ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM REJECTED, POINT-BY-POINT
by Daniel Morin
2008 October 21

I agree entirely with Mr. Griffin regarding Zeitgeist Addendum.

The first movie, Zeitgeist, is much better than its Addendum. The first part of the first movie is more a matter of opinions. The second part documents actual facts about 9/11. The third part gives a brief overview about the Federal Reserve. If I had to recommend the first movie, I would recommend only the second and third part.

After reading Mr. Griffin’s comment, I decided to watch the third part again at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197. My only criticism about the first movie is the narration put a lot of emphasis on loaning money at interest, implicitly suggesting collecting interests is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with charging interest on a loan; the problem is the creation of fiat money. Charging interests on money created out of thin air simply adds insult to the injury. I like how Mr. Griffin defines usury: any interest on any loan of fiat money (The Creature from Jekyll Island audio @ 71 minutes).

The root of the problem is creating money out nothing. Therefore, we can call the FED an institution loaning counterfeit money.

By the way, people advocating Social Credit do not mind borrowing counterfeited money. Those people want to receive money (through a loan) without paying any interests, therefore stealing from the savers through inflation. Social Crediters love legal plunder; they just tailored plunder to fit their lifestyles. Since most of Social Crediters are in debt and wish to consume more, they come up with a new scheme of borrowing without limit. The problem is they are borrowing fiat money, thus diluting the purchasing power of savings and taxing others through inflation. Also, without interest, they wish to pay the loan back in with a debased currency.

Now, my review about Zeitgeist: Addendum at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912. I will do my best to give the fact and point the fallacy where I found one.

@22 minutes: The movie praises the Greenbacks as interest-free money. Although this may be correct, it is still plunder. Government creating money out of this air is no different than what the FED is doing today. When government creates money, the politicians are plundering the population as opposed to a central bank. I see no difference at all. In my opinion, I would rather have the FED creating money, because politicians are on a 4-year election cycle. Politicians are very short sighted, and likely to print excessive money to get re-elected, thus destroying the whole economy. The FED also wants to maximize plunder, however they know they will be getting more by plundering a small percentage on a large successful economy, than by trying to get the lion’s share of the economy. The plunder strategy is maintaining a constant target for inflation.

@25 minutes: The movie praises the dictators as leaders for “their people”. Those ruthless tyrants are nothing less than criminals. By the way, if the US Government was unable to bribe those leaders, it is because those leaders owned the resources. Remember a bribe must always be lower than its market value, otherwise offering a bribe offers no benefits. For instance, you cannot bribe the owner of a store because he will prefer to sell his assets. You can only bribe a politician or a bureaucrat because he does not really own the resource, and therefore he can make an extra accepting the bribe. In the case of the dictators, they practically own the country, therefore receiving a bribe in exchange of the resources gives little value. The movie attempt to make heroes of those tyrants refusing accepting bribes.

Later, the movie talk about how rich countries loan money to poor countries to keep them in debt, and those debts forces the country to give away its resources. Public debt is non-binding. It should simply be ignored. Those who invested in government plunder should suffer the losses, not the innocent citizens.

@40 minutes: This part talks about the bad things of globalization, forgetting that globalization is an extension of the division of labor. The movie assumes the country is one entity, like an individual. A country is a group of individuals living in a geographical area, however individuals may have different opinion. This collectivism approach claiming that a “country decides” about such or such is an incorrect logic.

@43 minutes: Environmental destruction. The narrator forgot to mention the environmental destruction always occurs on “public property”. Private property is the best mechanism to protect the environment, because polluting your property will destroy its value.

@46 minutes: The narrator mentions that competition is a bad thing. The idea behind communism was protecting the workers against competition. Competition is freedom. It is also the endeavor towards excellence.

@47 minutes: “We no longer live in a world of Nations and Ideologies”. Nation Building and Ideologies is socialism. I am advocating individualism, not Nations.

@48 minutes: Inequality. Well, inequality and justice are opposite. It is unfair to have everyone equal, as some individuals work more and produce more. A doctor should earn more than a welfare recipient.

@53 minutes: The movie put emphasis on undemocratic corporations, as if democracy is a goal in itself. The free market is the best way for people to vote their wishes – with their wallet. Businesses take your money only with your consent, and give you something valuable in exchange. On the other hand politicians take your money by force.

@56 minutes: The movie mentions the problem of self-preservation. The tenet of communism is to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of the community. A man who is acting in his own self-interest neither makes sacrifices nor demands that other sacrifice for him. The opposite of self-interest is sacrifice which is always wrong because it’s destructive of human life (The virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 1 – The Objectivist Ethics, by Ayn Rand). Altruism makes hypocrisy necessary in order to live. (The Market For Liberty @ page 9-14, Tannehill).

A business in a free market economy must offer something of value to consumers in order to survive. Government self-preservation is only by coercion and plunder. There a big difference! The problem is not about self-preservation, buy how self-preservation is achieved.

@59 minutes: Industries do not care for our people because they are outsourcing jobs [to pour countries]. This is called collectivism. There is no such thing as “our people” or “our jobs”. People don’t belong to someone else. And jobs don’t belong to a group of people. Individuals have the right to contract to whatever wish. The statement of outsourcing is also contradictory, because it means that industries care about the poorest. After all, the industries outsourcing jobs are creating jobs in third world countries. For those who are really concerned with third world poverty, they should cheer outsourcing.

@1h: The movie says competition leads to corruption. This is completely false. Competition is freedom to produce and trade without coercion. Corruption ONLY occurs within the framework of government, where corporations seek special privileges from the government, such as subsidies and/or regulations to harm their competitors. If government was non-existent, there would be NO corruption. Of course, corporations competing for government handouts always lead to corruption.

The movie says competition leads to a government dictatorship. Dictatorship is just the opposite of competition, because the dictator imposes his will on the population. This movie is full of contradictions.

@1h 2 minutes: The movie says profits are the motive for downsizing corporation. This is my favorite. If downsizing makes a corporation more profitable, then upsizing (hiring more employees) should make the corporation less profitable. Why do you think corporation hire people? To reduce their profits, or to increase their profits? To my best knowledge, a corporation cannot have a negative number of employees, meaning that every employee being laid off during downsizing was once hired to increase profits. The reason corporations downsize is because of external changes, such as market conditions or the excessive costs of employment benefits.

@1h 2 minutes: The movie claims the world’s problems are because we have a selfish mentality. I can see this coming… and the solution is of course, eliminate your selfish behavior and serve the community. Wait, this is exactly communism, just under a different name. The collectivism ideology is the rights of the individual are not important; what is important is the goal of the community... of course controlled by the elite... and at gunpoint. The elite running the community is not selfish… they just live in castles and are among the wealthiest people on earth by stealing from the population.

@1h 5 minutes: The movie claims it is technology that solves problems... I thought technology and automation are synonymous. Was automation unethical just 6 minutes ago? Technology plays a great role to solve problems, and technology comes from R&D which requires genuine capital. No socialist country ever developed any useful technology. Every piece of technology you love you owe to capitalism.

@1h 7 minutes: technology frees humans from chores. This is called automation, which was bashed 8 minutes ago. By the way, technology requires specialization, and specialization is what we called division of labor. For division of labor to function effectively, there is a need of a medium of exchange: money.

@1h 9 minutes: The movie claims that profits make electronic equipment obsolete in 3 months. Well, if electronic equipment is obsolete in 3 months, it means technology has improved so much during the 3 month period, that it is more cost-effective to buy a new one than keeping the old one at no cost. Notice the word “obsolete” was used. This is a big difference from something "obsolete" and something "broken". I would have far more respect for this movie if the movie said “things are broken after 3 months” to increase profits.

@1h 9 minutes: The movie claims that scarcity increases profits. This is true according the law of supply and demand. However, there is always competition offset scarcity. Competing businesses want to maximize their profits, thus having an incentive to produce more. This is rather strange, considering other socialist literature blame overproduction and dumping as a mean to increase profits. Socialists are self-contradictory. A socialist will prefer to sacrifice reason and logic to pursue a flawed ideology – to blame the free market (read Mises). This reminds me the following from the book entitled “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” at page 144 written by Schumpeter:

Two seemingly contradictory charges are now rife: (a) that capitalism is not "growing" fast enough, and (b) that the trouble with capitalism is that it makes us too "affluent." Excess wealth has suddenly replaced poverty as the tragic flaw of capitalism.

@1h 12 minutes: The movie claims there is no "human nature". Well, perhaps the producer should listen and/or read to Rothbard’s great book “The Ethics of Liberty”, Chapter 2 named “Natural Law and as Science”.

@1h 12 minutes: The movie claims we need to a re-design of our society and values. This is scary. Such social engineering the slogan behind the bloody communism. Who decides what society should be and, what values we must adopt?

@1h 14 minutes: The movie claims we need money because we assume scarcity. Well, we live in a world of scarcity. This is reality. And as long as there will be scarcity, we will need money to allocate resources, because money is a measure of scarcity. By the way, communism was also denying scarcity, and promising abundance to everyone. We all know communism created nothing less than mass misery.

@1h 14 minutes: The movie claims we can create a society with such abundance that we can consume without a price tag. The idea of consuming without producing anything is GREED. People usually want money to buy stuff. This is why people work hard to earn money, not for the money itself, but to exchange their money for goods and services. Greedy people want to spend their money, and bypassing money will not remove the desire of consuming without a price tag. Who do you think will join the Venus Project? Those who dream of living a big lifestyle without doing any work.

@1h 16 minutes: The movie claims the following: if there is a problem in society and cannot be solved with money, than it won't be solved. This is true, and for a good reason. If nobody wants to spend money on this "problem", it means there are more urgent problems to solve. For instance, the "problem" of sending a man on Mars may be a "real" problem to some, however if there is not enough funds for making it happen, it means the "problem" is not that severe. People spend their money to satisfy their most urgent needs.

@1h 16 minutes: The movie claims it can create abundance. That was also the slogan for communism. In theory, communism would create a classless society of abundance and freedom, in which all people enjoy equal social and economic status.

According to Leon Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, trans. by R. Strunsky (London, 1925), p. 256:
In the socialist society "the average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this
ridge new peaks will rise.”

The socialist paradise will be the kingdom of perfection, populated by completely happy supermen. All socialist literature is full of such nonsense. But it is just this nonsense that wins it the most supporters.

@1h 28 minutes: Crime and poverty. Criminality is proportional to the size of government. First, the government creates poverty by confiscating resources from the working man and spend it (read waste it) towards politically elected elite. For the common man, the role of the government is to redistribute wealth, making everyone equal. When a citizens sees himself poorer than the others, then he concludes he has not has not received enough of his share of the loot, thus making justice for himself by stealing. To help alleviate poverty, we need a sound monetary system, eliminating taxes, and removing government regulations and red tape.

@1h 31 minutes: The movie claims war is a result of scarcity. This is false. War is profitable only with the help of government which is backed by the taxpayers. A war would never be profitable on free market because the cost of paying the war along with the losses caused by destruction would outweigh the value of the remaining loot.

@1h 32 minutes: The movie praises the idea of working on a common good for mankind. That sounds like communism. By the way, what is a "common good"? Who decides? And if one thinks differently, what type of punishment will he receives? If history repeats itself, such punishment is likely to be prison, torture and death.

@1h 46 minutes: The movie says “It is time to claim our Unity and create a society where everyone is taken care of”. Sounds like the communist motto "for each according to his needs". Uniting people based on an ideology is a bad idea. The reality is we are united because of we need each other to enhance the quality of our lives. Nobody is an island, and specialization makes it worth trading with others. Also, what happens to those who do not share the Unity ideology? Perhaps the same fate as those who opposes communism…

@1h 56 minutes: The movie suggests declaring all natural resources are common heritage for the people. Sounds like plunder to me. What about the respect of private property? Oh, wait, there is no such thing under a collectivist environment.

The Venus Utopia will never exist. First, the Venus Project will require billions of dollars just for its construction. This is probably why the movie producer blames money as the problem for scarcity… however it is because of scarcity we have money, so we can allocate resources rationally. Also, the Venus Project also attract the laziest people eager to live in abundance without working Greedy individuals, crippled with debt, will find it convenient to join the Utopia to consume without restrictions and engage in reckless spending. Who will then do the work and/or pay the actual bills?

There is no way such "Resource Based Economy" can function without the backing of taxpayers!

I realize my movie review is quite a long. For the reasons above, I would NOT recommend Zeitgeist Addendum at all. Perhaps the Zeitgeist producers have good intentions, however good intentions don't cut it. A friendly form of communism is an oxymoron.

Nobody is an island, and we all need each other. With specialization, we can all increase our well-being by trading with others. Money is the medium enabling such specialization. Money is the essence of civilization.

Sincerely,
-- Daniel Morin
514-616-3455