Zeitgeist Addendum - A Communist plant to divide and conquer - Ed Griffin speaks out!

[rayzer]

Here is G. Edward Griffin's reply to someone asking his opinion on "Zeitgeist Addendum"

Jonathan, I don’t like to criticize anything that is helping to spread the truth about the Federal Reserve and 9/11 but I must agree with the substance of what you have said about this video. I watched it two nights ago and was deeply disturbed by its message. At first, I thought it would be best to just let it play itself out in expectation that most viewers would cross it off as whacky. However, the production value is high, the effects and sound score are compelling, and there is enough truth embedded in the beginning to capture the attention and possibly the trust of many within the freedom movement. So here are my comments on a few items of concern:

1. The information about the Federal Reserve is, for the most part, right on target. However, I practically fell out of my chair when the program repeated that old, silly argument about the Fed not creating enough money to cover the cost of interest on debt; and, therefore, the world must forever be in debt. I knew right there that the writer did not read The Creature from Jekyll Island or, if he did, he forgot my analysis of this common myth. For those who are interested in that topic, it is fund on pages 191-192 of The Creature.

2. The next jolt came when the program praised Civil War Greenbacks, calling them debt-free. Actually, Greenbacks were contrary to the U.S. Constitution and, although they were not fiat money issued by the banks, they were fiat money issued by the government. That was better than paying interest on nothing to bankers, but they still wiped out the purchasing power of American money through massive inflation. They can not correctly be called debt-free, either, because they represented debt on the shoulders of the government, which means, of course, on the shoulders of the taxpayers. It never ceases to amaze me how people think that the solution to money created out of nothing by those big, bad bankers is to have money created out of nothing by those nice, trustworthy politicians. Yet, that is what this program supports.

3. There is a lengthy segment in which the author of I Was an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins, tells the story of how propagandists in the U.S. manipulated public opinion to support military action against several Latin American countries. Then Perkins says that these propagandists scared Americans by telling them that the leaders of these countries were Marxists who were aligned with the Soviets. This, of course, is a half truth that is just as dangerous as a total lie. It is true about the propagandists and their strategy to scare the public into supporting military intervention in those countries, but it is false to portray those dictators as great humanitarians who cared only for the well being of their people. That is total bunk. They WERE aligned with the Soviet Union and they WERE part of a Marxist/Leninist strategy to dominate Latin America; a strategy that continues to this day.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

There was plenty not to like on both sides of that struggle, but objective historians would never depict the Rhodesians (the CFR crowd in the U.S.) as bad guys but depict the Soviet puppets as good guys. In his book, Perkins reveals this same slant. He exposes the foul tactics of international corporations, the IMF, and World Bank, but he never mentions a Leftist dictator, such as Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez without praising them. Perkins is a collectivist aligned with the Left, and that strongly influences his telling of this story. Yet the producers of the video make no mention of this bias and give him an inordinate amount of time to present his slanted view without challenge.

4. Perhaps the biggest insult to our intelligence is the main theme of the program. It is that profits are the root of all our problems today. That being the case, we must change mankind to reject profit and we must work together on some other basis. It is never quite clear what that basis is, but, whatever it is, it will be administered and directed by an elite group, at least in the beginning. I was stunned by the fact that this is pure Marxism. Marx theorized that people had to be re-educated (in labor camps, if necessary) to cleanse their minds of the profit motive. He and his disciples, such as Lenin and Stalin and Khruschev, said that, eventually, the character of man would be purged of greed, and then the state would wither away because it no longer would be needed. Sure! We saw that in the Soviet Union and China, right? Yet this Marxist nonsense is exactly what is offered in this video program. It is Communism without using the name.

The profit motive is neither good nor bad. It can be applied either way depending on social and political factors. The desire for profit is merely the desire to be compensated for our labor, our creativity, our knowledge, or even for our risk. Without profit, very little would be accomplished in the world - not even if everyone spent a few years in labor camps to be re-educated. It is a basic part of man’s nature and is the mainspring of human progress, as Henry Grady Weaver described it in his book by that same title. Throughout history, whenever man lived in a system that allows him to be rewarded for his work, there has been great productivity and abundance. By contrast, where social engineers gained control of the state and restricted people from receiving the fruits of their labor, productivity fell, and scarcity was the norm.

The profit motive functions differently in different political systems. In a free system where government does not intervene in the market place, the profit motive always will manifest itself as competition, each person or each company trying to deliver better quality products and services at lower prices. That was how it used to be in the early days of America, and that is what led to the greatest outpouring of productivity and abundance the world has ever seen. However, in a collectivist system where government controls every conceivable aspect of economic and commercial activity (the system that now exists in America), the profit motive always manifests itself as a quest for political influence and laws to favor one group over another. The net effect is to eliminate competition in the market place. Under collectivism, success is achieved, not by creating better products and services for less cost, but by controlling legislators and government agencies. It is a system of legalized plunder, as Frederic Bastiat called it in his famous treatise, The Law. Unfortunately, it is the system that dominates most of the world today.

Zeitgeist Addendum ignores this reality. At one point the narrator even says that the greatest evil in the world today is "the free enterprise system." That’s an incredible statement, especially inasmuch as the free enterprise system has been dead for several decades. It lives in name only. The whole world now is in the grips of non-competitive monopolies and cartels that have forged partnerships with governments. All of the evils to which this program alludes are the result, not of the free enterprise system, but of the abandonment of free enterprise and the adoption of collectivism. This program creates a mythological boogeyman and then advocates more of the very thing that has brought us to the mess we are in today.

The enemy of mankind is not profit. It is a political system of big government. Yet, this program is supportive of some of the most notable big-government collectivist on the planet. Marxist/Leninists may be enemies of collectivists in Washington, DC, but they are collectivists in their own right. The Communist model is no better than the Nazi model.

There is much more that could be said about other program topics such as technology supposedly being our salvation, about the a future world in which no one has to work, and about common ownership of land, oceans, natural resources, etc. but, for the most part, these merely are sub issues to the ones already described, so I will spare my readers the pain of further discourse.

In summary, this program does NOT offer a cure. It offers a mega dose of the disease itself.

Ed Griffin, 2008 Oct 9

[RJB]

1. The information about the Federal Reserve is, for the most part, right on target. However, I practically fell out of my chair when the program repeated that old, silly argument about the Fed not creating enough money to cover the cost of interest on debt; and, therefore, the world must forever be in debt. I knew right there that the writer did not read The Creature from Jekyll Island or, if he did, he forgot my analysis of this common myth. For those who are interested in that topic, it is fund on pages 191-192 of The Creature.

I don't have his book. I didn't know that was a myth. Could someone give me a run down? Thanks.

[rayzer]

I "think" this is the bottom line:

The Fed was intentionally created to keep the world in debt. The system is BASED on debt. The myth tries to say that the fed is ok EXCEPT for the fact that they didn't create enough money.

[Oyate]

I had a feeling about that project.....

First off, ALL of their reservist arguments are stolen. Stolen from whom? Our researchers of course.

Second, their discussion of gnosticism and ancient religions is once again stolen. Not a shred of original research in there.

Third, no call to action. All our material suggests a course or call to action. Totally lacking in the whole Zeitgeist thing until now.

So now they come out as socialists. Big surprise. Indeed as Griffin says, no socialist ever gets rid of central anything, including central banking.

[Alawn]

I was very glad he posted that response to the email I wrote him. People need to realize what a scam that movie is.


I don't have his book. I didn't know that was a myth. Could someone give me a run down? Thanks.

I found the quote that explains it.


WHO CREATES THE MONEY TO PAY THE INTEREST?
One of the most perplexing questions associated with this process is "Where does the money come from to pay the interest?" If you borrow $10,000 from a bank at 9%, you owe $10,900. But the bank only manufactures $10,000 for the loan. It would seem, therefore, that there is no way that you - and all others with similar loans - can possibly pay off your indebtedness. The amount of money put into circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including interest. This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for you to borrow the $900 for the interest, and that, in turn, leads to still more interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we have to borrow, and that debt based on fiat money is a never-ending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt.

This is a partial truth. It is true that there is not enough money created to include the interest, but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay it back is to borrow still more. The assumption fails to take into account the exchange value of labor. Let us assume that you pay back your $10,000 loan at the rate of approximately $900 per month and that about $80 of that represents interest. You realize you are hard pressed to make your payments so you decide to take on a part-time job. The bank, on the other hand, is now making $80 profit each month on your loan. Since this amount is classified as "interest," it is not extinguished as is the larger portion which is a return of the loan itself. So this remains as spendable money in the account of the bank. The decision then is made to have the bank's floors waxed once a week. You respond to the ad in the paper and are hired at $80 per month to do the job. The result is that you earn the money to pay the interest on your loan, and - this is the point -the money you receive is the same money that you previously had paid. As long as you perform labor for the bank each month, the same dollars go into the bank as interest, then out the revolving door as your wages, and then back into the bank as loan repayment.

It is not necessary that you work directly for the bank. No matter where you earn the money, its origin was a bank, and its ultimate destination is a bank. The loop through which it travels can be large or small, but the fact remains all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And the significance of that fact is even more startling than the assumption that not enough money is created to pay back the interest. It is that the total of this human effort ultimately is for the benefit of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.



That myth I could live with people spreading. But the insane socialist solution the movie gave will only send people on our side in the wrong direction and prevent others from joining us.

Griffin was also interviewed about it today on the Alex Jones Show.

[constituent]

I don't have his book. I didn't know that was a myth. Could someone give me a run down? Thanks.

http://www.spielbauer.com/Jekyll.mp3

[rayzer]

I was very glad he posted that response to the email I wrote him. People need to realize what a scam that movie is.



I found the quote that explains it.




That myth I could live with people spreading. But the insane socialist solution the movie gave will only send people on our side in the wrong direction and prevent others from joining us.

Griffin was also interviewed about it today on the Alex Jones Show.

Interesting...

[ImstillforRP]

I was very glad he posted that response to the email I wrote him. People need to realize what a scam that movie is.



I found the quote that explains it.




That myth I could live with people spreading. But the insane socialist solution the movie gave will only send people on our side in the wrong direction and prevent others from joining us.

Griffin was also interviewed about it today on the Alex Jones Show.

Your quote wasn't the point the movie was trying to make. They were trying to make the point that it is IMPOSSIBLE to pay off all the debt in America because there is simply not enough money to pay for it.

Think about it like this:
I make a new country, and a new bank. I start off the country by loaning the bank money to get my new country's economy going. I loan the bank 1 billion plus an interest of 5%. Now if the bank decided to give the money they would still owe me the 5% or $500,000. How will they get this "extra" money? They have to borrow it. And I go and add interest again.

People will always be subjected to servitude and labor to pay off their debt. The problem is there will always be debt, so we will serve the interests forever. That was the movie's point. Some things need to change, and I mean fundamentally with this system.

[TruckinMike]

Zeitgeist is TRASH. PERIOD.

...from left field it Promotes communism, heavily lies about Christianity and its roots, and is filled with empty emotionalisms designed to manipulate the audience into believing lies.

Just my opinion.

TMike

If anybody wants to argue w/ me -- I've already been there done that, and i'm not doing it anymore.

[travismofo]

nm

[TheConstitutionLives]

He's not "a plant". Good grief. He has a different opinion. You can have a different opinion without being "a plant". You act as though he was put there to do an internet video by someone. LOL

[Soccrmastr]

I love this article and I love this guy

[ImstillforRP]

You obviously didn't read E.G's book. You forget the monetary value of labor. If you went and worked for the bank, you can pay off the interest without borrowing more money.

This is true, but that requires servitude, something that the movie says can be eliminated progressively through ingenuity and technology.

How does the bank or government pay back the money to the fed? Since money is loaned at interest, there is no possible way to back the interest other than creating more money. The government uses consumers to pay the interest implementing income taxes but all that does is pass the problem on to the next generations.

[Alawn]

Your quote wasn't the point the movie was trying to make. They were trying to make the point that it is IMPOSSIBLE to pay off all the debt in America because there is simply not enough money to pay for it.

Think about it like this:
I make a new country, and a new bank. I start off the country by loaning the bank money to get my new country's economy going. I loan the bank 1 billion plus an interest of 5%. Now if the bank decided to give the money they would still owe me the 5% or $500,000. How will they get this "extra" money? They have to borrow it. And I go and add interest again.

People will always be subjected to servitude and labor to pay off their debt. The problem is there will always be debt, so we will serve the interests forever. That was the movie's point. Some things need to change, and I mean fundamentally with this system.

That is exactly what the quote was about. You are wrong about it. But that wasn't the main critique of the film. If that was all that was wrong with the film nobody would care. I was just explaining what he meant in 1 because somebody asked. We can all agree that the Federal Reserve is bad whether that is true or not. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 in his response are just corrections on fairly minor problems with the film. The real problem with the film is number 4 in Griffin's response about the film's solution. The proposed solution is the worst idea you could possibly have. The only reason I wrote griffin, or why he responded, or why Alex Jones and others have critiqued the film is we think the solution is a false solution that will cause more harm than good. No matter how great the film maker says things will be it wont. That is just to convince you to follow their collectivist plan.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Think, people.

This movie contains a clip of Ron Paul shredding the banking institution. This means that many people who watch this movie are likely to be turned on to Ron Paul, where they will then find a window to the truth about laizess-faire economics, and what an orwellian misnomer the word "capitalism" has become to the current population.

[travismofo]

This is true, but that requires servitude, something that the movie says can be eliminated progressively through ingenuity and technology.

How does the bank or government pay back the money to the fed? Since money is loaned at interest, there is no possible way to back the interest other than creating more money. The government uses consumers to pay the interest implementing income taxes but all that does is pass the problem on to the next generations.

Legit point about the corrupt nature of the current banking system, but from what I've heard (have not seen the movie) the film does not advocate a free society, but a highly controlled society where personal liberty is not important because you belong to a collective group. That's not any different from what the collectivists in the current system call for, and that's not a society I would consent to. I will defy.

[ImstillforRP]

That is exactly what the quote was about. You are wrong about it. But that wasn't the main critique of the film. If that was all that was wrong with the film nobody would care. I was just explaining what he meant in 1 because somebody asked. We can all agree that the Federal Reserve is bad whether that is true or not. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 in his response are just corrections on fairly minor problems with the film. The real problem with the film is number 4 in Griffin's response about the film's solution. The proposed solution is the worst idea you could possibly have.

What are the other alternatives? Clearly the current system is in chaos and some fundamental things need to change, in my opinion. And please don't be rude and call me wrong without proper evidence. It is clear what the movie stated, and how the "review" spinned it.

[travismofo]

What are the other alternatives? Clearly the current system is in chaos and some fundamental things need to change, in my opinion. And please don't be rude and call me wrong without proper evidence. It is clear what the movie stated, and how the "review" spinned it.

Good point. We DO need to throw off the current system and establish liberty.

[Alawn]

Think, people.

This movie contains a clip of Ron Paul shredding the banking institution. This means that many people who watch this movie are likely to be turned on to Ron Paul, where they will then find a window to the truth about laizess-faire economics, and what an orwellian misnomer the word "capitalism" has become to the current population.

This movie specifically says that capitalism is the root of all the problems in the world. That is not the message of Ron Paul and should not be spread to anyone. It also says that voting for people like Ron Paul is a waste of time and the wrong thing to do. Having a lot of correct things in the beginning is actually worse than having nothing true in it because it tricks people who agree with the true stuff into believing the false stuff.

[ImstillforRP]

Legit point about the corrupt nature of the current banking system, but from what I've heard (have not seen the movie) the film does not advocate a free society, but a highly controlled society where personal liberty is not important because you belong to a collective group. That's not any different from what the collectivists in the current system call for, and that's not a society I would consent to. I will defy.

From my point of view, the society the movie advocates is closest to anarchy, although I despise that word because it makes things sound like "utter chaos," which is not the case.

Liberty, in this society, is maximized. You have the free will to persue what you want in life without servitude to a state. The only thing that is shared is the world's resources...and that makes sense, right? Because no one created these sources so they can't claim it as their own, like the sun, and water, and air.

For example, if you were to build a house in this society, you could custom make a house with 6 levels if that's the preference of you and your family, where in the current system, you have to buy houses pre-made. Few can afford to custom make a house. In the current society, you're as free as the purchasing power you have, so rich people recieve more "freedom" and "favoritism" than the poor. In this society, you can sky-dive or man an airplane if you wish, because money is obselete. You can do what technology allows.

If you'd like to learn more, just check out the free PDF on Zeitgeistmovement.org. It's a very short read but very interesting. Hope this helps.

[AutoDas]

From my point of view, the society the movie advocates is closest to anarchy, although I despise that word because it makes things sound like "utter chaos," which is not the case.

Because anarchy is inherently socialist from the get-go. Thanks for playing.


Liberty, in this society, is maximized. You have the free will to persue what you want in life without servitude to a state. The only thing that is shared is the world's resources...and that makes sense, right? Because no one created these sources so they can't claim it as their own, like the sun, and water, and air.

How is this a liberty loving society when you have to ask the world (which is a euphemism for a centralized body) if you can use those resources. Why should I ask their permission since you by the same fallacy see that they have not created those resources.


For example, if you were to build a house in this society, you could custom make a house with 6 levels if that's the preference of you and your family, where in the current system, you have to buy houses pre-made. Few can afford to custom make a house. In the current society, you're as free as the purchasing power you have, so rich people recieve more "freedom" and "favoritism" than the poor. In this society, you can sky-dive or man an airplane if you wish, because money is obselete. You can do what technology allows.

Your Utopia is chained to the same struggle as capitalism and socialism, except capitalism is the system that best allocates resources to their highest priority for full productivity. The Venus Project won't last a day because everyone will deplete the Earth's resources. You have too much faith in technology.

[Conza88]

Think, people.

This movie contains a clip of Ron Paul shredding the banking institution. This means that many people who watch this movie are likely to be turned on to Ron Paul, where they will then find a window to the truth about laizess-faire economics, and what an orwellian misnomer the word "capitalism" has become to the current population.

Think, Grimnir Wotansvolk.

Have you actually seen it? rofl. This movie contains a clip of Ron Paul (15 seconds?) of him with a SOUNDBITE talking to Bernanke.. ok, well and good. But the whole point of mentioning him; is so that later in the film - they are able to refer to him again.... their proposition; "Ron Paul would not change anything" "Reject the political system" "Stop being active and fighting the NWO"... that's what it comes down to.

The ONLY reason they showed him in the fed piece, was because if they just randomly showed Ron Paul out of no where and went, Ron Paul can't change anything... give up.... reject the political system.... there is no hope in change there...

Everyone would literally go, ummmmmmm - wtf. Get fcked Zietgeist you piece of trash. ;)

Think, Grimnir, think. ;)

[StilesBC]

The film advocated anarcho-communism. Not anarchy in the Rothbardian sense.

It had a very seductive vision of the future with the new MRT systems, total reliance on alternative energies and the elimination of labour from our lives. It did not really go into detail about how that would be structured or who would be left to oversee such systems - only that "the machines would do it." Maybe I'm missing something, but somewhere down the line, humans need to be responsible for the recovery of these resources and in refining them into finished products. And they can either do so out of self-interest (expectation of compensation) or through slavery.

Yes, people acting out of self-interest is the root of all evil. But it is also the root of all good (even a donation to charity is out of self-interest as that person believes they would benefit from a better social environment for everyone.)

Unfortunately, the film takes a valid grievance with our corrupted money system and twists it into a condemnation of anyone acting out of self-interest.

What needs to be emphasized in dispelling this erroneous leap in logic is that corruption, corporate monopolies, and the enslavement of poor nations is not the doing of free-markets, laissez faire policies or deregulation. Rather, it is the doing of government cooperation with businesses that allows this. The film even points this out.

We need to eliminate all coordination and cooperation of business and government and make it punishable by law. Only through this can we reduce the massive advantage large corporations gain by favourable legislation, regulations that seek to discourage competition, and the notion that a large company (Coca-Cola for example) has the backing of the US military when it sets up shop across the world.

I cannot stress the importance of this highly enough. Simply pointing at the greed of corporations as the problem leads people to believe that the best solution is for corporations to be abolished and for government to control everything. This will drive us directly into the hands of the people we are trying to abolish, as they ARE the government. This glaring contradiction should be evident, yet the film makes it without even noticing.

And the filmmakers are not alone in making that contradiction. Socialists in general make it all the time, and the easiest way to argue against more government is in explaining what I have just written to it's advocates. That is, the growth in power by large corporations is only possible with the assistance of government.

[Deborah K]

What are the other alternatives? Clearly the current system is in chaos and some fundamental things need to change, in my opinion.

How about strict adherance to our beloved Constitution?

[Gigaplex]

It's about time this thing died. It is encouraging that there are so many people that were not seduced into becoming anarcho-communists. I saw the movie as a test of this movement's education level. I think overall, we did pretty good. Sure, you'll always have a few that get misdirected but I think that is normal. The majority seemed to recognize problems with this movie right off the bat and reject it.

My only gripe was that the guy at Daily Paul fell for it. Since he is in a leadership position, he really should have taken the time to educate himself. So let's learn a valuable lesson from this. People in leadership positions should be pushed HARD to learn more about liberty and economics. If we see someone in a leadership position, we have a duty to make damn well sure they know their stuff even if they are a good friend. Ask them what they are doing about their education now, not what they plan to do some day. What are they learning now? And make sure they follow through. That's what a true friend and lover of liberty would do.

And certainly if you are in a leadership position: you better be doing your homework :)

[Gigaplex]

I think there is one more lesson to glean from all this. The most severely uneducated segment of this movement is faaaaar more likely to watch a video on some educational topic than they are to read a book. All the topics of this movement need to be explained in depth on video in a very presentable way. Right now, we have a pool of random clips to wade through and maybe a few good documentaries and some interviews on specific aspects. This is not good enough. What we have now for video on these topics has clearly proven to be inadequate and is an area I think we need to improve.

[Pistis]

Zeitgeist is TRASH. PERIOD.

...from left field it Promotes communism, heavily lies about Christianity and its roots, and is filled with empty emotionalisms designed to manipulate the audience into believing lies.

Just my opinion.

TMike



+1

As Griffin said, Zeitgeist is an enemy within the gates because it mixes in a little bit of the truth with a whole bunch of deceit. People with little discernment will be easily decieved by the message in Zeitgeist Addendum.

And what's the Zeitgeist message: a sophisticated rehash of the communistic propaganda of getting rid of the state, religion, traditional family unit, money and all forms of individual competitiveness in favour of global unification (read: one-world-government) under a benevolent, technologically-advanced elite (read: scientific dictatorship) to eradicate the sickness and bad conditioning we all suffer from and create a reconditioned humanity (read: forced re-education camps).

Mix in a virulent hatred of religion (especially Christianity) while having what can only be described as a religious belief in the idea of a higher-consciousness super-man (read: Man is God) and the idea that evil does not exist (read: the end justifies the means) and there you have the idealogy of Zeitgeist in a nutshell.

Pure lunacy!


BTW: Words in italics are all direct quotes/paraphrases from Peter Joseph, the maker of Zeitgeist

[H Roark]

and what's the zeitgeist message: A sophisticated rehash of the communistic propaganda of getting rid of the state, religion, traditional family unit, money and all forms of individual competitiveness in favour of global unification (read: One-world-government) under a benevolent, technologically-advanced elite (read: Scientific dictatorship) to eradicate the sickness and bad conditioning we all suffer from and create a reconditioned humanity (read: Forced re-education camps).

Mix in a virulent hatred of religion (especially christianity) while having what can only be described as a religious belief in the idea of a higher-consciousness super-man (read: Man is god) and the idea that evil does not exist (read: The end justifies the means) and there you have the idealogy of zeitgeist in a nutshell.

Pure lunacy!


Btw: Words in italics are all direct quotes/paraphrases from peter joseph, the maker of zeitgeist

bingo!

[wizardwatson]

AJ is right. Zeitgeist is a tool for the NWO agenda. It's trying to hijack the liberty/freedom movement by showing you half the truth (9/11 truth, Fed System, False-Flag ops) while trying to sneak in communism and the Theosophical Society as the one true religion (while claiming all other religions are arcane and out of date).

Read 1984
Read Brave New World

And this "technology can overcome scarcity" crap is just that crap. Only the free market can generate new technology and overcome scarcity. And you can't have worldwide resource 'sharing'. That's called 'government owns everything'.

[wizardwatson]

Maybe I should jump on the bandwagon too!!!!

Not.

Karl Marx classic 'Capital' selling well in crisis, publisher says (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20081017/tpl-karl-marx-classic-capital-selling-we-62be7fa.html)

Linked via HuffingtonPost, imagine that.

Save us Marx!!! ya bastard.

[Deborah K]

I thought the first Zeigeist was trash....never bothered to watch the second one.

[Deborah K]

I think there is one more lesson to glean from all this. The most severely uneducated segment of this movement is faaaaar more likely to watch a video on some educational topic than they are to read a book. All the topics of this movement need to be explained in depth on video in a very presentable way. Right now, we have a pool of random clips to wade through and maybe a few good documentaries and some interviews on specific aspects. This is not good enough. What we have now for video on these topics has clearly proven to be inadequate and is an area I think we need to improve.


Let's write a book and add a DVD in it.......

[raiha]

What a load of paranoid bollocks.

[rayzer]

Who is paranoid?

[constituent]

Since he is in a leadership position, he really should have taken the time to educate himself. So let's learn a valuable lesson from this. People in leadership positions should be pushed HARD to learn more about liberty and economics. If we see someone in a leadership position, we have a duty to make damn well sure they know their stuff even if they are a good friend. Ask them what they are doing about their education now, not what they plan to do some day. What are they learning now? And make sure they follow through. That's what a true friend and lover of liberty would do.

And certainly if you are in a leadership position: you better be doing your homework :)

Well said!


I think there is one more lesson to glean from all this. The most severely uneducated segment of this movement is faaaaar more likely to watch a video on some educational topic than they are to read a book. All the topics of this movement need to be explained in depth on video in a very presentable way. Right now, we have a pool of random clips to wade through and maybe a few good documentaries and some interviews on specific aspects. This is not good enough. What we have now for video on these topics has clearly proven to be inadequate and is an area I think we need to improve.


I saw a thing the other day about some people trying to setup a sort of "wiki" site for this sort of thing. The idea is that each person takes a "wiki" page on a topic and links up to various videos that explain the different arguments on the topic at hand. Very interesting concept.

If you have the time/ability, that'd be a great idea to chase down.

[constituent]

And this "technology can overcome scarcity" crap is just that crap. Only the free market can generate new technology and overcome scarcity. And you can't have worldwide resource 'sharing'. That's called 'government owns everything'.

No such thing as scarcity, not these days. All scarcity is manufactured, be it through individuals' actions or deliberate inactions.

[Conza88]

No such thing as scarcity, not these days. All scarcity is manufactured, be it through individuals' actions or deliberate inactions.

Says the man who would like to return to tribal communes. :)

@ the AJ needs to learn economics comment. Yeap. You should hear him on his show after the interview [next day]... he did some more research, admitted he was in the wrong as he was thoroughly under prepared.

The other dude did lose the argument though, only alex losing it - makes it seem like he did. Hilarious impersonation on the same day after program. :D

Also - why did this need to be bumped Rayzer? :rolleyes:

[constituent]

Says the man who would like to return to tribal communes. :)


not really an issue of want, nor communes. i knew you didn't get it though, that's why i just moved along. you're too fun when we agree to bother w/ our disagreements.

[Conza88]

not really an issue of want, nor communes. i knew you didn't get it though, that's why i just moved along. you're too fun when we agree to bother w/ our disagreements.

Haha, what didn't I get? :confused:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1716361&postcount=69
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1716365&postcount=70

:rolleyes:

{pardon the french in the first one}

[constituent]

Haha, what didn't I get? :confused:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1716361&postcount=69
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1716365&postcount=70

:rolleyes:

{pardon the french in the first one}


http://www.mascotcartoon.com/images/energizer.jpg



{pardon the french in the first one}

Srsly Conza, if you can't display even the slightest bit of civility, don't expect me to waste the day chasing down sources for you. Srsly.

I absolutely stand by my assertion that in regards to "tribes" and geee, what was your term for them again, was it "barbarians?"
...
(some ignorant bullshit, i know that much)
...

You are completely ignorant, as is most of the history and/or the historians (authoring such histories) that you can point to online. Current histories are great if you like some linear, simplified storybook understanding of the universe and the story of man that brought us to here, justifying genocide, etc., but they're bunk if you want to understand what was really going on.

The fact is that as study of what remains of the "tribes," throws our entire concept of their societieS on its head, including the timelines of both arrival and the spread of the MANY people/cultures, all attempts to compartmentalize the REALITY into nifty little charts, maps and graphs are so much academic bullshit....

However, I'm not going to spend the next three hours schooling you on REALITY. I realize it might be difficult for you, what coming from Australia and all, to hop on over to San Antonio and spend a couple of days on the sixth floor chasing down unique, primary documents, but i would suggest that you not even pretend to know much about a subject whose surface you've only begun to scratch (as evidenced by the citations w/in your argument).

That said, until you learn to learn that there is more out there than you or anyone knows about the cultures that were systematically destroyed by philosophically and culturally inferior invaders, it would be absolutely absurd (not to mention tiring and pointless) to spin in circles w/ you as you pepper your argument w/ fken, retard, etc. to bolster your case which is utterly fail and thus relies almost entirely on said insults and foul language.

You do try to understand things of which you are not aware, you do seek out alien information and that's admirable, but if you want the free education try a new approach.

I wouldn't have even bothered to respond to your post above, due to the rampant ignorance that seems to rule the day around here anymore, but that you do "get it" by and large, and I think you'll benefit from the constructive criticism, so keep that in mind.

This place is so off these days, there are so few w/ even the remotest sense of a clue, that i don't care to don the asbestos underpants over it, i hardly care to post.

Now have a good day, beeyotch :D

[Conza88]

http://www.mascotcartoon.com/images/energizer.jpg

I'd like to think I'm more like a Duracell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-it6qLjKE)... :p


Srsly Conza, if you can't display even the slightest bit of civility, don't expect me to waste the day chasing down sources for you. Srsly.

I absolutely stand by my assertion that in regards to "tribes" and geee, what was your term for them again, was it "barbarians?"
...
(some ignorant bullshit, i know that much)
...

Yeah, I need to work on that. But I tend to get frustrated easily when faced with someone defending Karl Marx directly / indirectly... or his positions..



Marx was a man with a wrong plan, but some incredibly advanced ideas nonetheless.

The death of state IS inevitable.

As is a reversion toward tribalism.

[Both a very good thing IMO (of course, i'm a descendant of the Cherokee so my perspective might be a little skewed in this regard.)]


:eek: -> :rolleyes:


You are completely ignorant, as is most of the history and/or the historians (authoring such histories) that you can point to online. Current histories are great if you like some linear, simplified storybook understanding of the universe and the story of man that brought us to here, justifying genocide, etc., but they're bunk if you want to understand what was really going on.

The fact is that as study of what remains of the "tribes," throws our entire concept of their societieS on its head, including the timelines of both arrival and the spread of the MANY people/cultures, all attempts to compartmentalize the REALITY into nifty little charts, maps and graphs are so much academic bullshit....

However, I'm not going to spend the next three hours schooling you on REALITY. I realize it might be difficult for you, what coming from Australia and all, to hop on over to San Antonio and spend a couple of days on the sixth floor chasing down unique, primary documents, but i would suggest that you not even pretend to know much about a subject whose surface you've only begun to scratch (as evidenced by the citations w/in your argument).

Ok, so all my criticisms are unworthy of being addressed... And that's that? lol... right I'm ignorant then apparently... but I'll never know why... :( -> :rolleyes:


That said, until you learn to learn that there is more out there than you or anyone knows about the cultures that were systematically destroyed by philosophically and culturally inferior invaders, it would be absolutely absurd (not to mention tiring and pointless) to spin in circles w/ you as you pepper your argument w/ fken, retard, etc. to bolster your case which is utterly fail and thus relies almost entirely on said insults and foul language.

You do try to understand things of which you are not aware, you do seek out alien information and that's admirable, but if you want the free education try a new approach.

Ok, so these 'communal tribes' invented great stuff etc. but it was always wiped out when these "inferior invaders" took over? Mate, I sometimes add insults but they are never the foundation of my arguments & rebuttals, they don't even come close. Can't I even get one example of one of these communes contributing something to civilization.. or is that not possible, and we'll have to assume they did.. but culturally inferior civilizations (ones with property rights I guess) ruined it all. :confused:


Now have a good day, beeyotch :D

:o You too. :D

[constituent]

Ok, so these 'communal tribes' invented great stuff etc. but it was always wiped out when these "inferior invaders" took over?

Man, am i glad this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=f99_xL8EY8YC) is finally hosted online in its entirety.

(thanks for provoking my search!)

If you read this, you will find reference to many of the early expeditions into Texas, including reference to various diaries kept, etc. that will help you begin to form a base of understanding for what things were really like (and a really good feel for the lay of the land in "my area.")

This is ONE place to start (and a small piece of the puzzle.) Let me know when you're done.


Enjoy!

[Conza88]

Man, am i glad this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=f99_xL8EY8YC) is finally hosted online in its entirety.

(thanks for provoking my search!)

If you read this, you will find reference to many of the early expeditions into Texas, including reference to various diaries kept, etc. that will help you begin to form a base of understanding for what things were really like (and a really good feel for the lay of the land in "my area.")

This is ONE place to start (and a small piece of the puzzle.) Let me know when you're done.

Enjoy!

Ok goodie, reading assignment.. lol

The "Indian Tribes Reported on Spanish Expeditions into Texas, 1689-1768" in the Appendix IV pg 265 - 291.... isn't available in this book.. :(

In the mean time..


It is not the economists who lack the “historical sense” and ignore the factor of evolution, but their critics. The economists have always been fully aware of the fact that the market economy is the product of a long historical process which began when the human race emerged from the ranks of the other primates. The champions of what is mistakenly called “historicism” are intent upon undoing the effects of evolutionary changes. In their eyes everything the existence of which they cannot trace back to a remote past or cannot discover in the customs of some primitive Polynesian tribes is artificial, even decadent. They consider the fact that an institution was unknown to savages as a proof of its uselessness and rottenness. Marx and Engels and the Prussian professors of the Historical School exulted when they learned that private property is “only” a historical phenomenon. For them this was the proof that their socialist plans were realizable.8 Link (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=839&Itemid=351).


8. The most amazing product of this widespread mode of thought is the book of a Prussian professor, Bernhard Laum (Die geschlossene Wirtschaft [Tübingen, 1933]). Laum assembles a vast collection of quotations from ethnographical writings showing that many primitive tribes considered economic autarky as natural, necessary, and morally good. He concludes from this that autarky is the natural and most expedient state of economic management and that the return to autarky which he advocates is “a biologically necessary process.” (p. 491).

"An autarky is an economy that is self-sufficient and does not take part in international trade, or severely limits trade with the outside world. Likewise it refers to an ecosystem not affected by influences from the outside, which relies entirely on its own resources. In the economic meaning, it is also referred to as a closed economy." Wiki.. :eek:

The Communal Socialist (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/144.mp3)- Robert LeFevre ... i.e same system as the tribes? :)

Indians, the Colonials, and Lockean Theory (http://blog.mises.org/archives/003821.asp)

Economy, Society, and History (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=66)

Marxism Unmasked - Ludwig Von Mises - in particular;
9TH LECTURE - Foreign Investments and the Spirit of Capitalism (http://www.fee.org/library/books/MarxismUnmasked.asp)

Democracy the God that Failed (http://books.google.com/books?id=qARC56X5vxcC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171) - Hoppe; Chp 9
On Cooperation, Tribe, City and State

:D

[constituent]

The Communal Socialist- Robert LeFevre ... i.e same system as the tribes?

Not all tribes. You see, your perspective is entirely too limited.

W/out a basic understanding of reality, all else is academic b.s.

(and running around in circles... and for what?)

On the book, when you see a source that interests you, that's where the digging begins.



Indians, the Colonials, and Lockean Theory

...and to think that any of them had any right to say one way or the other. So many justifications (and again, academic b.s.)

[blogs don't count. not even on mises]

[rayzer]

What a load of paranoid bollocks.

Who is paranoid?