Zeitgeist: Addendum
October 20th, 2008I finally watched the second Zeitgeist movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum.
The first 64 minutes are pretty good, as it relates to money creation. This portion of the film is really just a presentation of the Web of Debt.
At 65 minutes in, however, we lose cabin pressure and the film devolves into a techno utopian, cybernetic socialism circle jerk.
Frankly, I won’t waste my (or your) time by going through the problems with this in much detail. In short, by focusing on an outlandish utopian vision for the future, the film leads viewers down a dead end path of domed cities and flying cars. Oh sure, the machines will do everything for us, feed us, clothe us. There will be no politics. No wants. No worries. Etc. Etc. You get the picture.
If the filmmaker was genuinely interested in promoting a resource based system of abundance, why didn’t he interview Bill Mollison?
Mollison’s permaculture has a decades long track record of providing abundance for people around the world. Jacque Fresco’s “abundance” exists in tabletop models and computer animations.
In summary, there’s some good material about money creation and clean energy systems (which most of you know about already), but it’s mixed up with a bunch of technocommunist rat poison.
Great analysis.
Zeitgeist II: Addendum is Theosophical Society – Madame Blavatsky – NWO cult propaganda. . .The Venus Project with everyone riding around on their unicorns crashing into rainbows.
WRT “technocommunist rat-poison”:
I probably tack more to the political/ economic left than most regular commentors (IOW, I don’t think socialism is necessarily bad, even though it has had some pretty toxic permutations in the form of statist communism), but I’m pretty cynical about the whole “technology will save us” schtick. Kevin’s many posts here about the latest experimental generation of alternative energy technologies has put me on the fence on whether or not technological society will be salvaged (I used to be of the Jan Lundberg “sudden-fast-total-crash-then-die-off” school). But I still tend to think that if future humans live in a technological civilization ala John Michael Greer’s “Ecotechnic Society”, the average person’s life will be a lot less saturated with technology than is the case for the average person in the English-speaking world in 2008. So while we might be able to save technology, I think it’s terribly misguided to cleave to the mindset that technology will save us.
Finally watched this, and you nailed it. The part about money, inherent corruption, etc, was great, but the “Venus Project” seemed naive at best. Oh, well.