Zeitgeist 2- Addendum

[Castillo]

Sequel to Zeitgeist, it explains the core cause of dysfunction in our society, and offers "the only long term solution." What do you think?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

[maxwell_1888]

I wonder how full of **** this one is compared to the first. It was at least "thought provoking" mind you.

[CatfishJew]

i'm watching it right now. all i can think of is how this video will tie in with the 9/11 conspiracy.

[nobodyblossomsforever]

it seems like they already talked about money = debt in the first video

[SnackaryBinx]

I'll watch later. I really only watch these because they make me think, but the first one did go off the deep end at times

[Knifeboy]

the first one has been the cause of much idiocy the last 2 years. **** them for making another one

[SnackaryBinx]

but now every 15 year old is enlightened beyond belief!

[mph4ever]

a lot of what they say is true, its just i would rather it was presented as fact rather than some fairytale

[P13]

First one was filled with tons of laughs.

[mph4ever]

reality is funny, isn't it

[gregulus]

I'm sure they makers of Zeitgeist have the sociological expertise to make a claim about the cause of dysfunction in our society.

[Mister_Che]

These guys are still pumping this crap out?

[gregulus]

These guys are still pumping this crap out?

People watch it and feel like they're enlightened. Of course they do.


(People are dumb)

[beso negro]

i hate it when posters say "people are stupid". it's not funny and makes you look like a loser.

sorry i won't stoop to that i'm a winner.

but yea no i won't be watching zeigeist i have too many programming and engineering lectures to catch up on.

[clonegreen]

Most of the ides expressed are far fetched but I'm glad it has at least made people think. It expresses very unlikely circumstances, however it leads people to question their government and social institutions.

By the way I saw Addendum and it had an interesting concept of the idea of monetary gain and capitalism. I think its worthy of a viewing.

[Knifeboy]

Making people stop blindly believing their government by convincing them to blindly believe an idiotic internet conspiracy video wooh

[Mr. Ron]

I have some time to waste, so I'll watch it and see what they say. Not expecting poetry.

[masada]

dude the venus project is genius

[Detective Dan]

just watch the first half of it

the points about our current monetary system and it's inevitable failure and whatnot were pretty interesting and worth a watch


when it goes off on the whole resource based economy thing it gets pretty dumb, though

the venus project has so many holes in it, it's a pretty laughable concept

[masada]

um what the machines will do everything and then we will be free to do w/e its not hard to understand

[Mr. Ron]

if i could have a ro-butt make me a decent sandwich and do my home work while i sit back and listen to some tasty tunes I would be happy

[Detective Dan]

um what the machines will do everything and then we will be free to do w/e its not hard to understand

um who's going to design and build the machines

[masada]

um machines will are you stupid or seomthing

[Detective Dan]

but who's going to design and build the machines that are going to design and build the other machines

[masada]

super machines

[Mr. Ron]

Kevin Bacon

[masada]

well yah the kevin bacon model named in his honor because he was not a slave to the monetary system like us

[Detective Dan]

kevin bacon could kick the monetary system's *** like it's some pussy *** graboid

[Mr. Ron]

only if the monetary system was a subterranean worm-like monster tho

[Detective Dan]

but isn't it?


think about that

[stevensonmat2]

only if the monetary system was a subterranean worm-like monster tho

he would just hide from it on roof tops for the majority of the time tho

[Mr. Ron]

Kevin Bacon where are yoOOOOoooo0OO?

[masada]

rooftops built from the remains of corrupt corporate pigs and christian MYTHS

[Mr. Ron]

Kevin bacon's last.fm is filled with musics against ZOG!

[clonegreen]

Making people stop blindly believing their government by convincing them to blindly believe an idiotic internet conspiracy video wooh

I should have been more clear, I do not believe the majority of what the video says. What I do like is the fact that it allows people to use their critical thinking into not taking whatever information they receive as the gospel.

[Oriah]

That's irrelevant, the idea is to change one's perspective of mind. As a people we should look at this and provoke the thought that maybe there are other directions of existence that we can take.

[Tillius]

My friend who tries to be overly intelligent(when in fact he's a moron) was telling me a couple nights ago about Zeitgeist and how great it was. I've never seen or heard anything about it, just heard the name. Sounds like a bunch of crap.

[Knifeboy]

only if the monetary system was a subterranean worm-like monster tho

I luurve that movie

I should have been more clear, I do not believe the majority of what the video says. What I do like is the fact that it allows people to use their critical thinking into not taking whatever information they receive as the gospel.

My point was that I've never ever met anyone who enjoyed zeitgeist and didn't take everything from it as gospel instead of actually thinking critically

[Sk0rpi0n]

Well, accepting that your reality and whole system is inherently flawed, broken and that you are a slave isn't easy. But then, they never said it was.

Watch this. Its incredible.

[maxwell_1888]

My point was that I've never ever met anyone who enjoyed zeitgeist and didn't take everything from it as gospel instead of actually thinking critically

I enjoyed it because I learned a lot from it. Well, not from the documentary itself but it did provoke me to find out more information about it which led me to discover how full of **** it is. It is useful in that sense.

I do get a chuckle at the people who take it so seriously. It is indeed "don't blindly believe everything the government tells you, but blindly believe everything we tell you."

As for the points for social reconstruction in this like boycotting the banks, the military and boycotting the energy companies to help us on our way towards this 'paradise' society which the Venus Project like to advertise? Personally, I think it's simply too late. I don't see why it would be even close to changing in the next hundred years or so.

[masada]

typical slave talk. your wallet is filled with overthrown governments and world corruption

how does it feel, SLAVE

[Mr. Ron]

My Piggy Bank Is A Member Of The Illuminati

[Iscariot]

i have never seen the first zeitgeist and i don't plan on watching this either

[P13]

don't, its just nonsense.

[Sk0rpi0n]

I do get a chuckle at the people who take it so seriously. It is indeed "don't blindly believe everything the government tells you, but blindly believe everything we tell you."

Actually, the message in the first movie was to examine the facts, the official history and make up your own mind. They didn't propose that their version was the only version, nor did they say you had to believe. If you believed it without any further research, you would have done exactly what they were fighting: been a sheep lead by the master.

Conversely, if you looked at only 1 or 2 critiques, especially those from a religious or political perspective, it was up to you to fact check the fact-checkers. Did you do that? Or did you sheepishly believe what refuters said without any further examination?

The point of both of these films is that the truth is hard to find, lies are easy to believe (no matter who tells them) and that the truth can sometimes be unacceptable or even so far fetched it seems impossible.

Its true that some of the stuff in these movies is unproven or untrue (mostly stuff on RFIDs and Sept 11th) and some of it is mere speculation, but the bits on the Federal Reserve and the CIA are stone cold fact that.

So wake-up and stop believing everything the TV and your politicians tell you. Don't believe everything a movie tells you either. Do some research on the federal bank, read an economics textbook etc. Chances are you might learn something.

[Smokey D]

The first one fudged heaps of facts, prevented them as uncontested conclusions and then encouraged people to make a judgment on the back of those fudged facts.

So it was unreliable.

[Sk0rpi0n]

The first one fudged heaps of facts, prevented them as uncontested conclusions and then encouraged people to make a judgment on the back of those fudged facts.

So it was unreliable.

The government often fudges facts (Bush's "Mission Accomplished" aboard the AC), presented it as the only truth and than asked you to make a judgement on it. Was that reliable?

Well yes and no. In reality what he said had some truth: Combat operations had been won for the time being, but the rebuilding and peace process was far from commencing. The mission was far from over. So was he 100% unreliable? No.

Likewise, in Zeitgeist, some of the 'facts' are proven or widely accepted. The Vietnam war's "Gulf of Tonkin" incident was based on an error, an attack that didn't happen based on the testimony of Robert S. McNamara. If you watch his movie, The Fog Of War, you'll see that yourself from a primary source.

The fact that money is created out of nothing by the Fed, constitutes debt and has interest charged on it, is also undisputed fact. Much of the religious information on Krishna, Joseph, Josephus etc. is all fact however, some liberties are taken with examples such as the "Rams Horn" representing the age and other exaggerated claims are made.

As for September 11th, well who knows what happened with that mess. The fact of the matter is that unverified, one sided information from the government leaves itself open to fair challenges from eye witnesses and scientists. The United States government does after all, have a long history of propaganda (both the world wars, control of the media in Iraq and Vietnam) and subversion and illegal operations conducted through the CIA. So do you just believe the official history because its what the government says (LoLz, Bush's "Mission Accomplished") even though nobody has investigated it?

Either way, some of the info presented is rock solid, while other information is exaggerated or omitted. Nothing though is made-up as everything is sourced. Thus is the whole story reliable? No. Are large parts of it? Yes.
Nothing is black and white. Well... maybe skunks...and Barack Obama's parents.

[Smokey D]

The fact that money is created out of nothing by the Fed, constitutes debt and has interest charged on it, is also undisputed fact.

Not true at all. It's very disputed.

As for September 11th, well who knows what happened with that mess. The fact of the matter is that unverified, one sided information from the government leaves itself open to fair challenges from eye witnesses and scientists. The United States government does after all, have a long history of propaganda (both the world wars, control of the media in Iraq and Vietnam) and subversion and illegal operations conducted through the CIA. So do you just believe the official history because its what the government says (LoLz, Bush's "Mission Accomplished") even though nobody has investigated it?

The facts I was referring to, mainly, were the ones related to September 11. Most obviously, the idea that because steel melts at a temperature higher than jet fuel burns, the towers could not have collapsed is disingenuous because it ignores the fact that steel loses strength very rapidly as it heats up.

As for the idea that nobody has investigated the attacks is laughable.

[Sk0rpi0n]

Not true at all. It's very disputed.


Disputed by who? I've never run across any source (credible or not) proclaiming that money is backed up by anything accept confidence in it and how much is in circulation. Money is purely representative. Thus when you add money to an economy without a corresponding increase in resources (ie. Creating matter), money has been created from nothing and only receives value by leaching it form the rest of the money in the overall money supply. This isn't rocket science and its not fiction. Its simply hard fact.

As for the idea that nobody has investigated the attacks is laughable.

Your right to say this, it has obviously been investigated. The point I was alluding to though was that it has only been investigated by the government and a commission appointed by the government. Do you really think they investigated everything thoroughly and presented all facts accurately when their jobs, credibility and confidence in the nation was at stake? My point is thus that a bias existed, just as it exists with film makers.

[Smokey D]

Disputed by who? I've never run across any source (credible or not) proclaiming that money is backed up by anything accept confidence in it and how much is in circulation. Money is purely representative. Thus when you add money to an economy without a corresponding increase in resources (ie. Creating matter), money has been created from nothing and only receives value by leaching it form the rest of the money in the overall money supply. This isn't rocket science and its not fiction. Its simply hard fact.

For money to have any value at all, it must represent something. It cannot be representative of nothing. Accordingly, money isn't created out of nothing. I'd suggest that at least partially it's created out of growth. I'm sure the Fed prints too much money from time to time but it is outrageous to suggest that all the money "created by the Fed constitutes debt and the interest charged on it".

Your right to say this, it has obviously been investigated. The point I was alluding to though was that it has only been investigated by the government and a commission appointed by the government. Do you really think they investigated everything thoroughly and presented all facts accurately when their jobs, credibility and confidence in the nation was at stake? My point is thus that a bias existed, just as it exists with film makers.

You're going to have to prove or at least give evidence for that sort of bias. And I'm not just referring to the government or the 9/11 commission. There have been thousands of amateur sleuths and professional reports explaining how and why 9/11 happened. I suppose at a theoretical level it's possible to say that there is always room for bias and that we can't actually disprove it but at some point we have to make a judgment and the vast preponderance of evidence goes in favour, more or less, of the official story.

[Smokey D]

Disputed by who? I've never run across any source (credible or not) proclaiming that money is backed up by anything accept confidence in it and how much is in circulation. Money is purely representative. Thus when you add money to an economy without a corresponding increase in resources (ie. Creating matter), money has been created from nothing and only receives value by leaching it form the rest of the money in the overall money supply. This isn't rocket science and its not fiction. Its simply hard fact.

For money to have any value at all, it must represent something. It cannot be representative of nothing. Accordingly, money isn't created out of nothing. I'd suggest that at least partially it's created out of growth. I'm sure the Fed prints too much money from time to time but it is outrageous to suggest that all the money "created by the Fed constitutes debt and the interest charged on it".

Your right to say this, it has obviously been investigated. The point I was alluding to though was that it has only been investigated by the government and a commission appointed by the government. Do you really think they investigated everything thoroughly and presented all facts accurately when their jobs, credibility and confidence in the nation was at stake? My point is thus that a bias existed, just as it exists with film makers.

You're going to have to prove or at least give evidence for that sort of bias. And I'm not just referring to the government or the 9/11 commission. There have been thousands of amateur sleuths and professional reports explaining how and why 9/11 happened. I suppose at a theoretical level it's possible to say that there is always room for bias and that we can't actually disprove it but at some point we have to make a judgment and the vast preponderance of evidence goes in favour, more or less, of the official story.

[Iscariot]

Your right to say this, it has obviously been investigated. The point I was alluding to though was that it has only been investigated by the government and a commission appointed by the government. Do you really think they investigated everything thoroughly and presented all facts accurately when their jobs, credibility and confidence in the nation was at stake? My point is thus that a bias existed, just as it exists with film makers.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE...

but you can only find it if you're wearing one of these

http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg