Information on Zeitgeist: the Movement?
December 4, 2008 6:48 PM Subscribe
Zeitgeist: the movies versus the movement... objective thoughts?
I've just finished watching both the original Zeitgeist film on 9-11 and the addendum on corporatocracy and what we can do to fight the way our world is going... answer: The Venus Project.
I'm quite interested in the ideas of the Venus Project but am a little hesitant to give any personal information to them as I learn more from their website. Anyone heard of them or their political/social/economic doings?
I'm also interested in other current conspriracy theories on 9/11, our government, the CIA, etc. I'm on a bit of a kick at the moment thanks to "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"
Thanks!
I've just finished watching both the original Zeitgeist film on 9-11 and the addendum on corporatocracy and what we can do to fight the way our world is going... answer: The Venus Project.
I'm quite interested in the ideas of the Venus Project but am a little hesitant to give any personal information to them as I learn more from their website. Anyone heard of them or their political/social/economic doings?
I'm also interested in other current conspriracy theories on 9/11, our government, the CIA, etc. I'm on a bit of a kick at the moment thanks to "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"
Thanks!
Well, I would have to say that the first Zeitgeist covered more than just 9-11. The breakdown of Christianity as myth and the segment on the Federal Reserve system had equal parts. Though the film did throw in a couple of other stuff to seemingly marginalize the rest of the film. I feel that the left tends to shoot itself in the foot on this stuff, (and I am way left), instead of working on things that can be agreed upon. This is not to say that I feel the commision for 9-11 should not be re-opened; as there are some inconsistancies in the presented evidence. I thought Loose Change was more adept at it's presentation.
The systems society is working with is incredibly complex and vast, and it will take a lot of time and work to augment them. I find that indoctrinization is the first and hardest barrier when trying to form activist movements.
posted by captainsohler at 7:17 PM on December 4, 2008
The systems society is working with is incredibly complex and vast, and it will take a lot of time and work to augment them. I find that indoctrinization is the first and hardest barrier when trying to form activist movements.
posted by captainsohler at 7:17 PM on December 4, 2008
Best answer: Lucy Komissar takes up where hitman leaves off
Daniel Hopsicker's mad cow morning news cia dope 9-11 aviation
Dave Emory's new website spitfire,underground nazis spotted weekly.
Goro's etemenaki,multicontextual articles, deep rabbit hole
posted by hortense at 8:27 PM on December 4, 2008
Daniel Hopsicker's mad cow morning news cia dope 9-11 aviation
Dave Emory's new website spitfire,underground nazis spotted weekly.
Goro's etemenaki,multicontextual articles, deep rabbit hole
posted by hortense at 8:27 PM on December 4, 2008
Don't give them anything -- Zeitgeist and Addendum are filled with half-truths and double-speak, and the site about the Venus Project is complete hokum.
The website is clear: social change will only happen if the systems of society collapse, because see, the 1929 crash apparently brought about socialism. Marx, Engels, and Lenin might disagree on the timeline, though. Also, the Venus Project site states that people aren't well-enough informed to make a society that's rational. Don't worry, though -- Venus Project has all the answers!
Wait, isn't this how we got into this mess in the first place, by listening to people who tell us they have the answers?
What will bring about the collapse of the world's monetary systems is the infusion of automation and the outsourcing of jobs....Even the motion picture industry is generating computerized people who will replace many TV announcers and personalities.
We are? Jar-Jars everywhere and not a human in sight! "Good an' evening, meesa Jar-Jar, thisa Nightly News!"
Read and inform yourself and take in a variety of points of view, and if you're totally into the Zeitgeist thing, then amen, but don't expect that a monetary contribution will go anywhere other than to lining the pockets of the double-talker who wrote the website. Hey, everyone believes in something, but just because a belief system passes itself off as rational doesn't mean they're right. Scientology, after all, prides itself on just how rational it is.
My favorite gem:
One [possibility for raising funds] is through the production of a major motion picture depicting the advantages of this new social system for all of the world's people... a movie script...[has] already been completed. I want to see that script SO MUCH.
posted by incessant at 12:40 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
The website is clear: social change will only happen if the systems of society collapse, because see, the 1929 crash apparently brought about socialism. Marx, Engels, and Lenin might disagree on the timeline, though. Also, the Venus Project site states that people aren't well-enough informed to make a society that's rational. Don't worry, though -- Venus Project has all the answers!
Wait, isn't this how we got into this mess in the first place, by listening to people who tell us they have the answers?
What will bring about the collapse of the world's monetary systems is the infusion of automation and the outsourcing of jobs....Even the motion picture industry is generating computerized people who will replace many TV announcers and personalities.
We are? Jar-Jars everywhere and not a human in sight! "Good an' evening, meesa Jar-Jar, thisa Nightly News!"
Read and inform yourself and take in a variety of points of view, and if you're totally into the Zeitgeist thing, then amen, but don't expect that a monetary contribution will go anywhere other than to lining the pockets of the double-talker who wrote the website. Hey, everyone believes in something, but just because a belief system passes itself off as rational doesn't mean they're right. Scientology, after all, prides itself on just how rational it is.
My favorite gem:
One [possibility for raising funds] is through the production of a major motion picture depicting the advantages of this new social system for all of the world's people... a movie script...[has] already been completed. I want to see that script SO MUCH.
posted by incessant at 12:40 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
Just in case you haven't seen it, here's a link to the newest movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum.
Enjoy!
posted by willmize at 4:11 AM on December 5, 2008
Enjoy!
posted by willmize at 4:11 AM on December 5, 2008
I'm with incessant. It would be a huge mistake to give some crackpots your money.
posted by Nattie at 6:28 AM on December 5, 2008
posted by Nattie at 6:28 AM on December 5, 2008
I haven't seen the first Zeitgeist, but I saw Addendum. As the movie progressed I alternated between thinking "Jeez, this is disturbing and enlightening" to "Um, this sounds kind of dubious" to "Okay, these guys are batshit." It's an interesting idea but, in my opinion, completely unrealistic and deliberately presented in a way to get as many readers of Digg fist-pumping as possible. If it were me I wouldn't give them any money.
posted by kryptondog at 6:44 AM on December 5, 2008
posted by kryptondog at 6:44 AM on December 5, 2008
Best answer: I watched the first one. Two friends separately tried to convince me to watch the Addendum. Hearing that stupid, conspiratorial narrator, I was closing the window within the minute.
The Jesus mythicist portion of the first movie interested me the most. What I found was that their premise was largely based on the work of Acharya S (AKA Dorothy Murdoch), an author who relies on outdated research and deliberately mistakes superficial similarities (similarities established through her particular description of something, mind you) for direct connections, to push her new age views. (Full disclosure: I'm an atheist with no spiritual leanings whatever, and don't think there's sufficient evidence to claim Jesus was a historical person.)
I can't speak for the other portions, since I'm neither an engineer, nor an economist. I would not, however, under any circumstances, send these people money.
posted by evil holiday magic at 8:24 AM on December 5, 2008
The Jesus mythicist portion of the first movie interested me the most. What I found was that their premise was largely based on the work of Acharya S (AKA Dorothy Murdoch), an author who relies on outdated research and deliberately mistakes superficial similarities (similarities established through her particular description of something, mind you) for direct connections, to push her new age views. (Full disclosure: I'm an atheist with no spiritual leanings whatever, and don't think there's sufficient evidence to claim Jesus was a historical person.)
I can't speak for the other portions, since I'm neither an engineer, nor an economist. I would not, however, under any circumstances, send these people money.
posted by evil holiday magic at 8:24 AM on December 5, 2008
Best answer: Popular Mechanics takes down the 9/11 conspiracy theorists point-by-point.
posted by mattholomew at 10:30 AM on December 5, 2008
posted by mattholomew at 10:30 AM on December 5, 2008
The whole thing is just bizarre. I too tried to watch the first one but turned it off after fifteen minutes. They were obviously making frivolous connections out of nothing.
I skimmed their 74 page document. I saw unconnected ranting about environment, capitalism, technology, class and poverty. Then bizarrely I saw a bunch of retro-futurist drawings of space age structures (floating cities? man made islands?) and weird ideas about AI and nanotechnology (industry controlled by computers? the computers decide what gets made?).
Let's look closer at what they advocate from their FAQ.
"If we wish to end war, crime, hunger, poverty, territorial disputes, and nationalism, we must work toward a future in which all resources are accepted as the common heritage of all people. "
What if some people believe the resources belong to them and not to everybody? Shouldn't resources belong to the local cultures that live there? How do you expect to get the entire world to go along with this? What if resource-rich areas don't want to subsidize resource-poor areas; can you make them?
"What is needed is the intelligent management of Earth's resources for the benefit of all and protection of the environment."
Who manages the resources? How are they chosen? Can resources even be intelligently managed, given the complexity of Earth's ecosystems? Who decides what is to the benefit of all? What if there aren't enough resources to benefit everybody, but only a few people? What if this benefit conflicts with the protection of the environment?
I could go on, but there's no need. The whole thing is really shallow and simplistic; the impression I get is that of a lot of daydreaming and fantasy and very little in the way of realistic, pragmatic planning. In fact it is difficult to articulate exactly what this project is going to accomplish and how. It makes me really curious, actually, as to who is funding this project and what their actual motives are.
posted by PercussivePaul at 11:28 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
I skimmed their 74 page document. I saw unconnected ranting about environment, capitalism, technology, class and poverty. Then bizarrely I saw a bunch of retro-futurist drawings of space age structures (floating cities? man made islands?) and weird ideas about AI and nanotechnology (industry controlled by computers? the computers decide what gets made?).
Let's look closer at what they advocate from their FAQ.
"If we wish to end war, crime, hunger, poverty, territorial disputes, and nationalism, we must work toward a future in which all resources are accepted as the common heritage of all people. "
What if some people believe the resources belong to them and not to everybody? Shouldn't resources belong to the local cultures that live there? How do you expect to get the entire world to go along with this? What if resource-rich areas don't want to subsidize resource-poor areas; can you make them?
"What is needed is the intelligent management of Earth's resources for the benefit of all and protection of the environment."
Who manages the resources? How are they chosen? Can resources even be intelligently managed, given the complexity of Earth's ecosystems? Who decides what is to the benefit of all? What if there aren't enough resources to benefit everybody, but only a few people? What if this benefit conflicts with the protection of the environment?
I could go on, but there's no need. The whole thing is really shallow and simplistic; the impression I get is that of a lot of daydreaming and fantasy and very little in the way of realistic, pragmatic planning. In fact it is difficult to articulate exactly what this project is going to accomplish and how. It makes me really curious, actually, as to who is funding this project and what their actual motives are.
posted by PercussivePaul at 11:28 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wikiepedia articles on The Venus Project and Jacque Fresco
That explains the bizarre retro-futurism and talk about computers making decisions for society; the Venus Project was born in the 1970s when such ideas were in fashion. The whole resource economics thing makes a little more sense to me now but I remain a little wary and baffled about this whole thing.
posted by PercussivePaul at 11:40 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
That explains the bizarre retro-futurism and talk about computers making decisions for society; the Venus Project was born in the 1970s when such ideas were in fashion. The whole resource economics thing makes a little more sense to me now but I remain a little wary and baffled about this whole thing.
posted by PercussivePaul at 11:40 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]
Just watched the Addendum at my friend's place last night. The Economic Hitman interview was quite good, but pretty much all the CG / spooky narrator sections were hokey nonsense. Exercise skepticism!
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 12:12 AM on December 6, 2008
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 12:12 AM on December 6, 2008
Wasn't the Venus Project up for sale? ah yes, previously.
posted by tallus at 3:08 AM on December 6, 2008
posted by tallus at 3:08 AM on December 6, 2008
« Older Is the british property market totally dead? | I can't help him if he doesn't want to help... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by proj at 7:16 PM on December 4, 2008