Zeitgeist Addendum

[balaclava]

Yesterday I was asked to watch avido clip - Zeitgeist Addendum by Peter Joseph. I am sure lots of you have watched this stuff and I am sure some of you subscribe to his theories. For my part I hung in there as long as I could until it became apparent what was happening (in my opinion). What he does is produce an image of a person or a concept e.g globalisation and then follow with pictures showing Wall Street and then of a brown skinned starving child i.e. the image reinforces his suggestion that globalisation is driven by Wall Street (capitalists) and causes starvation amongst the disadvantaged. Another example was, America spends ‘big’ money on counter terrorism and ‘small’ money on health care and more people die from eating peanuts that from terrorism i.e. innocent peanuts cause lots of death so these Muslims causing few deaths must be a lesser threat than innocent peanuts.

My question is this: is there a name for this type of argument i.e. an argument where someone links an image of something universally accepted as bad with the thing they want to demonise?

[Revolution starts with U]

Poisoning the well, fallacy of equivocation, or propaganda. I would consider it any of those three, and it could probably be related to more fallacy than just that.
My question is; why do you instrinsically think "I am sure lots of you have watched this stuff and I am sure some of you subscribe to his theories?"
It seems to me you are possessive of the same fallacies as the author of zeitgeist.

[balaclava]

"I am sure lots of you have watched this stuff and I am sure some of you subscribe to his theories?"
It seems to me you are possessive of the same fallacies as the author of zeitgeist.

Fair comment – I could be wrong. I formed the view that Peter Joseph was promoting some form anarchist linked left wing system / ideology and if that is correct that his stuff would have been read and found some ‘support’ amongst some members of this forum but I could be wrong on all counts. :crying:

Also, although I have not spent much time looking at the stuff he’s produced a lot of it seems to be ‘conspiracy’ theories and I’ve seen a few posts here that tend towards that genre. But again, I could be wrong.

[danyboy27]

i think its just sad to see that even today, one of the most popular sales pitch the left use is that moralistic approach that capitalism kill children in africa beccause of the inequality it create.

Of course this is serious matter, but by completely focusing on the moral approach of the left, they are completely overshadowing the real reason why leftism should be promoted: rationalism and stability.

[Glenn-Beck]

Quite a confused propaganda video in my opinion.

[Revolution starts with U]

Fair comment – I could be wrong. I formed the view that Peter Joseph was promoting some form anarchist linked left wing system / ideology and if that is correct that his stuff would have been read and found some ‘support’ amongst some members of this forum but I could be wrong on all counts. :crying:

I'm sure some people do. But if it were any sizeable population you would see more information on the venus project; which is more of technocracy than socialism. You're also probably not going to see a lot of marxists, because he rejects discussion of class as a seperatist measure akin to nationalism or racism.
Actually, it doesn't touch on the nature of private ownership of production at all, so, once again, I have no idea why you would assume their would be many proponents of it on this site.


Also, although I have not spent much time looking at the stuff he’s produced a lot of it seems to be ‘conspiracy’ theories and I’ve seen a few posts here that tend towards that genre. But again, I could be wrong.
[/QUOTE]
If it happened in politics, it was planned ~ FDR
Rich men rarely meet with each other except to form a conspiracy against the poeple ~ Adam Smith

Most of history was conspiratorial power grabs by elites. Why do you assume it just stopped 200 years ago?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Zeitgeist Addendum was an OK non-Marxist critique of the capitalist price system, but I thought it was spoiled by the authors' attempt to appeal to the conspiratorial mindset. The problem is ultimately systemic - that was something Marx got right.

I haven't seen it, but by almost all accounts I see the original film was a steaming pile of crap. :rolleyes:

[ckaihatsu]

I started watching some of Zeitgeist III but had to stop because its entire line consists of the whining of asset owners over the shrinking value of their holdings, thanks to the prevailing monetary policy that sides with trying to jump-start the engine of the economy by pumping the gas pedal over and over. Needless to say the engine has long since been flooded.


I finished watching Zeitgeist Addendum. No one can fault any of its content on any *factual* grounds, but from a (revolutionary) political standpoint it's like a rearguard action that picks up the lower-level slack we may not necessarily get to ourselves. In this way it's valuable but not necessarily topical or cutting-edge. I noted a couple of improvements over its predecessors -- it seemed more squarely against profit itself and it also left Ron Paul by the wayside. In its denunciation of (bourgeois) government and economics fundamentals it seems to be on the verge of some kind of anti-reformism -- a good thing, though limited in scope and focus.

[Dimentio]

The main question is why TZM is a rapidly growing movement, while traditional left-wing movements for the most are stagnant or in a state of decline.

[Glenn-Beck]

I think Zeitgeist appeals to the more non intellectual or anti intellectuals who need an enemy to fight as presented in the conspiracy parts of Zeitgeist; evil international bankers, fed reserve conspiracies and the old right wing CFR, bilderberg, trilateral commission, bohemian grove, rockefeller, morgan, rothschild villians etc.

Strangely enough, the left wing and the lunatic right wing share the same enemies, the same villians.

[ckaihatsu]

Strangely enough, the left wing and the lunatic right wing share the same enemies, the same villians.


To be precise, I think of them as 'left nationalists' -- just left-of-center, and decidedly to the right of liberals.

[Glenn-Beck]

To be precise, I think of them as 'left nationalists' -- just left-of-center, and decidedly to the right of liberals.

what about Alex Jones?

[ckaihatsu]

what about Alex Jones?


Keep in mind that they're all exposé-oriented -- we might call them "nationalist reformists".... And -- right-of-center are the "national security" and neoconservative types....

[RGacky3]

Alex Jones and people like him are people smart enough to know things arn't right and are smart enough to know that we don't live in a democratic or really a free society, but hav'nt figured out that this is just a basic outcome of the capitalist system.

So because they buy the standared propeganda line that Capitalism is just and good and markets work for everyone, so because thats out the window they have to come up with something, so they have to come up with some conspiracy, like they come up with some secret high global elite that meet in secret and plan things out.

Thats why the US used countil pro and the patriot act to target groups like the black panthers, peace groups, immigrant groups, leftist groups, radical unions, progressive groups and so on, but they don't give a rats ass about these conspiracy nuts, because who cares, let them fight their secret non existant shadow government.

Sam Seder has it COMPLETELY right.

A_mAqLX0xoc

[Dimentio]

Alex Jones and people like him are people smart enough to know things arn't right and are smart enough to know that we don't live in a democratic or really a free society, but hav'nt figured out that this is just a basic outcome of the capitalist system.

So because they buy the standared propeganda line that Capitalism is just and good and markets work for everyone, so because thats out the window they have to come up with something, so they have to come up with some conspiracy, like they come up with some secret high global elite that meet in secret and plan things out.

Thats why the US used countil pro and the patriot act to target groups like the black panthers, peace groups, immigrant groups, leftist groups, radical unions, progressive groups and so on, but they don't give a rats ass about these conspiracy nuts, because who cares, let them fight their secret non existant shadow government.


And what about the TZM? They are hardly rightist.

[RGacky3]

I did'nt call them rightist, I said they don't understand the way capitalism works.

As for as the TZM, its the same story kind of, were the wars faught mainly for economic power? mostly yes, either directly or indirectly (i.e. to establish hedgemony), do high end bankers and corporate executives ultimately control the world economy? Yes

Is this some conspiracy to rule the world? No its to make money and they do that through control and exploitation.

They also (because they don't understand the way capitalism works) put the blame on the Fed, which is like trying to blame airplane manufactures for bombing deaths, the Fed is a tool of the ruling class it is not the ruling class.

Again they have various facts and good ideas, but because they dont' get how capitalism works and because they've bought into the propegated idea that markets are just and rational, they hvae to come up with wild conspiracy theories.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Again they have various facts and good ideas, but because they dont' get how capitalism works and because they've bought into the propegated idea that markets are just and rational, they hvae to come up with wild conspiracy theories.

Actually the impression I got from watching ZA was that the market was not rational because it's intimately tied into a money system that the film spent most of its time dissecting the flaws of.

[Dimentio]

I did'nt call them rightist, I said they don't understand the way capitalism works.

As for as the TZM, its the same story kind of, were the wars faught mainly for economic power? mostly yes, either directly or indirectly (i.e. to establish hedgemony), do high end bankers and corporate executives ultimately control the world economy? Yes

Is this some conspiracy to rule the world? No its to make money and they do that through control and exploitation.

They also (because they don't understand the way capitalism works) put the blame on the Fed, which is like trying to blame airplane manufactures for bombing deaths, the Fed is a tool of the ruling class it is not the ruling class.

Again they have various facts and good ideas, but because they dont' get how capitalism works and because they've bought into the propegated idea that markets are just and rational, they hvae to come up with wild conspiracy theories.

There are several reasons to criticise the Zeitgeist Movement, but watch Zeitgeist Addendum before criticising it.

[RGacky3]

Ok, I was just going based on what some people have told me about it, i.e. them explaining it to me.

[Dimentio]

Zeitgeist Addendum actually explains both imperialism and capitalism, though with non-marxist terminologies

[Glenn-Beck]

Zeitgeist Addendum actually explains both imperialism and capitalism, though with non-marxist terminologies

I think this shows that anti imperialist and anti capitalist ideologies do have a market among the youth. It's just that terms like "socialism", "marxism" etc have a certain negative baggage with it that some people have a knee jerk reaction to avoid.

But if you sell marxist ideology with a minimum of marxist language, people will and do buy into that message.


And when people like us go and reveal to some of these zeitgeist followers that their ideology actually contains left wing, socialist ideas, they will feel shocked.:rolleyes:

[ckaihatsu]

Zeitgeist Addendum actually explains both imperialism and capitalism, though with non-marxist terminologies


It tends to only focus on money supply, though, and then only from the side of *equity* capital -- and certainly it doesn't go anywhere near the concept of surplus labor value. (See attached, below.)





The problem with market socialism [like capitalism] across-the-board is that it unavoidably re-introduces the dynamic of counterposed economic factions of capital. By releasing market forces you're setting up a side of capital ownership that has interests in a *looser* money supply (equity), against the *other* side of capital ownership that has interests in a *tighter* money supply (rentier).


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://postimage.org/image/1bygthl38/

[Die Neue Zeit]

The main question is why TZM is a rapidly growing movement, while traditional left-wing movements for the most are stagnant or in a state of decline.

Try this reply post of mine:


But there are cabals which the class-strugglist left should take advantage of in upping their agitation: Chambers of Commerce, Federations of Small Businesses, etc. Portraying them as cabals can be more effective than anti-lobbyist populism.

Political education on steroids should go beyond SPGB-style discussions (Renaissance education comes to mind for political programs), and organization on steroids should emulate the SPD model. Agitation on steroids, however, may have to be not be above class-based conspiracy theories in appealing even to the most backward sections of the working class. Resentment towards these strategic lobbyist organizations of the propertied classes - and their funders and "fellow travellers" - by the most backward sections of the working class would then be comparable to identity scapegoating (think "Protocols of the Chambers of Commerce and Federations of Small Businesses"):

One Born Every Minute: Blog on Agitation and Demagogues (http://www.revleft.com/vb/one-born-every-t144497/index.html)

[ed miliband]

The main question is why TZM is a rapidly growing movement, while traditional left-wing movements for the most are stagnant or in a state of decline.

I don't think this is even remotely true for Europe, though it may be the case in the States.

Actually, to qualify that: "traditional left-wing movements" are in decline, but they are not being replaced by 'TZM'.

[Dimentio]

No, they are not being replaced. My studies indicate that Zeitgeist activists do not tend to have any previous activist experience, or for that matter any deeper interest for social issues.

In general, left-wing activists have an extensive activist background and university education, while Zeitgeist activists have an extensive background looking for videos on youtube.