Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (2011)

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

What to say about this bizarre "documentary" (read: technocratic propaganda) except that when it finished my skin crawled and I almost wept for the ignorance of history that permeates nearly every minute of this over-dramatic, hyperbolic and misleading hysteria.It is quite incredible to me how human beings can be sucked in again and again to the same tried-and-failed arguments and pseudo-intellectual fallacies that have already been shown to result in misery and suffering. Oh, but maybe this time the elimination of individuality, meritocracy and fruitful hierarchy will be different! Tell that to the millions of victims of communism throughout history - it'll be different this time, because machines! Yes, that is really the crux of the entire movie, and it made my blood run cold. To see the rating this has received - to see so many ignorant fools wilfully celebrating the surrender of their own freedom in the name of 'the greater good' has made me quite depressed. Are people seriously so envious of others, so afraid of not having the whitest picket fence on their street that they would destroy all elements of individual achievement and potential rather than find themselves on the bottom of the human scrapheap? That is the saddest indictment of humankind's pettiness that I can imagine. This movie tries to silence its critics through ridiculing, complete with the classic anti-White stereotype of a dumb redneck shouting obscenities. But there is nothing dumb about fearing the dangerous ideas propagated in this movie. Marxist thought processes are responsible for more murder and death in this world than all other political ideologies combined, and nobody should stand idly by while communist ideas disguised as scientific utopia are drip-fed in shiny packaging to a naive, frustrated and intellectually stunted audience. That is a crime more heinous than any international banker. There are many things wrong with the world. But eliminating personal choice and creating a regimented, sterile regime where there is no freedom, no individuality and no room for the highs and lows that are what being alive is all about.. that would be the greatest tragedy of all.

Great information, I'm not even going to try and touch on any of it as many already have in other comments. I just wanna say once you put all of this great information together in your head and things start to add up for you, your brain explodes in awe and disbelief. This is probably one of the most eye opening documentaries I've ever seen, with the best information and topics. I've known about this information for awhile now, and believe strongly in the message they give. This world is so corrupted on so many levels and this series of documentaries helps you understand how exactly. I think the zeitgeist films (especially compared to other documentaries) are nothing short of phenomenal!! Out of every 100 people, there's only a small handful of complete morons who wouldn't find these films to be awesome. The point is to spread this video! Educate your family and friends so we can all be on the same page. I always like to ask people "Can you imagine a world without money??" After watching zeitgeist 2 and 3 you will 100% be able to!!!

Peter Joseph's documentary, 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward' cites a long list of social and economic problems and then in end proposes that the great solution to all these problems is more technological automation. In other words, rather than suggesting even a single socioeconomic reform, the filmmaker claims that the best way to solve all of our economic and social problems is by simply using technology to exponentially increase unemployment. I'm not sure whether Peter Joseph is trying to be conniving, is just plain stupid, or is simply like so many other Americans who are far too fixated on the next computer gadget and irreparably brainwashed with simple-minded and delusional ideologies to come up with any genuine social and economic advances. In any case, while much of the critique in 'Zeitgeist' is valid and even undeniable, it ultimately proves to be nothing more than a 2 1/2 hour infomercial.

While 'Zeitgeist' delivers a flood of information and observations on the financial system and its apparently imminent collapse, its conclusions seem considerably less convincing to me.There is a tendency here to contradict a generalization, only to present yet another; for example, the 'genetic myth'. The point taken is: social discourse refers to hereditary genes to explain away phenomena of social environment, so that policy makers can ignore their responsibility for change. If it's all in the genes, any group of people can be ostracized as 'incorrigible': a very important statement. To my understanding, it would therefore be imperative to press for an acceptance of choice as a key to identity; choice is equal to the ability of adaptation. However, 'Zeitgeist' follows up with comments suggesting that a majority of (sex) offenders have themselves been (sexually) abused as children, indicating that the social environment is the key factor to what we become; translates to me as 'they can't help being criminals, it's all in the environment'. Such a statement just substitutes one stereotype with another.'Moving Forward' also suffers from Utopian malady. There's something unsettling about the concept of 'resource-based economics' presented here, which is 'nothing more than a set of proved life-supporting understandings, where all decisions are based upon organized human and environmental sustainability'. The context is that the current political system must be replaced by a society run by scientific communes calculating the remaining resources of the world and distributing them equally and in the interest of reducing overpopulation. Criticism that such omnipotent bodies could hardly be called democratic is anticipated in the statement 'Nature is a dictatorship' (in bold on-screen letters). That translates as: 'Since we've already established that our economic system is bad, and that therefore politics supporting it is bad, we do not have to worry about democracy anymore, since we're only acting in the interest of the people'. Hello totalitarianism.The 'Zeitgeist' makers know this invites comparisons with Marxism. They ridicule this allegation by presenting a group of on-screen shadows in the auditorium rising in protest against these communist ideas. That doesn't change the fact that the aforementioned paradigm in 'Moving Forward' is a central argument in Lenin's writings. 'Zeitgeist' anticipates this criticism by mentioning that the observations of Marxism on Capitalism were correct, so you can't blame the facts for the theories based on them. True, but all the more necessary it would seem to me to elaborate how the all-encompassing 'resource-based economics' are to be achieved without the clout to push them through. The crucial problem with 'Zeitgeist Moving Forward' is hence this: even if we were able to substitute the monetary with a resource-based system, a central authority responsible for the calculation and distribution of the world's goods would inevitably lead to corruption, for it is a part of human nature to attempt to be better off than others, and the legislators and executives would still be human. No logical approach, no re-education will ever be able to do away with the desire to elevate oneself, for this instinct has played a crucial role in the survival game; it's still a key factor on why we play games, participate in sports, work against odds: we want to succeed. I'd contradict the 'Zeitgeist' makers in saying that the ideal society is the one with the fewest limits to individualism. Competition is a companion of social cognition, so a more suitable replacement for the monetary system may be service exchange. Yes, the potentially fatal effects of financial exploitation must be checked. But to pile up money rendered useless by inflation in front of banks (as in the film) doesn't strike me as constructive. Judith Butler has devised a more convincing strategy of a 'coalition of bodies' in 'Frames of War' (2009): social bodies (like homosexuals, African-Americans, Muslims) must build public coalitions which agree on an agenda based on mutual interests, and push their communities to live according to these. It's not perfect, but that short chapter is going to give you more than this long film.