Zeitgeist: Addendum
Troy Hinckley
First off, I must let you know that I am not Glenn beck, and this is not talk radio. If you are looking for someone to explain to you how this is either “right” or “wrong” you have come to the wrong place. This is not Spark Notes. If you’re looking for someone to give a summary of this film you have come to the wrong place. However if you’re looking for someone to tell you how Zeitgeist: Addendum uses rhetorical technique, you have come to the right place. This analysis will make less sense to you if you haven’t seen the film, so go watch it here.
Zeitgeist: Addendum, as implied by the title, is the addendum to the original 2007 film Zeitgeist, The Movie. These films are based on the values of The Zeitgeist Movement. It is a grassroots community of about 350,000 people that are trying to bring people to their philosophy. Every year they hold Z-days in order to improve visibility and answer any questions people have. The narrator, Peter Josephs, is the founder of the movement and designed this film for that same purpose. Zeitgeist: Addendum is a film that tries to convince the audience that the current social structure, or zeitgeist, prevents prosperity and that the elimination of money will solve injustice in society.
The film is broken up into four parts following the natural progression of a rhetorical situation: from introduction to conclusion.
Part I
Zeitgeist: Addendum is appealing to godless, environmentally conscious people who consider themselves intellectuals. His opening tone is serious and straightforward. The foreshadowing is meant to hooks your attention. The animations are simple and the color pallet dull in order to appear concise. This part plays out like an economic horror story - slowly building in suspense.
The film starts out on familiar turf. A world based on money that comes from the government through the Federal Reserve. All of the sudden we are told that this money has no backing and that it is created out of thin air. As his audience, we don’t like were this is going, we’re headed down the dark alley just waiting for some monster to pop out. There it is! Fractional Banking. It’s eating the economy alive. All the banks are taking money from the reserve and are multiplying it nine fold out of thin air. As the monster rears its ugly head we see that it intends to drive inflation, forcing all Americans into economic slavery. Evidence is presented that the beast has in fact been breeding under our nose this entire time. Living in dark recesses of the economic policy and eating the unsuspecting victims of foreclosures.
By linking individual concepts, Josephs is trying to create a progressive argument that presents his conclusions as irrefutably logical. Everything is designed to tie into the previous ideas. Sharp metaphors are used to challenge the connotations associated with the monetary system “The fractional reserve policy, perpetrated by the Federal Reserve, which has spread in practice to the great majority of banks in the world, is, in fact, a system of modern slavery”. By referencing the Federal Reserve Handbook, a document written by the Federal Reserve, Josephs intends to prove that the negative effects of this fractional banking policy are intentional. The silver bullet to kill this monstrosity is not yet presented, and therefore the audience is drawn on to the next part.
Part II
If Part I was a horror film then part II is a murder trial. In fact it has a self-proclaimed economic hit man, John Perkins. He “confesses” to his crimes in a documentary style interview. Court begins and we are introduced to the victims, leaders of foreign nations who put the wellbeing of their people before the interests of transnational corporations. Imagery is flashed across the screen of grueling sweatshops and destitute families. We are meant to feel indignation over the injustice perpetrated by the rich. The narrator, acting as a prosecuting attorney, presents the murder weapons, of which there are three. First he shows us economic bribery, the primary weapon of choice. Ballistics have shown that economic hit men fired the weapon in attempt to corrupt a nations leader. But evidence from the crime scene shows that many times economic bribery was ineffective, in which case literal hit men, or CIA Jackals, took over. If this was unsuccessful, the aggressors would use the military to take out the victims.
After the prosecutor is done showing the evidence, he points his finger and accuses the corporatocracy, an alliance of corporations and governments. Familiar faces are painted as these murders, from Jimmy Carter to Dick Cheney. Just as in the first part, the narrator means to shock the audience. The weight of evidence approach is used to try and make the accusations seem irrefutable. John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, adds a measure of authority to the argument, given his past participation in the alleged “crimes”.
Part III
The first two parts of the film sets us up for the Third. After seeing the Monstrosity of fractional banking and the crimes committed against the population, the narrator shows a brighter future. The Images of today’s cruel world are contrasted with the visions of a better tomorrow. Artist conceptions show a symbiotic world based on technology. In fact this Part is very much like an episode of Star Trek. Technology will the primary source of labor and men will be free to pursue their own interests. Everything associated with money will be removed from society and we will have a resource-based economy with no poverty and all people striving for the greater good.
The diction takes on almost poetic shape as futurist Jacque Fresco talks about a world in which we can have all that we will ever want. Peter Joseph is aware that is audience will be thinking this is all too good to be true. Consequently much is said in the argument of feasibility, which is essential to establishing logos. Numerous articles about technological innovations that would accompany this world are displayed. After Peter Josephs paints a picture of a superior society, he delivers an ultimatum through the words of Fresco “War, poverty, corruption, hunger, misery, human suffering will not change in a monetary system. That is, there will be very little significant change. It's going to take the redesign of our culture and values.” This sets up for the final part, in which his audience is presented with the means to achieve this futuristic society.
Part IV
As ironic as it may seem, the last part is the Zeitgeist bible. It is in sharp contrast to the intellectual tone in the previous three parts. Any doctrine that advocates a change of behavior must provide reason for people to make those changes. In modern religion, it is faith. In Communism, it is the greater good. In the Zeitgeist: Addendum it is emergence and symbiosis. Emergence is the moving to increasingly higher levels of understanding. Symbiosis is union between everything in the world. The film is now inlaid with an unacknowledged spiritual sense. Everything from the stars to wild life is visualized as in perfect harmony, of which man is apart. A verse from the Zeitgeist bible portrays this well; “The real revolution is the revolution of consciousness and each one of us first needs to eliminate the divisionary, materialistic noise we have been conditioned to think is true; while discovering, amplifying, and aligning with the signal coming from our true empirical oneness.”
For members of all faiths this verse will reminisce of teachings from their own doctrines: the change of heart, forsaking the world, aligning ourselves with the spirit. The Zeitgeist bible is fulfilling the role of providing a guide for human behavior. As would be expected, the two pillars, emergence and symbiosis, are portrayed as the only ways to achieve happiness and “oneness”. Religion on the other hand, is portrayed as achieving nothing but false sense of security, and therefore serving no purpose.
Josephs also lays out the Zeitgeist book of commandments. These include never supporting the military and rejecting social structure. The audience is assured that if they follow these simple commandments, the power of the corporatocracy will be diminished to point that “the source of virtually every crime committed”, money, will be eliminated and an era of peace can be ushered in.
The ending scene is symbolic portrayal of the zeitgeist dream. People walking through the streets of New York look up and see that the televisions, or “materialistic noises”, have been turned off. They look into the sky and drop everything associated with this world, from briefcases to religious memorabilia. The final shot is that of an eye changing color in representation of the individuals’ newfound perspective.
Why?
The propensity of Zeitgeist: Addendum is founded on the desire to achieve the ends of the gospel without the gospel. Few people are able to accept the injustice and the abuse of the world as an unchangeable fact of life. Both Religion and Zeitgeist seek to target the source of this evil in the world. However they differ on what that source is. Religion sees it as anything contrary to eternal law, or sin. Since the zeitgeist movement rejects the existence of an eternal law, however, their own conclusion as to the source of worldly evil must be different. And they see it as money.
Without the monetary system, they believe all people would be able to achieve emergence and symbiotic oneness while the injustice in society would be eliminated. This is especially important for their belief because they do not believe in eternal justice. Therefore any injustice committed in this world will receive no punishment unless it is done so in this world.
Conclusion
Zeitgeist: Addendum is an excellent example of a rhetorical situation. Josephs realizes that the claims made will be initially unacceptable; therefore the film is trying to convince the audience of his point of view. The first part is intended to challenge the status quo by proving the harms of fractional banking in the system that exploits individuals. This flaw is a product of greed, which is the foundation of the monetarism. Once that has been accepted the second part comes in to show that this greed is holding back the development of prosperity in the world, and will not change of its own means.
After the audience acknowledges his previous claims, the third part presents an alternative to this greed-based system - a resource-based economy. The ultimatum is put forth to either continue in the status quo, in which greed will prevent prosperity, or to eliminate the root of this greed, money. This sets up nicely to the final section in which guidelines for making this change are put forth. All arguments lend credibility to their successors, with the ultimate goal of moving the audience towards beliefs of the zeitgeist movement. In its efforts to increase the understanding and visibility of the zeitgeist movement, Peter Josephs film serves its purpose well.
