Zeitgeist: Addendum - Screw You (Long Read)

So, the sequel to 2007's 'Zeitgeist, the Movie' came out last week. It has thus been hailed by some as 'the most important documentary ever made,' similar to the acclaim shared by the original.

Acclaim that certainly isn't deserved. It's practically redundant nowadays to debunk the original, as several of the things stated in the film are either unverifiable (claims about mythology) or proveably wrong ('There is no law that requires you to pay income tax').

Of course, it didn't matter that most of the claims in 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' were debunked before the bloody thing was even made, they just put in fancy editing and some spooky music, and boom, it's the biggest thing since 'Loose Change,' to which it owed alot to.

But Zeitgeist original is somewhat irrelevent at this point, with the new 'Zeitgeist: Addendum' hitting the internet. It hasn't made quite as huge a splash as the original did, to which I suppose I should be thankful for. As for what Zeitgeist: Addendum is about, it is, like it's original, in three parts:

1. Explaining the 'Monetary Institution' (the Fed)

2. The 'Economic Hitman.' Essentially, the entire thing consists of an interview with John Perkins, author of 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman.'

3. The solution: The Venus Project. Also, a bunch of 'New Age' Philosophy.

As in the original, the main point of the film is in part 3 (Zeitgeist original suffered from people getting distracted too much by Part 1 to pay attention to the whole RFID chip malarkey). Here, it suffers little from this, so that it is able to get to the main point: A utopian society where everyone gets absolutely whatever they want, doesn't have to work, and there's no evil money to cause crimes. A 'resource-based economy,' where there are no governments, evil institutions, prisons, what have you. Basically, the movie rails against all forms of capitalism in favor of a socialist utopia.

And Peter Joseph actually argues that the resources we have here on Earth are enough to sustain such a society, if changes are made (for example, using solar energy, wind power, and Geothermal energy instead of fossil fuels). The movie ends with the methods of 'bringing about this change.'

1. Expose the Fed Cartel

2. Boycott the big banks that are part of the Cartel

3. Boycott the News Networks (use and defend the internet)

4. Boycott the Military

5. Boycott the Energy Companies

6. Go to www.thezeitgeistmoviement.com and join the Zeitgeist Movement today!

Well, that's enough bloody exposition here, let's talk crap. Let's start with the aforementioned 'Actions for Social Transformation.' Last year you were going on about how the bankers are going to put microchips in us. Now you're saying that we can just 'boycott' the problem away?

However, simplistic solutions are not the only problem. As I watched, I found several statements that literally made me laugh.

The first thing that made me laugh was it's claim about how the Federal Reserve's system automatically creates poverty, like a 'game of musical chairs.' Following Mr. Joseph's unique train of logic, you'd think that before the Fed came to be, there was little to no poverty in America. If not, then there's little point to this particular tirade, as then it would be little different from earlier economic schemes. Well, there was one extreme example that came to my mind.

Leon Franz Czolgosz. Born May 1873, to Polish immigrants. He was a factory worker throughout his life, working in steel, glass, and wire factories. He always suffered from poverty, and expressed very vocal interests in anarchy and socialism, which is of little surprise, considering his poverty-stricken life and the conditions in the factory.

One September 6, 1901, this man shot President William McKinley at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. He was so desperate and angry that he turned to assassination.

So the Fed manufactures poverty? There was certainly ample poverty to go around long before the 'International Bankers' even conceived the Federal Reserve.

Of course, to be fair, that wasn't the most absurd statement made in Zeitgeist: Addendum. Incongruous, perhaps, but not worth too much scrutiny. I'm simply bored. Now, for a truly laughable claim:

Seeking employment and working for money is slavery. I'm not joking.

But moving on, Joseph devotes lengthy amounts of time to re-treading old ground. He shows talks about how the government is so corrupt as to carry out 'false flag attacks,' and shows the stock footage of the WTC7 collapse, with a caption denoting it as a 'controlled demolition.' Also re-treaded are the points about 'Religions is plagiarized,' with absolutely nothing done to address criticisms to the contrary, like the 'debunkers' are simply beneath him. Considering that he later makes a long spiel about how people are afraid of changing their worldviews and how 'being proven wrong should be celebrated,' I find this to be highly hypocritical.

The film also bizarrely contradicts itself at several points.

At one point it says how machines replacing human labor, effectively unemploying people, is 'corruption' akin to WAL-MART out-doing small businesses or deliberate waste dumps in water. Then, it praises how machine-work will mean people won't have to work in the new utopia.

It lambasts capitalism, saying that 'every electronic has a shelf life of 3 months before it is rendered obsolete.' It then says that capitalism 'paralyzes technology.'

The whole point of the first movie was about how the New World Order will enslave us all. Now it's all 'we need global unity.' (Incidentally, one Youtube user called Z:A 'NWO Propaganda' because of it's anti-capitalist slant. Ironic.)

Peter Joseph has thus demonstrated that it is indeed possible to have one's cake and piss on it too.

He makes the claim that, in a 'resource-based economy,' with no money, there will be no need for prisons, as without money, 'abhorrent behavior' will be all but eliminated, because without money, there won't be any desperation or greed to cause crime. This might sound convincing at first, but think about it - there are many areas of crime that this doesn't cover. It does not cover the rapist, nor the sadist and the sociopath. It does not cover crimes of passion made in the heat of the moment. It does not cover the drunkard or the druggie who harms in intoxicated fits. It does not cover the fame-seekers who will do anything to get attention, even murder (John Hinkley Jr., who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan because of an obsession with Jodie Foster, comes to mind instantly). It does not cover the fanatic. The list goes on and on. Perhaps in this society, Leon Czolgosz wouldn't have fired the shot, but Charles Guiteau would have.

I'm sure that the first criticism of the 'work-less' society that came to mind was the 'no incentive.' They devote about twenty seconds to combatting this, and it is shallow and intellectually weak. Jacque Fresco, who is the leading mind behind the Venus Project, says that basically, with the monetary incentive removed, new incentives will arise, and he says 'hey, if you produce a painting because you love it and not because you're selling it, it will be better.'

I am unconvined. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart wrote the score for 'The Magic Flute' because he was commissioned to do so, not because he just had all the wonderful music in his heart and wanted to share it with the world. He was broke and desperately needed to support his family. Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel because he was commissioned to do so by the Vatican. He didn't even want to do it, he was begging to go back to work on the Pope's tomb. Also, Fresco never states what these 'new incentives' are.

At the end, Peter Joseph goes into a long-winded speech with his New Age philosophy, followed by his 'Actions for Social Change.' Peter Joseph, you are a sanctimonious windbag, a hypocrite, and you have proven yourself both intellectually lazy and dishonest. Screw you, screw Zeitgeist, and screw Zeitgeist: Addendum.

>_>

I love you. I love you, I love you, I love you. Marry me. For the love of God, MARRY ME!

Actually, this 2nd one is 5 times better than the first, there, I said it.

Until the world starts getting along and realizes that the Government is ****ing you in the behind, and that they don't give a crap about the world and get people like you to join the military to fulfill their political agendas, we won't survive for ages to come.

Did you take note of the CIA Assassinations in the documentary? Most of them are infact true. The one concerning the CIA's involvement in screwing up the Middle East by overthrowing the man who was spreading democracy in thereto set up the Shah in Iran just so that the U.S. could get some oil, is WELL KNOWN and is backed by EVIDENCE.

Open up your eyes people. Yes, there are some parts of the film that make you go "meh" but the theme is what is relevant to our society.

Of course, the general audience is too lazy to give a crap.

'Some' parts? The stuff on the CIA assassinations and foreign policy greed are probably the only part that has any legitamacy at all (I didn't even comment on it). Better documentaries have been made on the matter, ones that don't come with a package of logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty.

I forgot to mention the film's simplistic and superficial description of scarcity - they don't even define it, they just say that it's bad. Not to mention the whole 'Al Qaeda is a fictional organization' crapola.

The film's message hardly even matters. When you package something with so many things that are just flat-out wrong, you damage the one good thing that's in there. The few things it does get right do not redeem the entirety of the film by any means.

'Some' parts? The stuff on the CIA assassinations and foreign policy greed are probably the only part that has any legitamacy at all (I didn't even comment on it). Better documentaries have been made on the matter, ones that don't come with a package of logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty.

I forgot to mention the film's simplistic and superficial description of scarcity - they don't even define it, they just say that it's bad. Not to mention the whole 'Al Qaeda is a fictional organization' crapola.

The film's message hardly even matters. When you package something with so many things that are just flat-out wrong, you damage the one good thing that's in there. The few things it does get right do not redeem the entirety of the film by any means.

PannicAtack

Mind sharing those documentaries? I'm interested...and would definately like viewing them.

I have to be honest, i've watched the first one many times over and i hold it near and dear. It came heavily suggested to me after many hours-long discussions with a good friend and former co-worker of mine about the subjects it details. I found that a lot of my beliefs and suspicions were confirmed with quite a bit of supporting evidence.

As I watched it, I knew that many would disagree and have many arguments, but until now, i've never had the ambition to seek out anyone or their arguments. So now that someone's come out (and thankfully informed me of a sequel i never knew was coming :D) and put this material under a magnifying glass for a more harsh criticism than i was willing to dish out, maybe you can point out some fallacies from the first film? Even just a link to someone else's dedicated page to bashing it?

I'm genuinely seeking evidence against the first film, even as I support it. If there is substantial contradictory information available, i'd like to know about it, I don't want to be just another blind follower. From what i've read of your review of Addendum, it seems like i could agree with you if it is as bad as you make it sound. But I'll wait 'til i've seen the video myself to pass judgement.

I believe most of the evidence against the first film comes from people that believe in a fantasy book named the Bible, trying to devoke the claims that Jesus (as in, the Son of God) is a myth borrowed from ancient records and civilizations. Well, that's not ALL of the anti-zeitgeist group of people but it is a vast majority of them.

ab-1205

Those are the types that made me not feel like seeking out any nay-sayers. But the TC seems smarter than the average televangelist :)

The first one was so riddled wih holes and falicieshtekemerald

care to provide some examples?

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]The first one was so riddled wih holes and faliciesHardQuor

care to provide some examples?

Plus the entire section reaks of anti-semitism

[QUOTE="HardQuor"]

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]The first one was so riddled wih holes and falicieshtekemerald

care to provide some examples?

Plus the entire section reaks of anti-semitism

Anti-semitism? Please, that's the most ridiculous "tag" ever in the last century, anti semitism.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="HardQuor"]

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]The first one was so riddled wih holes and faliciesab-1205

care to provide some examples?

Plus the entire section reaks of anti-semitism

Anti-semitism? Please, that's the most ridiculous "tag" ever in the last century, anti semitism.

[QUOTE="ab-1205"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="HardQuor"]

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]The first one was so riddled wih holes and falicieshtekemerald

care to provide some examples?

Plus the entire section reaks of anti-semitism

Anti-semitism? Please, that's the most ridiculous "tag" ever in the last century, anti semitism.

There's been cruelty towards many different groups of people throughout history, why should Jews stand out more? I hate how on TV, if anyone makes a comment towards a "Jew" it is called anti-semitism.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]The first one was so riddled wih holes and faliciesHardQuor

care to provide some examples?

In part three, he makes the claim that 'there is no law, anywhere, that requires you to pay an income tax.' This assertion is simply idiotic. The law is contained in the Internal Revenue Code. It's there. Some people just choose to ignore it.

Virtually everything in part 2 (the 9/11 attacks) was completely false. For example, their point that '5 of the 19 hijackers are still alive.' This was a case of mistaken identity. After an initial list of the victims was released, a few people who happened to have the same names (the hijackes had common arabic names) called in to voice their confusion. However, this all went away after the final list of names and pictures were released. The whole 'living hijackers' claim is simply the case of a mistaken identity.

They make one statement: The 9/11 Commission deemed the financing of the attacks was "of little significance" in their official report.

The quote is simply taken out of context. What the 9/11 Commission Report actually said was that there were so many different sources for financing the attacks that there was little use at the time of pinning down a single source of funding. What the movie did is simply dishonest.

It goes onto the old CT standby: The twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. This is simply false. Explain to me how three massive buildings that had hundreds of people working in them daily, could be fitted for demolition? It's a noisy and lengthy process that involves knocking out walls and placing of hundreds of explosives and massive lengths of detonating cord. How could they do it with nobody noticing? Not to mention the fact that the buildings that were destroyed on 9/11 were far bigger than any building ever destroyed with a controlled demolition.

They also make the claim about Thermite being used in the demolition. This claim is bizarre... because Thermite has never been used in demolishing a building. It's used in the military to knock out sensitive equipment. Also, the source of these 'Thermite' claims comes from Steven Jones, a professor at BYU. He's part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and he published a lengthy report about his findings, which he feels shows evidence of thermite being used, due to certain chemicals being in the rubble. But there are several problems:

1. The paper has not been peer-reviewed

2. The chemicals he mentions, such as sulfur, can be easily accounted for by the burning materials. The sulfur, for example, in the drywall.

3. Barium Nitrate is the most abundant chemical product made when Thermite or Thermate burns. But Jones didn't find any Barium Nitrate

Also, they talk about the 'cut beams' as evidence. Those would be the ones cut by cleaning crews.

They also talk about the 'basement explosions' which occured 'prior to the planes hitting the towers.' It is true that, in a controlled demolition, they knock out the basement. However, if this were a controlled demolition, their witnesses wouldn't be alive. There is also nothing to say that it happened before the planes hit. Such an observation of explosions in the basement would have had to be by people... in the basement. Where they couldn't see the planes. There's one person who is often used as a 'witness' to the 'sub-basement explosions.' He talks about what happened. In the way he's presented, he seems convincing. However, the clip is heavily edited and his statements are taken out of context to such a degree as to be blatantly dishonest. 9/11 Mysteries pulled this crap before. What happened in the basement was the result of the fireball traveling down the elevator shaft, and an elevator car crashing down from above due to snapped cables.

There's also the usual talk about Building 7. It didn't get hit by a plane, so how could it have collapsed? Well, there are two main things: the fire, and most importantly, a tower falling on top of it. Building 7 had very extensive damage down to it when one of the falling towers hit it.

Here's a picture of Building 7 with the damage caused.

And then there's the matter of the fire. The fire-fighters attest that there was a massive fire in the building. The fire, along with the substantial structural damage more than accounts for the building's collapse.

As for part 1, it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or not. You should not use false information just because it agrees with you. Several of the claims made have no backing, save for uncredentialed authors such as Acharya S (who has been refuted by mythology scholars far and wide) and Gerald Massey (who published more work defending psychics and mystics than on Egypt). The claims simply cannot be verified. They could've made a compelling documentary about the history of the church and the corruption in it, but they didn't. They simply resorted to bogus scholarship. The 'December 25th' point doesn't even warrant a discussion. Also, there's intellectual dishonesty here. When explaining the cross of the zodiac, they say, 'this is why, in a occult art, Jesus' head is on a cross.' They show this picture:

This is not 'early occult art.' This is a 6th-century Byzantine mosaic. Jesus looks nothing like this in early Christian artwork. This is simply intellectual dishonesty. If you're going to talk about 'Early Occult Art,' you might want to start with something from before the empire was a Christian theocracy.

But that's enough about Part 1.

Part 3 has a very amusing point about it - the microchip malarkey. That's practically the whole point of the film. But their only source for this claim comes from Aaron Russo, who made the movie 'America: Freedom to Facism.' Russo propagates these tax myths, such as 'there is no law that requires you to pay.' Before he died, he had $2 million in tax liens filed agaisnt him. He claims that he had a conversation with a 'Nicholas Rockefeller' in which he was let in on how 9/11 was an inside job and how they're going to put microchips in you. There are a few problems:

1. Russo is essentially saying that he knew about the 9/11 plans well in advance of the fact.

2. This 'Nicholas Rockefeller' has no ties to the actual Rockefeller family that can be found.

3. Zeitgeist is basing a large part of the film on a singular testimony. This is called anecdotal evidence. And it is weak.

They also predicted a new National ID in America by June 2008. It is now October. No such thing has happened. So it makes their 'RFID chip' claims that much more dubious.

I have to be honest, i've watched the first one many times over and i hold it near and dear. It came heavily suggested to me after many hours-long discussions with a good friend and former co-worker of mine about the subjects it details. I found that a lot of my beliefs and suspicions were confirmed with quite a bit of supporting evidence.

As I watched it, I knew that many would disagree and have many arguments, but until now, i've never had the ambition to seek out anyone or their arguments. So now that someone's come out (and thankfully informed me of a sequel i never knew was coming :D) and put this material under a magnifying glass for a more harsh criticism than i was willing to dish out, maybe you can point out some fallacies from the first film? Even just a link to someone else's dedicated page to bashing it?

I'm genuinely seeking evidence against the first film, even as I support it. If there is substantial contradictory information available, i'd like to know about it, I don't want to be just another blind follower. From what i've read of your review of Addendum, it seems like i could agree with you if it is as bad as you make it sound. But I'll wait 'til i've seen the video myself to pass judgement.

HardQuor

All yours.

All three parts. Even debunks the movie's sources.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="ab-1205"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="HardQuor"]

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]The first one was so riddled wih holes and faliciesab-1205

care to provide some examples?

Plus the entire section reaks of anti-semitism

Anti-semitism? Please, that's the most ridiculous "tag" ever in the last century, anti semitism.

There's been cruelty towards many different groups of people throughout history, why should Jews stand out more? I hate how on TV, if anyone makes a comment towards a "Jew" it is called anti-semitism.

Plus, there are large portions of the truth movement that reek with anti-semitism.

Eric Hufschmid, for example, who was one of the earliest people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, who published 'Painful Questions,' is a Holocaust denier.

The 'American Free Press,' which has been a very significant source of 9/11 conspiracy theories, has long had a history of anti-semitic claims. One of their columnists published a book, in which he implicates the Anti-Defamation League with the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The film 'Ring of Power,' a 9/11 conspiracy theory video, is very overt in its anti-semitism.

That's just a small part of all the Neo-Nazis in the conspiracy theories. Several of the conspiracy theories in part 3 are Anti-Semitic in origin. For example, Louis McFadden. They treat him like a martyr, and he opposed the Fed. What they don't tell you is that he thought it was the evil Jews who were behind it. Nice to edit out that bit of unpleasantness. Alot of the crap they talk about in part 3 has been spewed time and time again by Neo-Nazis and other anti-semitics.

I only have one thing to say i guess about this whole thing:

Regardless of whether you believe in any type of religion, any type of government, or any type of ideas, the message i get from Zeitgeist that goes along with my own personal beliefs, is that we are all the same; Meaning we all are born, we live our lives, and then we die. Why complicate life with trivial things such as who has more money, who is smarter, or who is more pretty. Why not worry about the things in life that actually matter day after day such as enjoying the limited amount of time that we actually have here on Earth, and maybe trying to make life enjoyable for others as well by accepting disagreements, embracing life for today and not tomorrow, and spreading love and happiness throughout the world.

Maybe people should try to remember that almost anything we've ever learned in school, or from our parents or from anyone besides ourselves was someone else's way of thinking and someone else's way of logic. Perhaps we should be more worried about what potential things we as humans have? Things that we call "natural" are actually the way we act as well, such as how animals act/react towards each other, towards environmental changes, and towards other species. We have to remember that we are all part of the same world, and that we, just like "the animals" have to eat, sleep, and procreate. Those are the only needs of survival for humans or any other species. However, it might be our intellect that makes us conceited enough to think that we have a higher meaning in life, or that we are separate from nature. Do we need things like computers, telephones, or television to survive? The answer is simply: "No". Things like vehicles, computers, telephones, TV, video games, MP3 players, etc. are all just simple solutions to modern living.

So I guess what I'm trying to say, is that we do not need to listen to other people for advice, or listen to their ideas. We simply choose to out of our own free will to do so. Life is always what you make it, no one else...until something such as another person steps into your life and says that you are wrong and they are right. This is exactly what people do to each other: We argue and fight about the most ignorant things imaginable just to persuade others to think like one another or submit to their will. Even this message is not absent of this because these are my beliefs... but I guess what everything all comes down to is WHAT DO YOU WANT OUT OF LIFE? Whatever it may be, then follow it. I am sure that no matter what your agenda will be, it will most likely be to make yourself happy along the way, which is as it should be. But maybe we should also consider that other people may not have the same idea, and respect their decision as well, and let our actions only affect other beings or the world in a way that doesn't interfere with someone else's free will and goal in life.

(Big text post.) Kryptok

[QUOTE="Kryptok"] (Big text post.) SpaceMoose

Well, SpaceMoose, what you did is exactly what I was talking about in my post. This is my "real account" i just joined recently while doing research about this topic and searching for other peoples' ideas and thoughts on these subjects portrayed in Zeitgeist. And even as you said, you didn't read my post obviously, because i took no side in Zeitgeist or TC at all. I am open-minded and my head is 'not up my ass' I guess it is amybe you who dwells in your anal orifice if you make a quick tempered post about someone elses post and didn't even fully read it and state that you didn't...

As far as the font size I could barely read the letters that I was typing, so I had to increase the size. I tried this one and it is still blurry but I tried to change it just for you.

Well, SpaceMoose, what you did is exactly what I was talking about in my post. This is my "real account" i just joined recently while doing research about this topic and searching for other peoples' ideas and thoughts on these subjects portrayed in Zeitgeist. And even as you said, you didn't read my post obviously, because i took no side in Zeitgeist or TC at all. I am open-minded and my head is 'not up my ass' I guess it is amybe you who dwells in your anal orifice if you make a quick tempered post about someone elses post and didn't even fully read it and state that you didn't...

As far as the font size I could barely read the letters that I was typing, so I had to increase the size. I tried this one and it is still blurry but I tried to change it just for you.

Kryptok

Also, I don't believe most of your reply there, just for the record. I'm not going to argue about it; there's no point. The fact is I don't. I should have known better than to even bother with another Zeitgeist thread anyway. They always bring out the OT loonies.

Well, I stopped taking Zeitgeist seriously around half a year ago when I realized it was 2008 and still nobody had chips implanted in their arm and still the NAU hadn't been implemented.

Of course, there is still time left. Who knows.

[QUOTE="Kryptok"]Well, SpaceMoose, what you did is exactly what I was talking about in my post. This is my "real account" i just joined recently while doing research about this topic and searching for other peoples' ideas and thoughts on these subjects portrayed in Zeitgeist. And even as you said, you didn't read my post obviously, because i took no side in Zeitgeist or TC at all. I am open-minded and my head is 'not up my ass' I guess it is amybe you who dwells in your anal orifice if you make a quick tempered post about someone elses post and didn't even fully read it and state that you didn't...

As far as the font size I could barely read the letters that I was typing, so I had to increase the size. I tried this one and it is still blurry but I tried to change it just for you.

SpaceMoose

Also, I don't believe most of your reply there, just for the record. I'm not going to argue about it; there's no point. The fact is I don't. I should have known better than to even bother with another Zeitgeist thread anyway. They always bring out the OT loonies.

And if you'll also notice, this topic is a month old. That guy's a troll.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="Kryptok"]Well, SpaceMoose, what you did is exactly what I was talking about in my post. This is my "real account" i just joined recently while doing research about this topic and searching for other peoples' ideas and thoughts on these subjects portrayed in Zeitgeist. And even as you said, you didn't read my post obviously, because i took no side in Zeitgeist or TC at all. I am open-minded and my head is 'not up my ass' I guess it is amybe you who dwells in your anal orifice if you make a quick tempered post about someone elses post and didn't even fully read it and state that you didn't...

As far as the font size I could barely read the letters that I was typing, so I had to increase the size. I tried this one and it is still blurry but I tried to change it just for you.

Theokhoth

Also, I don't believe most of your reply there, just for the record. I'm not going to argue about it; there's no point. The fact is I don't. I should have known better than to even bother with another Zeitgeist thread anyway. They always bring out the OT loonies.

And if you'll also notice, this topic is a month old. That guy's a troll.

A "troll" that makes a good point. You don't have to agree with the documentary but it definetely is an eye opener. It gets you questioning things which is very important. Regardless if you disagree with it or if its not 100% accurate - that aside it gets you thinking. If there is one thing I learned from zeitgeist its not to fall in line just because. Question everything (including the documentary itself).

And if you'll also notice, this topic is a month old. That guy's a troll. reborngamer