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

rayzer

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
291
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top