The documentary entitled “Zeitgeist Addendum” which was released in 2002, tackles about how the monetary system is the root of all political and societal problems like social stratification and human slavery. It was directed by Peter Joseph who is an American independent filmmaker and a social activist. He is also the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement which advocates a “resource-based economy” wherein all the decisions of the system should be based on the resources and that these resources should be maximized for further efficiency within the proposed system. The documentary’s target audience is the working class or the 99% of the population which owns 60% of the world’s wealth for it points out that the root of every political and societal problem comes from the monetary system, and that this system oppresses 99% of the population. A very dark and serious tone was used to deliver the director’s outlook on our current system. By looking deeper into the quotes that Peter Joseph has provided, we can see that he does not agree with the current society that we have; on how we are used to living in a society such as this. A society which is composed of different institutions: political, religious, illegal, social class, familial values, and occupational specialization which are deemed by him as false institutions which are taken for granted and are misunderstood. He believes that these institutions cause political conflicts and social stratification mainly because they are all under a monetary system. Aside from these, he used ethos, pathos, and logos to appeal to his audience. Numerical facts and statistics were provided, significant events and speeches were used in the documentary, ideals from people with credentials were quoted, and authority was used for conviction. Though the use of ethos was prevalent in the documentary, pathos was also partially used. Data and stories about sick children, murdered presidents, and mistreated labor workers were used for sympathy. And lastly, logos by connecting one event to another which may or may not be the cause of it. He used these rhetorical moves to make his audience have a look into the society which he believes currently exists. He wants to make his viewers realize that we are a part of a society which is being oppressed through human labor the same way that he believes this. That we ourselves settle for what is dutifully given to us, which according to him is debt, more debt, and even more debt. We are living in a society which is currently in crisis: a crisis in conscience, crisis that cannot anymore accept the old norms. He even quoted Krishnamusti saying that: “It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” which I think emphasizes more on how his beliefs are really against the society today, which is currently revolving in the monetary system. He believes that we will only have an equal and just society if we will eliminate all the occupational specializations; if we will be under a “resource-based” economy wherein all the decisions of the system should be based on the resources and that these resources should be maximized for further efficiency within the proposed system; and that an example of this perfect system is the Venus project. The Venus Project is a proposed remolding of our current society into a place where technology is the only institution. This project claims that it will build a society wherein the resources that our world has will be used for the benefit of everyone, a promise which can only be fulfilled if we will abandon our current monetary society which is only after profit. It will end the regime of a society which is composed of money, labor, and competition; a society which strives through competition and scarcity - a society which promotes poverty and greed, for our society cannot produce a world which does not have any way because humans cannot behave in ethical or decent ways and still have profit. Basically, the Venus project is based on an economy which maintains the environment for abundance, it is the elimination of the 90% of current work forms, and it is based on no state meaning that a state does not exist in this proposed plan or rather this utopia. It is based on a sustainable global society wherein it basically believes in the quote “My country is the world and my religion is to do good”; the people behind this project believes that technology is the true gift which is solely responsible for everything that we have, it is the one solving our problems and not politics. The Venus Project is something which can only be obtained through redesigning the culture and society that we currently live in through: exposing the Fed Cartel – an assembly of capitalists whose main purpose is to provide strict competition and high market prices for commodities; by turning off the news networks; not joining the military; boycotting energy companies; rejecting any political system; and lastly, by joining a great critical mass movement like the Zeitgeist Movement. In conclusion, I think that the Venus Project is globalization in its most drastic form. To support his ideals, Peter Joseph provided numerical data; interviews with an economic hit man, and two industrial engineers pushing through with the same project (Venus Project); and clips of speeches from different people –all of which were gathered from different resources in his documentary. Though it is good that he has provided us with different researches, I think that these evidences are limited because of the number of people he interviewed per field. He has limited the information that his audience can perceive by sticking to only one side of the coin. I think that the documentary does not give enough choices for its viewers and it is very biased. Considering the things that have been said; I do not agree with the claim of the film, that the root of every political and societal problem comes from the monetary system, because I think that it is always up to the person to choose who or what he will ought to be. I think that the current institutions that we have are not false simply because they are institutions which help the society through different means may it be ideological, moral, familial, or occupational molding. Our society today certainly is not a perfect one, but I think that it is good on its own because we are working for each other; we are striving to do better and to have something worth keeping. I think that the competitive society that we are currently under keeps us motivated and full of life, I think that the gap that we currently have in our society is something that should not cease to exist because it creates and molds every human being in a way which makes us work and live an active life. Though in Peter Joseph’s defense, I think that his proposed plans are caused by his socialist thinking. He believes in the welfare of the people, and is struggling to free society from the grasp of any government institution because he thinks that the people are for the people and everyone is equal in terms of social standing. Due to this, he has resorted to the proposal of making an extensive social transformation. Though what I think is the problem with this is that it will eventually lead to something more drastic, that this so-called social transformation may be the cause of another form of ethnic cleansing but this time, it is not only limited to those who are a part of unwanted ethnic or religious groups but rather to everyone thinking that a government or institution must exist. Even so, I believe that our “broken” society causes us to be more compassionate towards those who need them. Greed, envy, and distorted personas exist in our society today mainly because of the environment of our society today but because of this, we have cultured a race which is interconnected and dependent on each other. It has created the human race, and we are in a competition which brings to existence the evil and the greater good which hides itself in the evil. Our grip in society is only a matter of choosing the lesser evil because I honestly believe that the good coexists with the bad, neither of the two will cease to exist if the other element is gone. The solution is not the abolishment of the monetary system, but the elimination of the people who are inside the empire of capitalism causing the circulation of cash flow for society to be limited. I think that it is high time to start questioning why the 1% of the human population owns 40% of the world’s wealth. I am not against the wealth accumulation of an individual, what I am against is the unjust individual accumulation of wealth which is supposedly for the public. We should properly subsidize the wealth that we have, maximize our world’s resources to provide better services to our society, and lastly start considering two sides of the coin because I think that a solution can only be made if we are open to both sides of the story - if we will consider the advantages and disadvantages, and the disadvantages within the advantages and vice versa, because as I have mentioned before, it is only about choosing the lesser evil.
Posted on: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:57:21 +0000