Zeitgeist & Zeitgeist: Addendum

So, I'm trying to do a couple of things here.

1. I want to know how many of you have seen these documentary's and what you thought of them. Keep it civil as well, because it does touch on very sensitive subjects. If you have an opinion, great but be nice about it.

2. Do you think that the Venus Project could actually work? I mean, I know it wouldn't be perfect. It would most definitely be better than our monetary system. Would there be too many flaws?

2. Some shameless promotion. I am a strong believer of the power of the Zeitgeist Movement. I don't believe in war and I believe in civil revolutions which is what they're asking of us as humans. To save this world without violence.

If you haven't seen these films, they stream for free 24/7 at www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Addendum is the sequel, so watch that one second.

If you support what they're trying to do, join the cause.
http://groups.myspace.com/zeitgeistmovement
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=55303891744

Please don't take this as me taking advantage of the forums for promotional use, this is ALL non-profit.
Thanks and keep it nice=)

The problem with films like Zeitgeist, and most "revolutionary" rhetoric, is that they all bite off more than they can chew, and in an attempt to address what's wrong with everything they fail to convincingly propose solutions to anything.

I can't speak to everything in the film, and in all honesty I've never watched the whole thing. I've seen enough to know that taking any messages from this film to heart could be a terrible mistake. I saw a ten minute excerpt of when the film "discusses" religion (in addition other excerpts, totalling about a half hour or 45 minutes. I've also seem some of its ideas on 9/11 conspiracy and 20 minutes of the link you provided). Whoever authored the sequence of shots and voice over had absolutely no idea what they were talking about. The discussion we've had on this board about religion is far more insightful and contributes much more to actually furthering the discussion of religion and greater understanding other people's views on the subject. Zeitgeist does nothing of the sort, it makes assumptions and statements that have no basis in reality, and draws horrifying conclusions based on its own twisted understanding. Seeing this has completely discredited the "Zeitgeist movement" in my eyes.

What really bothers me about a film like Zeitgeist is that I generally agree with most of the messages it tries to send. World peace, putting power back in the hands of the people, fighting poverty, economic regulation... these are hard messages to argue against. Seeing these messages confused, and as part of a greater whole which I don't agree with (radical revolution, abolishment of religion, government deficit spending), detracts from those causes which I'd like to get behind. In much the same way I agree with Micheal Moore's message, but not his methods, Zeitgeist is counter-productive to the movement it wishes to create.

However, Crowley, to have you make a post about Zeitgeist in an earnest desire to discuss it, then I must concede the film does serve some positive purpose in getting people to think about and talk about these sorts of ideas. What I'm most afraid of happening from a movie like Zeitgeist, is that people will watch it and think that they have all the information and no longer need to scrutinize the theories they provide. Your actions defy that fear, and for that I am interested in, and willing to listen to, those who support the theories found in this film.

----------

This rebuttal isn't perfect, but it does begin to address some problems with the "religious/Christian" message of Zeitgeist. Like every "documentary," it sheds some light on the lies found within Zeitgeist, either through specific invocation or omission. Again, this rebuttal is subject to its own bias, but it deserves as much "say" in your mind as Zeitgeist does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkkWiKHqRWM

From what I could gather from the patchy information from Wikipedia, Zeitgeist seems like an extreme form of humanism. And if I am correct in this assumption, then I'd have to agree with Stealth's opinion on the subject. All I have to add is morality minus God equals plain hypocrisy.

stealth toilet said:

The problem with films like Zeitgeist, and most "revolutionary" rhetoric, is that they all bite off more than they can chew, and in an attempt to address what's wrong with everything they fail to convincingly propose solutions to anything.

I can't speak to everything in the film, and in all honesty I've never watched the whole thing. I've seen enough to know that taking any messages from this film to heart could be a terrible mistake. I saw a ten minute excerpt of when the film "discusses" religion (in addition other excerpts, totalling about a half hour or 45 minutes. I've also seem some of its ideas on 9/11 conspiracy and 20 minutes of the link you provided). Whoever authored the sequence of shots and voice over had absolutely no idea what they were talking about. The discussion we've had on this board about religion is far more insightful and contributes much more to actually furthering the discussion of religion and greater understanding other people's views on the subject. Zeitgeist does nothing of the sort, it makes assumptions and statements that have no basis in reality, and draws horrifying conclusions based on its own twisted understanding. Seeing this has completely discredited the "Zeitgeist movement" in my eyes.

What really bothers me about a film like Zeitgeist is that I generally agree with most of the messages it tries to send. World peace, putting power back in the hands of the people, fighting poverty, economic regulation... these are hard messages to argue against. Seeing these messages confused, and as part of a greater whole which I don't agree with (radical revolution, abolishment of religion, government deficit spending), detracts from those causes which I'd like to get behind. In much the same way I agree with Micheal Moore's message, but not his methods, Zeitgeist is counter-productive to the movement it wishes to create.

However, Crowley, to have you make a post about Zeitgeist in an earnest desire to discuss it, then I must concede the film does serve some positive purpose in getting people to think about and talk about these sorts of ideas. What I'm most afraid of happening from a movie like Zeitgeist, is that people will watch it and think that they have all the information and no longer need to scrutinize the theories they provide. Your actions defy that fear, and for that I am interested in, and willing to listen to, those who support the theories found in this film.

----------

This rebuttal isn't perfect, but it does begin to address some problems with the "religious/Christian" message of Zeitgeist. Like every "documentary," it sheds some light on the lies found within Zeitgeist, either through specific invocation or omission. Again, this rebuttal is subject to its own bias, but it deserves as much "say" in your mind as Zeitgeist does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkkWiKHqRWM

Click to expand...

First off, if you watched the whole thing, they do propose a solution, or a start to one rather. In his new Documentary Zeitgeist: Addendum it suggests ways to bring forth a revolution. Obviously, it may not happen immediately, or at all for that matter but doing nothing is far worse, in my eyes. As for it being "revolutionary rhetoric" I think that he's passionate as opposed to exaggerated.

I can't see how you think their assumptions have no basis in reality. Everything that was talked about in both films IS reality. We're all blinded by mass propaganda. They want us to watch television, soak it up, learn nothing and let them move forward to world wide dictatorship. These films tackle much more than just Religion. In my opinion, Religion is trash, I care not to talk about it at all. I didn't care for the first bit of the documentary because arguing Religion is like you said "Biting off more than you can chew". You're always going to have some Jesus monger citing the Bible and all that's divine and getting enraged when you think differently. I like what Christianity can do to people, it can instill great moral values but it also causes more war than anything ever created.

The 9/11 bits, I essentially already knew, it's just providing facts. Granted, of course it has a bias, all films do. Clever editing, taking peoples speech completely out of context, over and over. So people will always think it's in regards to a False Flag. Even "Fix" does these things and I believe Peter Joseph is guilty as well. Saying their understanding is "twisted" to me seems a bit harsh. I think of it as a real understanding as to how things work. These Elitist's don't see us as humans, we're targets, or profit or expenditures. Whatever it may be, we don't matter to them unless they gain from us. I don't see that as a twisted perception I see it as a realistic one.

I'm glad to see that you do agree with some of the message it has to offer. I just wish you would take the time to sit down and really have a look at the films. I've watched a bit of this Debunk that you've suggested I'm definitely going to have to watch this when I don't have an ass load of studying to do for my courses, hah. Also, thanks for showing it to me. I don't think you can understand something unless you see the counter-points. That's the only way to comprehend the true meaning you see, to derive it from both sides. I don't like how this guy is saying his sources aren't credible because he cited them more than once, though. If he's ever written a paper, you have to cite for each different usage. Also pointing out one of his sources were homosexual, I can see how that's somewhat relative being Religion is anti homo but come on, that's just reaching.

I too am not a fan of Moore, he seems a little too pushy and anti-government. How do you find Zeitgeist counter-productive, though? In Addendum it shows a problem and a means by which we can move forward to change. The whole point of it is to get you to do essentially what I'm doing. Discuss, research, ask questions. Does it have merit? Sources cited? Do I recognize these sources? Are they credible? All of these things, and I plan of doing it to Zeitgeist itself. I wanted to see what others thought of it and have some good discussion about it. Exactly what you brought to the table.

Dart said:

From what I could gather from the patchy information from Wikipedia, Zeitgeist seems like an extreme form of humanism. And if I am correct in this assumption, then I'd have to agree with Stealth's opinion on the subject. All I have to add is morality minus God equals plain hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

You read the "Wikipedia" information on the term Zeitgeist. We're discussing Zeitgeist: The Movie.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com if you want to watch them. There are two, both about 2 hours long.

| CROWLEY | said:

You read the "Wikipedia" information on the term Zeitgeist. We're discussing Zeitgeist: The Movie.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com if you want to watch them. There are two, both about 2 hours long.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that the Zeitgeist philosophy has nothing to do with the movies?

Dart said:

So you're saying that the Zeitgeist philosophy has nothing to do with the movies?

Click to expand...

I think he's saying that Wikipedia (however almighty and amazing it may be) isn't sufficient for you to get an accurate picture of the movies. I don't know if this is the case, as I haven't seen them (yet), but that's what he seemed to be going for.

I watched the first part, and I must say that I agree with Stealth's assessment so far. It did nothing but point out what everyone here should already know which is that people are willing to twist and distort things for their own gain. This is the obvious explanation for the number of parallels between the story of Jesus and Horace. Horace was one of three main deities (along with Osiris and Isis) in the cult of Isis which was one of the most powerful religions in Europe at the time of Christianity's rise. Given the cult's immense popularity and given that the Roman Catholic Church was a very political institution up until a few hundred years ago, it is no surprise that they decided to incorporate concepts from the cult into the less important parts of Christianity (such as Jesus' birthday, and a virgin birth). This fact, however, doesn't suddenly invalidate the religion as a whole. I have found plenty of reasons for rejecting Christianity, but one of them was not the fact that some people were willing to use and manipulate it to gain power.

Hopefully the rest of the movie does not focus on trivial, inconsequential details.

Homicidal Cherry53 said:

I think he's saying that Wikipedia (however almighty and amazing it may be) isn't sufficient for you to get an accurate picture of the movies. I don't know if this is the case, as I haven't seen them (yet), but that's what he seemed to be going for.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Homicidal Cherry53 said:

I watched the first part, and I must say that I agree with Stealth's assessment so far. It did nothing but point out what everyone here should already know which is that people are willing to twist and distort things for their own gain. This is the obvious explanation for the number of parallels between the story of Jesus and Horace. Horace was one of three main deities (along with Osiris and Isis) in the cult of Isis which was one of the most powerful religions in Europe at the time of Christianity's rise. Given the cult's immense popularity and given that the Roman Catholic Church was a very political institution up until a few hundred years ago, it is no surprise that they decided to incorporate concepts from the cult into the less important parts of Christianity (such as Jesus' birthday, and a virgin birth). This fact, however, doesn't suddenly invalidate the religion as a whole. I have found plenty of reasons for rejecting Christianity, but one of them was not the fact that some people were willing to use and manipulate it to gain power.

Hopefully the rest of the movie does not focus on trivial, inconsequential details.

Click to expand...

He expresses his opinion on Religion while basing it upon a lot of fact. Thinking that a 40 minute segment in a documentary could completely disprove Religion as a whole is preposterous and I really don't think that's what he was going for.

Why does everyone stop after Religion? I am more or less talking about the other aspects of the movie, especially the new one that was released a couple of days ago, Addendum.

| CROWLEY | said:

Why does everyone stop after Religion? I am more or less talking about the other aspects of the movie, especially the new one that was released a couple of days ago, Addendum.

Click to expand...

I didn't stop after religion.  I'm up to the Federal Reserve right now and have 40 minutes left.  The other parts are considerably more valuable than the first section, IMO.

He expresses his opinion on Religion while basing it upon a lot of fact. Thinking that a 40 minute segment in a documentary could completely disprove Religion as a whole is preposterous and I really don't think that's what he was going for.

Click to expand...

I agree that a 40 minute segment could never disprove a religion, but the maker of the documentary tried to make it seem like it could by calling it a myth after 40 minutes of evidence that proves little beyond the immeasurable corruption of the Roman Catholic Church.

And now I'm done. Although it does raise good points and show how fear can be used as an agent of control, and it is important that the public is aware of that, I can't help but feel that the majority of the movie was overblown exaggerations. I have no degree in economics, but I realize how a central bank can be limiting to free trade, I am no economist. I know relatively little of the finer details of the economy, so I was willing to take most of what they said as the truth (with a little grain of salt of course). Then, thank god, they came to a subject I know much better than economics which is history. The film lost most of its credibility with me when it moved to WWI, and how the evil corporations and robber barons orchestrated our entry into it. O___o The sinking of the Lusitania was not the event that triggered our entrance into the war. Zeitgeist decided to ignore the Zimmerman Note. The Zimmerman Note was sent from Germany to Mexico, asking Mexico to declare war on the U.S. It is widely viewed as the primary reason for the U.S. entrance into the war just a couple months hence. The Lusitania was torpedoed over two years before the U.S. declared war on Germany and, while it was a reason for our entry into WWI, it was a corollary reason at best.

This deliberate intellectual dishonesty makes the film lose most of its credibility in my eyes. But, just to make it even worse, directly following that, they jumped to WWII, and started blathering on about conspiracy theories regarding the U.S.'s entry into the war. The problem? The government covered up little of this "conspiracy theory". U.S. aggression against the Axis Powers was well known well before Pearl Harbor. It is not as though FDR tried to cover everything up and look like the Axis' best friend until the day before Pearl Harbor. If that weren't enough, about 30 minutes later, they began talking about the evils of the North American Union, and how it has been in existence for three years. The reality is that The North American Union is a theoretical confederation, created by those who oppose NAFTA, and other legislation that would increase ties between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

Zeitgeist had a good message which is that we must not let fear blind us or allow others to use it as an excuse to take away civil liberties, but that message was buried under a mountain of intellectual dishonesty, plenty of bending or distorting the truth, and a couple outright lies.

Homicidal Cherry53 said:

I think he's saying that Wikipedia (however almighty and amazing it may be) isn't sufficient for you to get an accurate picture of the movies. I don't know if this is the case, as I haven't seen them (yet), but that's what he seemed to be going for.

Click to expand...

Eh, it doesn't bother me anyhow. I used Wikipedia as a mild reference and that was it.

And although I haven't watched the movie yet (cable internet is hopefully here next week), I seriously doubt they debunked Christianity. :

Dart said:

Eh, it doesn't bother me anyhow. I used Wikipedia as a mild reference and that was it.

And although I haven't watched the movie yet (cable internet is hopefully here next week), I seriously doubt they debunked Christianity. :

Click to expand...

It didn't. It did, however, bring up several good points (not necessarily regarding Christianity) which is why I would prefer you didn't dismiss the entire thing offhand even if it did "bend" the truth in several situations.

| CROWLEY | said:

Why does everyone stop after Religion? I am more or less talking about the other aspects of the movie, especially the new one that was released a couple of days ago, Addendum.

Click to expand...

To answer:

Homicidal Cherry53 said:

This deliberate intellectual dishonesty makes the film lose most of its credibility in my eyes...

... Zeitgeist had a good message which is that we must not let fear blind us or allow others to use it as an excuse to take away civil liberties, but that message was buried under a mountain of intellectual dishonesty, plenty of bending or distorting the truth, and a couple outright lies.

Click to expand...

When the film deliberately lies once, then everything it claims because suspect, and Zeitgeist becomes an unreliable source of information. Once one fact is found to be incorrect, every fact needs to be scrutinized, and any truth the film may have contained is, as Cherry put it, buried under a mountain of skepticism. The topic of religion is usually a useful litmus test for determining academic debate from inflammatory rhetoric. People who can discuss various religions, put them in historical and social context, view their various pros and cons, and who can act civil and respectful while they do it are people genuinely worth listening to. Those who speak about religion the way Zeitgeist does, making rookie mistakes about the subject (making religion pseunonymous with Christianity, being unable to separate church from scripture, followers from the faith, etc.), are simply spouting of unresearched, unverified, claims. Why should someone who speaks nonsense for 20 minutes deserve to be listened to for the next 40? If I did nothing but lie to you in an attempt to deceive you in my opening paragraph would you really listen to the rest of what I had to say? Really?

As I said, I did watch more than just the parts about religion (excerpts on the 9/11 conspiracy, and 20 minutes of the part you linked to), and this is neither the first work I've seen to propose such conspiracies, nor the first documentary I've viewed on such things. Zeitgeist is unconvincing on all these accounts, the religion thing is just the one I know best. To reiterate on what I first said, and what Cherry said, the message of the movie may be a good one, but the methods with which they try to convey it discredit them entirely.

How is a documentary which lies about, twists, confuses, and distorts the truth, be expected to uncover the truth behind a worldwide conspiracy?