The Zeitgeist Addendum is a movie produced by Peter Joseph. The movie is about how we are living in a primitive world. It talks about the Federal Reserve System in the United States, the CIA, corporate America, other government and financial institutions, and religion, concluding that they are all corrupt institutions detrimental to humanity and are in need of replacement.



Part I criticizes the practice of Fractional-reserve banking and the creation of money through loans. The film argues that dollar bills, to use its American example of central banking, are printed and the money supply is, therefore, increased when the Federal Reserve buys Treasury Bonds. This money ends up in commercial banks. Once that money becomes a reserve in banks it becomes "multiplied" through the Fractional-reserve system, and then loaned to customers. The film claims that such a system is "absurd" because the interest that must be paid for the money that was loaned does not exist; it was never created. The film compares this system to a game of musical chairs, in which a person will always be left out. This subject is also touched in the first Zeitgeist film.

Part II is a documentary style interview with John Perkins, in which he describes his role as a self-described economic hitman. In that capacity, he claims to have helped the CIA, as well as various corporate and political entities, to undermine or corrupt foreign regimes that put the interests of their populations before those of the transnational corporations.

Part III describes The Venus Project, a proposal created by Jacque Fresco. The film promotes the Venus Project as a sustainable solution for mankind on Earth. Its main goal is to produce a "resource-based economy" using modern technology to implement a society based on natural resource economics in opposition to the current model of artificial scarcity maintained by a monetary economy.

Part IV states that everything wrong with the US is "fundamentally the result of a collective ignorance of two of the most basic insights humans can have about reality; the 'emergent' and 'symbiotic' aspects of natural law."

The Venus project is a solution they offer when the World Economy fails. It was founded on the idea that poverty is caused by the stifling of progress in technology, which itself is caused by the present US's profit-driven economic system. The progression of technology, if it were carried on independent of its profitability, would make more resources available to more people. This new-found abundance of resources would reduce the human tendency toward independence, corruption, and greed, and instead make people more likely to help each other. Fundamental to the project is the elimination of the current money economy in favor of a resource-based economy.

From the perspective of the movie it claims that the United States along with most countries are corrupt. The movie states that in many cases the US has made political assassinations that are provoked because of the countries ruler simply wanting to charge more money on oil and use that money to help its people. The way the United States set up its economy will cause it to inevitably fail. In the beginning of the movie it talks about how government makes money out of thin air. This causes there to always be debt and to have more debt than there is money.

There are many ways to get clear energy, but big gasoline companies won't allow it. With today’s technology we could tap into geothermal energy and create enough energy for 4,000 years of clean and environmentally friendly energy. Another solution would be to use the stimulus plan purposed by Obama and invest in either solar energy which we would need a total of 3 states filled with solar panels to fuel 100% of America’s energy.

I won't continue to talk when you can watch the movie yourself. After you watch the movie reply stating whether you agree or disagree and why.

The Zeitgeist Addendum movie link
Downloadable version (I haven't tried it, but click on OFFICIAL "ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM" TORRENT)

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Jan 30 2009, 5:12 am by Morphling.

You could at least link us to the movie.
And where it says "DVD & Downloads", there is no link.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Edit: I posted too early.
But still, I'd rather rip and save the movie than watch it on Google and having to download it all over again. Direct Download anywhere?

Weither or not this movie is true or not (I belive it true), it should teach everyone some values.

Ive even seen non americans enjoy it.

Maybe I'm just a primitive, socialized human, but here's my thoughts on this:

I'm sure it does. If it doesn't recognize them, how can it possibly compare itself to them or assert its own superiority to them. Not to mention, it's a creed in itself.

Unity and equality seem like pretty decent things, most of the time. But are they really the best goal for everybody?

I agree that we have the ability to slow our progress (though that is rather vague, unless its meant soley in terms of technology). But why does it matter that they are out of line with nature? Computers aren't natural, but they're pretty beneficial.

I haven't watched the video, but this "natural path for unification" seems pretty unjustified, and these "fundamental and near empirical understandings" of how nature works seem like bull to me. First, it's not empirical if it's "near" empirical. Second, they might not be "fundamental" workings of nature. Why would this communal society be any better than a collective of autonomous individiuals, if they both produce the same results, for instance.

Outdated does not imply degenerative. The NES is outdated, but very productive in producing fun for me.

What intellectual irrelevancy? Institutions like government?

Good luck with revising the world society on all levels. Maybe I'm just conditioned to think this is nothing but a beefed-up-nice-version form of socialism. Also, if our society perpetuates these outdated systems, perhaps they are A). Not outdated, or B). there is some benefit to them.

I can't say much about this yet, haven't read about it.

Asserting that a sociey mirrored on nature is the best society is subjective to the premise that nature is superior to all else. Also, leaders often organize and educate, so be wary about this. (BRAINWASHING!!! AHH!!!)

It's not absurd, it's probability. If a bank has 1 million dollars in deposits that they owe to 10 people upon presentation of their bank note, it isn't very likely that all 10 people are going to claim their money at the same time (short of a disaster like the great depression), so the bank lends out say, 9 million dollars. If the probability is that only 1 person at a time will claim their funds, then the bank is fine (usually). If all 10 people claim their funds, there's obviously a problem, but it isn't absurd in any way, it's obvious and banks know this.

As for the CIA undermining corporate and political entities, I have no knowledge of this, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Sounds good. Where are they going to get an unlimited supply of resources from though? Perhaps there's some solution in the film, but there is a finite amount of material on planet earth. Technology hasn't solved everything yet.





Sounds like glorified nonsense to me. For example, I am not a symbiote. I depend on other people for other things, yes, but every adult human in nature, along with many other animals are designed to be able to function independantly. There are some that are designed to live with each other too, but there is no natural law that says "you must depend on others"

First, if technological advance were separated from profitability, we would require some other incentive to stimulate technological growth anyway. Extra resources does not imply less independence, corruption or greed, nor make people more likely to help each other. As for getting rid of money, what would they have instead? Go back to the barter system? John: "Hey bob, I'll trade you a cord of wood for thirty meals at your resturant." Bob: "What the hell am I going to do with a cord of wood?" John: "How about my iPod?" Bob: "okay sure" John: "damnit... now I need to get another Ipod" If John didn't have an Ipod, he'd have to trade his wood with someone who wanted it, an hope that whatever he got in the trade was something John would trade for food. In the money system, John can instead trade his wood for money then trade his money for John's food, since money is accepted for (just about) every good.


I agree that there is corruption within every country. Seems likely. However, I wouldn't agree that the entire country is corrupt. Political assassinations? Maybe, maybe not. And the U.S. economy inevitably failing? Already happened, it's called the great depression. Things break. I bet the zeitgeist system would inevitably fail too. So what do you do? Get up and fix it.


I would agree that big oil is probably putting a damper on clean energy, but they can't stop it. Even without these zeitgeisters we'll have more clean energy anyway. And 3 states full of solar panels to fuel 100% of our energy? 1). Which three states? Texas, Alaska, and California? Second, this is nonsense. Look at the calculations in the solar energy topic. Not saying solar sucks, just saying it's not the only solution.


Note: None of this post is intended to criticize Morphling in any way, if I accidentally used the pronoun "he" somewhere it is meant to refer to the authors of zeitgeist.

Stopped reading.

Eh. I essentially agree with Vrael here. This sounds a bit too bullshitty. Resource-based economy? Money's there for a reason, like Vrael's example demonstrates. I disagree with an entirely profit-based system like that the US advocates, but there are simpler solutions - having the state playing a larger role in the economy is one. If a government plays somewhat like a business, but without the sole goal being profit, it can invest in energy, hire scientists, etc. The source of money's all there, taxpayers. Governments have the capability to fill in what capitalism won't allow.

The banking system is essentially fine, l2p, just requires some government watching that the banks don't get too carried away. While there's less money owned then there's supposed to be, everyone usually gets their money out without a problem.

As for the CIA stuff, well, der. Although, I'll argue that it's not because of lack of transnational corporation profits but rather a general move to bolster the US. But, yes, it's a problem.


No, I didn't watch the movie.

You guys should watch the movie. It makes sense of what I’m saying and gives more details and more specifics.

In the video it explains all the questions. Money is created from debt is says in the video; even quoting one of the US's presidents.

What they are saying is that they don't need luck to change the way the world has done things. They believe that the United States' economy will fail (It is explained in the video) the rest of the worlds economy will fail and then they will need a plan to save our civilized world, i.e. The Venus Project.

A Resource based economy is when our technology is advanced enough to do all of our jobs for us, we don't work, and there is no money because there is no need for money. I hope it answers this. I think you'll just have to watch it. It is not just about changing the way the world works. It is also very informing; helping us understand what supposedly goes on inside our governments and our banks.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 30 2009, 8:07 pm by Morphling.

While thats a wierd life to live, its probably one of the few ways we could go to elimiate the wonderful conspriciy known as government

Dude, Morphling... I'm a 'conspiracy theorist' and even I know not to post that Video and its prequel and try to use it as solid debate material.

Dude, Kellimus... did you even read my post? I just wanted to know what people thought about it and why or why not they agree or disagree

No I didn't cause everyone who uses Zeitgeist 'is usually wrong'

But I agree with everything on it anyways.

The Federal Reserve is a joke, and one of the biggest lies America has pulled on the world.

Did Vrael seriously just say that equality isn't the best all the time?

Equal opportunities, but no, not equality.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 31 2009, 4:52 pm by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Removing response to deleted post

Thanks for defending my post, Centreri, but Anonymous actually hit the nail on the head. Yes, I said equality is not the best all the time. For example, I would not want a hardworking intelligent person to be equal with someone who is a bum, and slips by life by the skin of their teeth.

I do not think it reasonable to assume that our technology will ever be advanced enough to do all of our jobs for us (at least in the next few thousand years). Things break, for one. Another point, we would still need some modicum of transfer value. Money as we know it is not worth anything in itself, it is a measure of value of other things. It is our way to compare apples to oranges. I have 10 apples and you have 12 oranges. Well, who's stuff is worth more? You have more objects certainly, but if each of my apples is worth 1.5 times more than your oranges, yours isn't worth more is it? This is where money comes into play and says "Here is an objective standard of the value of your product against the value of all other products." When money is introduced, we can then say, my 10 apples are worth more than your 12 oranges because my 10 apples costs $15 and your twelve oranges costs $10. Unless this zeitgeist thing abolishes property rights altogether and institutes some other relationship between objects and humans, money will not fail to be useful, and for a peaceful society, necessary.

Economies have failed before, but so far mankind has done fine getting things rolling again. Fall of the roman empire, the black plague, the great depression, ect. I mean sure, it would be great to have a plan for that scenario, but it's not like the Venus Project is the be-all-and-end-all idea.

1). Money being created from debt does not negate the fact that centreri has pointed out "money's there for a reason"
2). Money is not created from debt. Money is created as a useful means of allowing mutually beneficial trade without the necessity of finding mutually beneficial products to trade, like in my example of the cord of wood and john's resturant meals.

Then explain why you agree.
The Federal Reserve isn't a joke, for one thing, secondly, explain why it is one of "the biggest lies America has pulled on the world." and how that relates to your opinion of the zeitgeist material.

No, not automatically. It's just something to be skeptical about.

There was plenty of substantiative material in the collapse box for me to speak about.

Well, the Federal Reserve establishes a Centralized bank that is ran on Debt. Everything America does is ran on Debt, due to the Federal Reserve and its elastic-economy. If you look at a dollar bill you can see, clear as day at the top: Federal Reserve Note.

A Note, in Economic terms, is a form of debt. Promissory Note, Bank Note, Federal Reserve Note and the like. Due to this elastic-economy, our dependancy on corporations and the stock market, and George H. W. Bush, Alan Greenspan and a few others, we're in our current economic mess.

I don't remember the discussion I had earlier today, but George Sr and Alan (along with the two or three other individuals that I have forgotten the names of) created 'exotics' in the economy that were sold throughout the world and thus has created the world economic crisis because these 'exotics' they dreamed up have no value, so nations around the world that purchased them and now want to cash in on them due to their maturity, cannot. Because they are worthless. Worth nothing. Don't worry, later today I will come back and name some of these 'exotics' off.

Now the Federal Reserve Notes if you look on them, state this: "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private", stating that that piece of paper can be used for legal tender. How can a piece of paper with value established on it (the monetary value the Federal Reserve has put on it), be legal tender, if there is no 'money' to back it up?

How is there any monetary value to this piece of paper, when the United States of America is trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt and the governments Central Bank is The Federal Reserve, which is the one printing off these Federal Reserve Notes?

Well, thinking about it with logic, and an understanding of what a Note in Economics is, you can clearly see that there is in fact, no money at all, and that the Federal Reserve gives us these Notes and thus passes 'debt' onto us.

I may work my whole life and get 'money' in the form of Federal Reserve Notes but how is it 'money' when its a form of debt given to me by The Federal Reserve and The Federal Reserve is trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt itself?

Wouldn't that mean that I am in debt to The Federal Reserve however much 'money' I have? Let us say, I have $500. Five, $100 Federal Reserve Notes.

How is there any value behind the $500 if there is no money in the first place? Would that not mean I am now indebted to The Federal Reserve because they loaned me $500 because it clearly states at the top of my five $100 bills, Federal Reserve Note, knowing that in Economics a Note is a form of debt owed?

That's why I state its the biggest lie the American Government has concocted, and its destroying the world economy in the process, right along with Bush Sr, Alan and the other's Economic 'exotics' that they have concocted.

Understand? And yes, I will come back with the names of some of these 'exotics' to help with understanding, later today.

What is it, you ask, that backs up money? Money is the standardized representation of all goods, services, working time, and all other things we value. Money, in and of itself, you are right, is a worthless piece of paper. You may be right in saying money is a form of debt, because it can represent a debt, but it is also a form of value. A Note, in economic terms, is a claim on a value, not necessarily a debt. If I have a note saying that I have 500 dollars in a bank, yes, the bank is indebted to me, but my Note is a value.

First, there IS 'money' to back it up. Your house, your computer, the ride on the ferris wheel at the amusement park, a cord of wood, a meal at a resturant, all these are "money" The reason these worthless scraps of paper are so useful is because as a socety we come together and say this:
"Not every item has a value to every person, and bartering the actual items we own for the actual items we need is very inefficient. So, we will all accept a single standard of "money" that has value in terms of every good and service, and since we do not need to waste time finding mutually beneficial trades, we can live a little easier and more efficiently by accepting this as a standard of the value of our possessions and time."

Because it is expected that those values which we owe to others will be given, in the form of money.

Wrong. There is definitely money (for example, what do you use to purchase things? certainly you don't trade your chickens), and the federal reserve passing these notes onto us is not passing debt onto us, but rather passing a note that says "you may trade this scrap of paper for any other good or service with equivelent value to X" It is in reality, passing value on to us.

No. That means the Federal reserve owes you the value of 5 $100 federal reserve notes.

Money is not the product of the Federal reserve alone, but rather the product of members of society coming together and creating a more efficient way to trade. The Federal reserve is not the only entity to provide "money"
For example, there is an island nation in the carribean where ownership of certain huge boulders is the means of money. These boulders sit in a field and never actually trade hands or move from their resting places. A large boulder does no one any good in terms of value, just like a scrap of paper, but it is accepted by the people who live there as a standard of value of all their other goods and services, and when they want to pay someone in boulders, they simply go to their rock and put the equivelent of a "joe owns this" on it.

Yes, I understand, but you don't really need the names of these exotics if you don't want.

You do realize that your signature on a loan when you get one, is a Promissory Note and the bank you're 'getting your loan from' monetizes your signature, and sells it off? Then makes you pay them for it even though its your own money that you created with your signature? They want to take YOUR MONEY, make you pay them the total of your money, plus interest? My father went to court against U.S. Bank over a semi-truck and he had the bank by the balls. He subpoenaed the bank and requested the Affidavit of Original Obligation (which would be the original color copy of the Promissory Note with his signature on it) and when the Bank's lawyer showed my fathers request, the banker went white. Why do you suppose that is? Well, after they take your signature and monetize it, they sell it off because they've created a value out of nothing. Its gone, vanished. They cannot get it back because its sold off so they can balance their budget to $0. ALL banks have to balance their budget to $0

To make a long story short, the bank lawyer tried having the judge sign paperwork that superseded a Bond of $40,000 that the judge told the bank they had to do. So the lawyer contacted my father and told him that the bank wanted to 'settle this out of court'. Why do you suppose that is?

Because they couldn't give the $40,000 bond to the courts, and would make them be in contempt of court.

Its late now, so i'll get back to The Federal Reserve stuff when I'm not tired.

Money is man's way of keeping score.

Perhaps we should open a new topic about money, but I will continue to reply here. Certainly your father's signerature on a loan to him means he is in the banks debt to repay that loan, but I wasn't talking about that in my previous post. I was talking about the actual federal reserve note: The Dollar. In the case of your father, that really has little to do with the existence of money, that sounds more like a case of bad accounting, or perhaps corruption, on the banks part. Banks especially should know that sort of thing. In any case, loans and interest are still a value which is standardized by the dollar, and they don't simply create a value out of nothing. The Note for 40,000 dollars has a value, and they sold it to someone else for that value presumably. However, that note says something like so: "this is the contract that the value given to your father by the bank shall be repaid, plus the value of interest as determined by the terms of the contract" Perhaps if you want to be utterly strict and technical, you have a case. The 40,000 dollars does not exist yet, so perhaps there is a value created out of "nothing." However, it is reasonably assumed that the person who owes the value will create that value over time and holder of the note will be repaid; just as reasonable as it is to assume that a man who works a steady job (or is in some other way qualified of the trust of repaying the note), and by steady job, I mean he exchanges the value of his time and effort for the standardized value of money, that that man will create value over time. In such a fashion it is reasonably assumed that the value of the note will be created, despite it not existing currently. This certainly supports the reasonableness and existence of money as a standardized value.

If you could do me a favor and reiterate the point(s) you are trying to support at the end of your argument, that would help me greatly for clarification. For instance, was this your thesis?

Judging by your reply, you don't understand how banks work... Any and every bank works on Fraud.. They create an open-ended contract (in a TRUE contract, both parties must sign. When you get a loan from a bank, they don't sign shit), get you to sign it without disclosing the full details and information of the contract (which is also illegal), monetize YOUR signature to create the value stated in the open-ended contract they've created and tricked you into signing to create a value from your signature, then sell it off to balance their budget to $0 because if they still have your monetized signature, they're in debt to YOU however much their open-ended contract states because YOU created the value from your signature. In my father's case the total amount of the loan he took out for the semi-truck (which was not $40,000 but the judge decreed the bank give a $40,000 to the court, as requested by my father) was the debt the bank owed TO him.

In order to understand this, you must understand how The Federal Reserve and its fiet money, works.

Now, to get back to this to explain in further detail how all banks are fraudulent entities:
How can there be 'money' if there is debt? Look at the National Debt. Over so many TRILLIONS of Dollars, right? OF DEBT. Now explain to me how there can be 'money' that has WORTH and VALUE, if it is backed up by DEBT?

You can't. You can try to rationalize it in any way, shape, or form, but it just doesn't work in the world of Economics. A debt-based society such as The United States of America, runs by making its citizens the collateral on which our system is backed up.

We're not backed by gold like they want you to think because if we were, we would not continue to print out paper money like it 'doesn't matter' and our inflation wouldn't be rising like it is because we would have to stop once we reached the max amount of gold we have.

So anyways, American Citizens are the collateral The Federal Reserve has so it can have its trillions of dollars of Debt. The way its fooled the American People into believing that we have money, is by its Federal Reserve Notes a.k.a The Dollar. If you look at the top of ANY 'dollar bill' you will see the words Federal Reserve Note.

Note in Economical terms, means: Form of debt. Or, a form of an IOU. Either way, it shows that you are indebted to someone/something. So if you have five $100 bills, you are indebted to The Federal Reserve $500 because you have five $100 Federal Reserve Notes that they have printed out and put out there.

Ever heard of a United States Note? Go research a bit about it and you'll see that THAT is what our country used to use as its 'dollar' back before the 1900's and the creation of the Federal Reserve BANK when the Gold and Silver standard went; Good-bye.

Now. With the knowledge of knowing that if you have a debt, there is no 'money', how can you continue to believe that the United States of America has 'money' when its Centralized BANK is TRILLIONS of dollars IN DEBT? It just doesn't work that way in Economics, and that's the way they want you to believe. Why do you think the World Economy is going to shit? Because we've fooled the world into believing a debt-based Economy can work.... But it CAN'T.

Now knowing that American Citizens are The Federal Reserve's collateral, how do you think the BANK/s get their money if there is in fact, no money?

By taking your signature (you, the collateral) and giving it value by monetizing it, and selling it off to someone in the US or someone in the World to balance their budget to $0.

You are collateral to The Federal Reserve (to the international bankers) by the way of your Social Security Number. That is how they know who you are, that's your 'bar-code' if you so wish to call it that. They don't know that I am in fact, Kelly Christensen. They know that I am 518-**-4**4 and that I am also KELLY CHRISTENSEN (My straw-man. Research about the straw-man [not the Logical Fallacy, mind you] and it ties in with all of this)

We are also protected under certain sections of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) that give us the 'Common Law' instead of Admiralty Law (which is what we are in fact under), the 'law of the sea'. Judges are also Magistrates.. REAL judges cannot give opinions, or even TALK while on the bench, they can only JUDGE. But does that stop these 'judges' in the court rooms? No. Because they are Magistrates, not true Judges.

Anyways does that help clarify anything? Sorry for the tangent there at the end about Magistrates, UCC, and our true rights

Just go and research some of the things I've stated and you should find some red-flags that are quite interesting.