no 9/11 Truth; religion is examined for about two minutes and put aside. I suggest you try not to think about the wacky stuff, and see what really matters. The pars costruens is, amazingly, more interesting than the pars destruens.

By: alexwoods

alexwoods — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:46:51 -0800

But Baldons, it was made by the same people, and those people are, demostrably, idiots. I'm not interested in what they have to say except insofar as my more gullible friends start to get interested in it, and I'm forced to refute it. I watch a limited number of two-hour movies a year, and I'm not going to waste a slot because people with weak critical thinking skills think this is thought-provoking material. It isn't. It's garbage. And I still haven't seen Fitzcarraldo, Rockers, or The Smartest Guys in the Room.

By: gcbv

gcbv — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:21:30 -0800

Agreed on some up above. The first section of the original does a great job laying at the framework of both the "borrowing" of myth from culture to culture and explaining some of the major aspects of symbolist Christian mythology (winter solstice, orion's belt and the eastern star, "birth/death/resurrection"), which is something that has always freaked me out: That Christians (and any other religion) take the beauty of their symbolism be reading it so f-ing LITERALLY. but the conspiracy stuff in the other parts: meh. I mean, if it's TRUE, then what a wacky world we live in. But even puppet masters lose their car keys. Meaning SOMEBODY who controls the world would watch "Terms of Endearment" and just come out and spill the beans, if it were true.

By: sswiller

sswiller — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:04:34 -0800

I just watched this film and was unimpressed. It reminds me of the radical, leftist films that came out of Latin America in the 70s, but it lacks the cohesiveness and intelligence of those arguments. The lessons on the economy and history are completely incredulous hyperbole. I'm surprised they didn't cut to a shot of Dr. Claw. Also, there's the usual rants against religion. It's fair to acknowledge the violence and social paralysis that organized religion causes, but the film perpetuates the theme that religion does no good for anyone, which is an argument that needs to be dispelled. Faith-based groups do a lot of humanitarian work in the shadows without the need for monetary gain or any kind of techno-utopia.