Who the fuck are Zeitgeist Movement?

236 posts / 0 new
Last post
Apfelstrudel's picture
Apfelstrudel
Offline
Joined: 29-07-11
Aug 5 2011 23:32

Arbeiten,

Swede here, we get our minimum wage from union negotiations and not a state law.
Infact the SAC-Syndicalists where booted out of IWA partialy because they accepted a minimum wage. At least I think so... But lets not get into that.... smile I am facing libertarian arguments, anyway.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Aug 6 2011 14:14

Yeah, but what I meant was, at this moment in time (in the context of your argument with the libertarian), you have met this guy on a level playing field (you both agree with the wage system). I think you should also aim to circumvent this common ground by critiquing wage-slavery (may be you have done this also? I don't know!?).

SlipperySlope
Offline
Joined: 21-08-11
Aug 22 2011 00:37

Thank you Apfelstrudel for bringing some balanced views to this thread. I've just read through the entire thing and now I feel I have to say how I got here.

I think of myself as an intelligent, well educated and reasonably well read 35 year old guy. Even so, I only found out what anarchy meant (beyond being a synonym for mayhem) about 2 months ago- something that I'm quite embarrassed about. My discovery came about as I was discussing Zeitgeist: Moving Forward with someone who then suggested that I was an anarchist. This then took me to the internet, where I found out that my views were essentially anarchist communist. I believe the film is in essence anarchist communist and not promoting technocracy. Still...I didn't know what Anarchism was until 2 months ago, so what do I know?!

Anyway, I'm off to join an anarchist group..... and I hope that many of you can appreciate that the Zeitgeist films (at least the last two!) can open people's imaginations, enlighten them to the immorality and inefficiency of capitalism and the possibility of a completely different existence.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Oct 31 2011 13:04

http://ssy.org.uk/2010/06/shitegeist/ & http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5431

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Oct 31 2011 14:42

Discredited by the sheer mentalness of this particular blogger. Dangerous, idiotic, unbalanced tankie.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Oct 31 2011 15:17

Yeah Socialist Unity* is a particularly big puddle of shite. It is funny that it has taken the occupy movement for the socialists to realise that Zeitgeist might be problematic....

*does anyone know about the jeremiah duggan thing that is mentioned on this blog. I have read about it before but always assumed it was conspiracy on top of conspiracy.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Oct 31 2011 15:34

I know that SU is pretty stalinoid but they (or he) occasionally bring some good articles ... the one about the Zeitgeist weirdos is btw more than one year old

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Oct 31 2011 15:36

woops embarrassed

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Oct 31 2011 18:04

http://thethirdestate.net/2010/03/zeitgeist-exposed/

props to raw for this one

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Oct 31 2011 21:03
cantdocartwheels wrote:
http://thethirdestate.net/2010/03/zeitgeist-exposed/

props to raw for this one

Besides the NWO communist one world government banker (Jew) thing I think there's also a truck load of theoretical (as in the path to and plans of Technocracy) bullshit to sift through as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Oct 31 2011 21:14
Apfelstrudel wrote:
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/57732/brave-new-world/

An otherwise very critical article that even makes accusations of antisemitism, it however states that "Born to a Sephardic Jewish family in Harlem in 1917, Fresco moved to Los Angeles after World War II."

Also, he grew up in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn (a neighborhood with many jewish immigrants at the time) , and Fresco is a Sephardic name... and according to his wiki, his mother was from Jerusalem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco#Personal_Life_and_Family
(includes a source to a consensus from the Department of Commerce if you don't trust wiki)

Satisfied, or do I need to google some more? :)

So was Adam Czerniakow...and guess what...he was an ENGINEER!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Czerniak%C3%B3w

There's definitely something going on here with those pesky engineers.

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Oct 31 2011 23:53
cantdocartwheels wrote:
http://thethirdestate.net/2010/03/zeitgeist-exposed/

props to raw for this one

Raw isn't the person who wrote this right? Cos I know the person who did and it would be fucking wierd if they were also libcom's Raw.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 1 2011 11:06

No it's a dude in Bloomsbury Fightback I think.

Ambrose's picture
Ambrose
Offline
Joined: 21-10-11
Dec 9 2011 15:58

I've read a few pages of this thread and am a little surprised at the hostility. Almost like a bunch of kids are trying their best not to acknowledge someone's existence.

That said, 9/11 is extremely questionable in how it happened. The way the Bush Adm. had denied ever having thought of the possibility of a plane impact (there have been practice scenarios of such a thing happening within our military), the actual collapse of the towers and the fact they were built to withstand multiple plane impacts, etc.

There are also declassified documents of previous false-flag terrorist attacks (Operation Northwoods which was scrapped by Kennedy).

As anarchists, this only helps our cause. So their technocrats big deal, not a whole lot of people take their solution seriously anyway. PJ has become quite authoritarian in the meantime and has turned the movement into a corporation.

I've actually read the threads in their forum, extremely varied beliefs to say the least. I've seen people who claim to be Zmembers and say monetarism was okay, extremely religious folks, it goes on. It was something for people to grasp onto.

I never noticed anti-semitism in their movies, just seemed to me they were attacking the monetary/market paradigm. I didn't really look for any of that thought tbh.

Their religious arguments are not unfounded. There is evidence and it's apparent to me that Christianity would incorporate Pagan elements into their doctrine as well as "borrow" older concepts. It's not an original theology, Jesus isn't real and the bible was likely a politically developed doctrine. Christians appeared as a political force in Rome a hundred or a few hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus. Now you'd think his ascension which Christians claim all could see would have made conversion instant right?

While their solution to the worlds issues isn't very... realistic, it's easy for the average person to watch the films and understand the world isn't a happy, wonderful place and there's a lot more to reality than what they want to believe.

Toms's picture
Toms
Offline
Joined: 16-05-10
Dec 9 2011 16:10
Ambrose wrote:
ITheir religious arguments are not unfounded. There is evidence and it's apparent to me that Christianity would incorporate Pagan elements into their doctrine as well as "borrow" older concepts.

Every religion does that in order to make the conversion smoother and easier to gain followers, etc, but to present those kinds of things and make loose connections with other and then present everything in a nice little package of global conspiracy helps nothing.

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Dec 9 2011 16:31

I don't agree with what Ambrose is saying. I contributed quite vehemently and at times perhaps a little harshly to this thread when I first joined libcom.org. I actually discovered libcom through trying to find out critiques of the Zeitgeist movement to help me argue with a friend of mine who had become a member. I was pretty exigent with him as I was with people on this site and I ended up falling out with him. We didn't speak for ages; as long as six months. Since then we have met up twice to discuss politics and each time his ideas have changed dramatically. To the point that last night we met up and he basically told me that a lot of people now find the 'Venus Project' side of things rather sinister and secretive, and technocratic. All of the critics we have mentioned in this thread. He then said that he now basically identified as an anarchist due in part to some anarchist lit (including Graeber's book on debt) I put him on to, our debates and his own reading. Moreover, he said that most Zeitgeisters who were inspired by the films were now either going in this direction or down typical Leftist reformist attitudes (something he now critiques people for). The change in him and his politics was really satisfying and I felt that my arguments with him had really helped. All this made me think that you really shouldn't give an inch when you have a coherent critique of something like the Zeitgeist movement. It is worth being brutal about the flaws in something even if people who identify with it strongly feel that they are being attacked by extension. Argumentation matters, being honest matters. It can effect a change.

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Dec 9 2011 17:12
Ambrose wrote:
I've read a few pages of this thread and am a little surprised at the hostility. Almost like a bunch of kids are trying their best not to acknowledge someone's existence.

That said, 9/11 is extremely questionable in how it happened. The way the Bush Adm. had denied ever having thought of the possibility of a plane impact (there have been practice scenarios of such a thing happening within our military), the actual collapse of the towers and the fact they were built to withstand multiple plane impacts, etc.

There are also declassified documents of previous false-flag terrorist attacks (Operation Northwoods which was scrapped by Kennedy).

As anarchists, this only helps our cause. So their technocrats big deal, not a whole lot of people take their solution seriously anyway. PJ has become quite authoritarian in the meantime and has turned the movement into a corporation.

I've actually read the threads in their forum, extremely varied beliefs to say the least. I've seen people who claim to be Zmembers and say monetarism was okay, extremely religious folks, it goes on. It was something for people to grasp onto.

I never noticed anti-semitism in their movies, just seemed to me they were attacking the monetary/market paradigm. I didn't really look for any of that thought tbh.

Their religious arguments are not unfounded. There is evidence and it's apparent to me that Christianity would incorporate Pagan elements into their doctrine as well as "borrow" older concepts. It's not an original theology, Jesus isn't real and the bible was likely a politically developed doctrine. Christians appeared as a political force in Rome a hundred or a few hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus. Now you'd think his ascension which Christians claim all could see would have made conversion instant right?

While their solution to the worlds issues isn't very... realistic, it's easy for the average person to watch the films and understand the world isn't a happy, wonderful place and there's a lot more to reality than what they want to believe.

I think you underestimate the problem with the Zeitgeist movement or of the conspiracy theory folks. The problem has nothing to do how the 911 attack happened or anything like that. The problem is that all conspiracy theory is built on an idealist view of the world: individual conspirators are alone shaping the world. Of course there are conspiracies and every conspiracy aimed to manipulate the material reality. However, the success of this manipulation is not only the product of the conspirators' will but of the social-context and the material forces too.

Let's take one of the most highlighted "insight" the z-movement provides is the (overly simplified) fraction reserve system, or more specifically the money multiplier effect. Of course there were individual interest involved with the legislation over the banking system and the national banks' sovereignty but the need for expanding money supply is inevitable interest of the industrial capitalists. The very possibility to realize a special banking interest and the fraction reserve system stems from a historical, material force of the capitalism. The mode of production sets the direction and the limits of the individual or group interests and that is the basis of the materialistic view on history and the events of the world. However the core of the conspiracy theories are completely the opposite. They try to find specific interest groups who could be blamed, and as this process goes it reveal the trace of conspiracies everywhere they look because misery is everywhere. And this where the split point reveals itself between revolutionary and the Z and alike movements. As the scope of observed misery widening, the conspiracies seem to multiply on exponential basis, leading to an almighty group of evil individuals (Illuminati, UFO's and so on) whose power is reaching of supernatural levels as it has to be a limited number of people (or lizards). The pattern looks exactly that of the religious views: As people realize more and more forces of nature (and society within it) that they can't control, the power of the god they worship becomes more and more general, exceeding any previous ideas thus leading to practical monotheism. Digging deeper and deeper to the issues of the world based on idealistic thinking inevitably leads the conspiracy folks to find more and more powerful conspiracies based on the evidence what they conclude from actual existed or existing interest groups: there must be a body of men who manipulate the reality on an unprecedented way, perhaps even supernatural ways.

The antisemitism of course isn't inevitable conclusion of the Z-movement however it is alarming that quite few anti-semitic movement, including the one with the Chaplin mustache stems from similar way of thinking. The bankers, the financial capital owners must have their secret society and through that they enslaved the world, but the good and honest industrial capitalist will save the day. The racial argument will come about as the categories of individuals are traditionally easier to visualize using obvious signs of complicity.

False flag attacks occur all the time, and terrorist attacks are always shady business. However, the problem is that no matter who actually committed the act, the war would be justified regardless. And no one should forget that plenty of other governments and rich individuals had reason to organise the attacks. It doesn't matter whether it was some USA government agency or an other group who had proper anti-USA interest because their actions belong to the same paradigm, and ultimately determined by the forced logic of capital expansion. I have met plenty of conspiracy theorists and read quite a few forums and websites but they have never understood the significance what I wrote above. The arguments eventually reveals for what end they pursue conspiracies: the "corruption" of democracy, the "unfair" economy, or "colonized" nation etc. These are not anarchist, or any revolutionary ideas but quite the opposite. They belong to those movements who are seeking to keep this world as it is, only with a few cosmetic changes such as removing certain individuals from specific positions that is, changing the management of capitalism.

jonthom's picture
jonthom
Offline
Joined: 25-11-10
Dec 9 2011 18:37

^^^ That.

Ambrose wrote:
I've read a few pages of this thread and am a little surprised at the hostility. Almost like a bunch of kids are trying their best not to acknowledge someone's existence.

That said, 9/11 is extremely questionable in how it happened. The way the Bush Adm. had denied ever having thought of the possibility of a plane impact (there have been practice scenarios of such a thing happening within our military), the actual collapse of the towers and the fact they were built to withstand multiple plane impacts, etc.

There are also declassified documents of previous false-flag terrorist attacks (Operation Northwoods which was scrapped by Kennedy).

As anarchists, this only helps our cause.

How so?

This seems to come up a lot IME when discussing Zeitgeist, the idea that its existence is somehow a positive for anarchism and radical politics in general. I've yet to see much of an elaboration on how or why, though, aside from a vague notion that at least they're "doing something".

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Dec 9 2011 18:50

There is nothing positive about the Zeitgeist movement.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 9 2011 20:15

Excellent post soc.

skomalodeon
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Dec 9 2011 20:28

Soc, I think what you have posted is right for some people. However, most people, when they watch zeitgeist do not go on looking for bigger conspiracies until they start beliving in satanic lizards. Rather, as Malva wrote about above, people might see the film, start questioning what they previously thought was normal, realise that they're better to steer clear of weirdo conspiracy theories and end up with a rather more informed critique of the world. That is surely where the positive is?

Ambrose's picture
Ambrose
Offline
Joined: 21-10-11
Dec 10 2011 00:48
soc wrote:

I think you underestimate the problem with the Zeitgeist movement or of the conspiracy theory folks. The problem has nothing to do how the 911 attack happened or anything like that. The problem is that all conspiracy theory is built on an idealist view of the world: individual conspirators are alone shaping the world. Of course there are conspiracies and every conspiracy aimed to manipulate the material reality. However, the success of this manipulation is not only the product of the conspirators' will but of the social-context and the material forces too.

Let's take one of the most highlighted "insight" the z-movement provides is the (overly simplified) fraction reserve system, or more specifically the money multiplier effect. Of course there were individual interest involved with the legislation over the banking system and the national banks' sovereignty but the need for expanding money supply is inevitable interest of the industrial capitalists. The very possibility to realize a special banking interest and the fraction reserve system stems from a historical, material force of the capitalism. The mode of production sets the direction and the limits of the individual or group interests and that is the basis of the materialistic view on history and the events of the world. However the core of the conspiracy theories are completely the opposite. They try to find specific interest groups who could be blamed, and as this process goes it reveal the trace of conspiracies everywhere they look because misery is everywhere. And this where the split point reveals itself between revolutionary and the Z and alike movements. As the scope of observed misery widening, the conspiracies seem to multiply on exponential basis, leading to an almighty group of evil individuals (Illuminati, UFO's and so on) whose power is reaching of supernatural levels as it has to be a limited number of people (or lizards). The pattern looks exactly that of the religious views: As people realize more and more forces of nature (and society within it) that they can't control, the power of the god they worship becomes more and more general, exceeding any previous ideas thus leading to practical monotheism. Digging deeper and deeper to the issues of the world based on idealistic thinking inevitably leads the conspiracy folks to find more and more powerful conspiracies based on the evidence what they conclude from actual existed or existing interest groups: there must be a body of men who manipulate the reality on an unprecedented way, perhaps even supernatural ways.

The antisemitism of course isn't inevitable conclusion of the Z-movement however it is alarming that quite few anti-semitic movement, including the one with the Chaplin mustache stems from similar way of thinking. The bankers, the financial capital owners must have their secret society and through that they enslaved the world, but the good and honest industrial capitalist will save the day. The racial argument will come about as the categories of individuals are traditionally easier to visualize using obvious signs of complicity.

False flag attacks occur all the time, and terrorist attacks are always shady business. However, the problem is that no matter who actually committed the act, the war would be justified regardless. And no one should forget that plenty of other governments and rich individuals had reason to organise the attacks. It doesn't matter whether it was some USA government agency or an other group who had proper anti-USA interest because their actions belong to the same paradigm, and ultimately determined by the forced logic of capital expansion. I have met plenty of conspiracy theorists and read quite a few forums and websites but they have never understood the significance what I wrote above. The arguments eventually reveals for what end they pursue conspiracies: the "corruption" of democracy, the "unfair" economy, or "colonized" nation etc. These are not anarchist, or any revolutionary ideas but quite the opposite. They belong to those movements who are seeking to keep this world as it is, only with a few cosmetic changes such as removing certain individuals from specific positions that is, changing the management of capitalism.

Very good post, you make quite an excellent point. I'll admit I hadn't considered the... I guess you could call it a monolith effect? on conspiracy theories.

The reason I suggested that it may be positive for Anarchists is it sways people away from orthodoxy. Admittedly I was a Zmember before anything else, didn't like the Technocracy solution. The sense of distrust of the state it instills is what led me to Anarchism a few years ago.

Anyway I hadn't thought about it quite as hard as soc did, I appreciate the post. Very informative.

zeitgeistworker
Offline
Joined: 5-05-13
May 5 2013 13:22

http://zeitgeistworker.wordpress.com/
This is how to explain the labour movement to the zeitgeist movement (from a former zeitgeister)

ledur
Offline
Joined: 11-09-13
Oct 2 2013 05:56

Aside from conspiracy theories, lack of historical analysis, and lack of political identity, as long as I see, they're essentially anarcho-communists:
- against private property of means of production, natural resources and knowledge
- against profit and wage slavery
- against classes (I think there's a misunderstanding here - there's no technocrats class) and against hierarchies
- against coercion (religion, capital and state)
- against stupid jobs (advertising, finances, etc)

They seem to naively say some marxian thoughts: "no exploitation of man by man" and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Ability here means work in not automated tasks, like education, child rearing, etc, or voluntary research.

Also, someone said they're against democracy. I read somewhere (sorry I don't have reference right now) they advocate direct democracy, because everyone will be materially equal. But since 99% of democracy is, right now, centered on allocation of resources (and this might not be a problem then), I think democracy will be about more enjoyable subjects, like art contest, a new neighborhood design, etc.

What they say about computers monitoring Earth: it's only about natural resources, with acessible data to all.

Someone said that engineers will control production: actually not true. People will choose and decide what they want, and something like a 3D printer will do the job. There's not an engineer. Engineering, itself, will be an accessible knowledge to all, like every other field.

Two beautiful things about this idea, is efficiency on resource's allocation. A city will have its own food production (hydroponic agriculture uses only 1% of today's land area), recycling close to 100%, clean energy, public transport and common tools sharing. The other one, is knowledge. Everyone would be welcome to voluntarily collaborate and suggest ideas, like today's peer production, (ex: Linux, Wikipedia).

I think that technology should help people, not generate profit to someone else. So far, there are some open collaborative non-profit projects in this direction, like WikiHouse, OpenMaterials, Seed Factories, etc, which would be welcome to this society.

Regarding these aspects, what do you guys think?