Just the very beginning of this film is curious. It can be viewed on video.google.com by looking up "Zeitgeist Addendum." The man speaks of changing the world to something where there is no competition, where everything comes easy. And I object! In a world where you don't have to work for what you obtain, and the choice to do evil is completely removed, there you have a fool trying to take away free agency! Without choice... the world would be far too robotic and mindless.
At 14 minutes and 30 seconds the film states that the value of the dollar has decreased 96% in value. But I argue that the dollar has most likely accomplished roughly 9600% more than it used to, because more people use the dollar, and more people get homes, cars, and appliances WITH the dollar.
Yeah; these people want the entire world to be one big wikipedia. It's part of the new "Free Information Philosophy" being pushed by strangely enough software programmers. They then give there opinions on numerous other topics they have no expertise in, there computer skills gain them more support than they deserve.
Why is the internet all of a sudden filled by ignorant close-minded tools? Tell me a good reason for why this shouldn't be the future? And I want a good reason, not a retarded reason like Diode-Man here gives.
Theists will abhor this film as it calls for all mankind to work together, which will never work for theists as their goal is the division of mankind.
I think both are insignificant and average. If you are into that creepy music pseudo-\alternate reality stuff it can be somewhat entertaining but admittedly i could only watch about half of each. The second one goes right into banking and money and the big conspiracy is that money (paper) is not really worth anything (IN REALITY) ans i was thinking - um, annnnnd? No kidding, it is just paper and gold is just metal. But they present it like some kind of revelation. The first will appeal to certain people but the religious comparisons are pretty lame and dense also. But pointing this stuff out seems to automatically turns someone into a religious fundamentalist.
Far reaching influential idealogies remove the cultural traits only created through mutual locality. The relevance of truth is up for question, not just what is true...which to me lacks relevance. should not it be our right to determine what philosophy we deem relevant? aristolean philosophy, while dominant and most effective on altering surroundings is antithetical to my philosophy or theology. Why should I concede my rights?
