Zeitgeist: Addendum
The movie is split into several parts, each dealing with a slightly different subject, but maintaining a single focus around social movement. It essentially advocates a post-monetary, neo-anarchist society, which is quite admirable, though a little naïve. The introduction focuses around the nature of a fiat monetary system (where the value of money is backed by the belief in the value of money, our current system), and the nature of indebtedness. Though in most respects the discussion is technically correct, it does itself injustice by omission. While it does discuss the nature of fractional reserve banking and money creation, is completely ignores the value-added nature of refining and manufacturing, as well as the entire resource-extraction sector (though the film does spend quite a bit of time discussing a resource-based economy). While it is true that the main of money creation is done in this fashion, any critical observer will note this discrepancy and question all that follows. And there’s a lot to question.
To start with, what else is being left out? When the narrator references “some who say”, who exactly is being referenced? In some cases, it happens to be political demagogues who are already a target, while in others the “they” references are scientists and sociologists, people the narrator purportedly supports, who simply hold a differing view or have been lead to conclusions by their own data that do not support the narrator’s perspective. A great deal of time is also spent discussing the failures of the World Bank and the IMF - without discussing their successes.
A good third of the film is devoted to one man, a so-called “economic hitman”. And while the arguments he makes - along the lines that U.S. corporations and their CEOs and leaders have been seeking empire through economic conquest - seem convincing at first, they are supported by neither evidence nor fact. To the critical eye, his charge that the U.S. army and the CIA have been cow-towing to corporate interests for decades come up as the fanatical ranting of a paranoid lunatic. And noticing this, he sets the stage poorly for what follows.
The next section of the film is devoted to the work of the Venus Project - something I’ve heard of, but not enough to really speak to. Their mission runs somewhere along the lines of freeing humanity from the problems of scarcity, and hoping for what will come after. Believing that the main of human social ills are conditionally based, i.e. theft and war are caused by lack of resources in the micro and macro, they seek to save the world by finding a way to provide enough of everything. In other areas, they’re working on designing and engineering our way out of the need for fossil fuels (not a bad idea at all), and there seemed to be a lot of drawings of buildings well adapted to solar and geothermal. The problem is in the presentation: of what I imagine were quite lengthy interviews, the film focuses almost exclusively on the anti-capitalist, anti-establishment views of one old man, giving screen time to his inferred associate only when she’s supporting him, neither of whose identities are particularly discussed. It really only serves to reaffirm the notion that these people are wingnuts.
Over the course of the film, the narrator uses language that could be, at best, described as combative. Beginning with the definition of terms, where “corrupt” is broadly taken to mean any activity associated with self-advancement, and continuing on with a general denouncement of all of modern society with corruption. The speakers and guests are, I suspect, carefully edited to make the filmmakers’ point, and only their point, with no hint of relativism or compassion for the current society, and often interspersed with the narrator pronouncing this or that as “corrupt”. While there are several valid points to be made, this constant repetition makes the film seems like a Rage song without the killer guitar riffs. On the same note, the visuals aren’t any better. I could generously describe them as being cheesy, but the symbolism…..it isn’t really symbolism. Symbolism implies they’re being subtle in any way, which they aren’t.
Anyway, bottom line: interesting to see how others think, and there’s even a few good ideas in here, ripe for the cherry picking. But if you’re going to watch this, take a critical eye and a block of salt with you. They’re convincing, but that doesn’t mean they’re not crazy.