Zeitgeist

Post Reply New Topic

Part I, entitled The Greatest Story Ever Told, questions religions as being god-given stories, arguing that the Christian religion specifically is mainly derived from other religions, astronomical facts, astrological myths and traditions, which in turn were derived from or shared elements with others. In furtherance of the Jesus myth hypothesis, this part argues that the historical Jesus is a literary and astrological hybrid, nurtured politically in the interest of control.

Part II, entitled All the World's a Stage, uses integral footage of several 9/11 conspiracy theory films to illustrate how the September 11 attacks were either orchestrated or allowed to happen by elements within the United States government in order to generate mass fear, initiate and justify the War on Terror, provide a pretext for the curtailment of civil liberties, and produce economic gain. These claims include that the US government had advance knowledge about the attacks, the response of the military deliberately let the planes reach their targets, and the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 underwent a controlled demolition. The film claims that six of the named hijackers are still alive, that Hani Hanjour could not have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon, that no substantial plane wreckage was found at two of the three crash sites, that the Bush administration covered up the truth in the 9/11 Commission Report, and that the mainstream media have failed to ask important questions about the official account.

Part III, entitled Don't Mind the Men Behind the Curtain, argues that three wars of the United States during the twentieth century were waged purely for economic gain by what the film refers to as "international bankers". The film alleges that certain events were engineered or were allowed to happen as excuses to enter into war including the sinking of the RMS Lusitania (a factor in the US decision to enter World War I two years later), the Attack on Pearl Harbor (which was the opening attack of the Japanese on the US in World War II), and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (which led to the escalation of the Vietnam War). According to the film, the US was forced by the Federal Reserve Bank to become embroiled in these wars, not with a view to win but to sustain the conflict, as this forces the US government to borrow money from the bank, allegedly increasing the profits of the "international bankers". The film gives a history of the Federal Reserve, claiming it engineered the Great Depression to steal wealth from the American people and was responsible for the assassination of Louis McFadden, a congressman who attempted to impeach the Federal Reserve Board. The film then goes on to claim that the Federal Income Tax is illegal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHiuaGJ46zo[/youtube]

This is, perhaps, the most blatant piece of biased propaganda that has ever masqueraded as a documentary to come from a filmmaker in a free society. It is agitprop, pure and simple.

Part I is, in some ways, the least objectionable. Given the paucity of evidence for a historical Christ, it stands to reason that it is not difficult to dispute his existence. Neither is it in any way surprising that Christianity would, as a growing social phenomenon, absorb the cultural practices of the societies into which it came in contact and absorbed. None of this is in the least surprising.

However, the intellectual leap that says, "because Christ is a fictional character, all theistic religions are tools to manipulate and control societies," is nowhere supported. Certainly Christianity, in some of its forms, and at some points in its history has exercised social control. But that it not the logical equivalent of suggesting that Chistianity's only raison d'être is the control of society. Constantine might well have seen Christianity as the tool by which he could maintain control over the empire. The last 1300 years of European history demonstrate that whatever use the Church was for maintaining civil control, it certainly didn't last.

Still, demonizing religion is easy pickings.

Part II really descends to the level of journalistic fraud. The lack of reliable citation would get this work laughed out of any high school journalism exercise. Almost all of the claims made are asserted without reference to other source material, or are referenced to source material that cannot, itself, be verified.

Part III is where the tenuous connection with reality really begins to fall apart. While there may well have been economic benefits to war, it is a significant leap to suggest (again without reliable evidence) that the financial industry caused war to create weatlh. The fact that banks have much easier ways to create wealth should not be allowed to get in the way of the conspiracy theory that they resorting to the signficantly riskier and chaotic strategy of war to accomplish their aim.

As for the spurious, "income tax is illegal," argument, the US Courts have long since dealth with this. One may believe that the courts have all been wrong, but the courts have the final word on the state of the law, until such time as the legislatures choose to step in, either by statute or constitutional amendment.

But this piece doesn't stop with the, "income tax is illegal" argument. No, no. It does on to suggest that Canada, the United States and Mexico have a secret deal to form a political union, replace their respective currencies with a single currency, and that all of this will lead to "one world government" under which we will be impanted with RFID chips to monitor us and suppress dissent!

I lack words to describe how vacuous this work is. It is pablum for the pseudo-intellectual poseur who wishes to be a disciple of Ayn Rand but lacks the capacity to work his way through her works and a make a critical assessment for himself.

More importantly, though, this film does a great disservice to the cause that it seeks to promote. There are legitimate public policy debates to be had over the role of the Church in Society; over the role that the financial industry plays in our collective prosperity; over the degree to which globalization erodes national sovereignty. But all of these discussions are reduced to laughable, frantic claims that undercut the serious arguments that can and should be made.

Oh, just in case it wasn't clear, I don't think much of this work.

To call Zeitgeist a documentary is a bit of a push.
I would instead say it's an art piece, delivered as a documentary.
It's not specifically made to inform, more to make you question, and make you want to learn and become informed.

I've researched a lot of what is said, and call me a conspiracy theorist or not, I support most of what is said in the piece. Yes, there are some blatant exaggerations, but compare them to what is in the "holy books" that it puts down, and well... have a good laugh.

The people most insulted by this film are those that cannot tell the difference between "belief" and "truth"
To a true christian, muslim, jew, etc, there is no difference, because to admit a difference would damn you to Hell.
My parents had that view in life, and well, simply put it messed my life up real real bad.

This movie SHOWS how what is presented as indisputable fact by christianity came about by blending this culture with that culture to create a composite quasi-culture which then was forced upon the people by a tyrannical government/church. And yes, at that time the church/government was the same thing, and you believed and accepted or died.

Instead of whining about how this work is insulting, one should (if one were religious) use it to point out how all the religions have things in common, which can be used as a point in favor of religion. (after all if some crazy god actually wanted to give each different tribe different instructions on how to live and kill the other tribes, there would likely be at least SOME similarity between the various mythologies)

Anyways the real point of the whole movie is one thing... It takes a theory (ie, conspiracy theory in general) and presents a long set of well articulated, supported & researched evidence to support it. Uh... I call that if it were in writing an Essay.

Christians and Muslims (generally Jews aren't as preachy so i'll exclude them here) generally just point to the bible and/or Quaran and say "there, nothing need more be said" They do not try to back up the contents of those books with evidence as the authors of this movie have done, obviously it's because they can't. They admit they can't, and have even made up a story for it.. "the book was divinely inspired" or some such tripe.

You support your arguments, I'll listen (reserving judgment until i've heard it all and researched more myself)
You just quote something, i'll zone out, it's not worth the time.

The bible IS cosmology. Like it or not. And Christianity condemns that very cosmology as a false god... How Ironic.

I could go into religion bashing here, but no.. I'll avoid it, i'm defending Zeitgeist.

I think you ascribe far to much merit to this piece. But, if it causes you to question critically, then all to the good. From what I have seen, though, I am not yet prepared to agree that you have questioned or become more informed.



"Well, you lie more than I do, so my lies aren't as bad as yours." This seems to be the logical extension of your argument, and I'll have none of it. Hyperbole has no place in a public policy discussion.



I know many a, "true christian, muslim, jew, etc," who quite readily recognizes the difference between belief and truth, so be careful who you tar with that brush. Let me be clear--I am not a believer. I do not follow any particular religious or spiritual practice and I do not believe that there is any role for religion in shaping public policy. But that does not mean that I do not respect the beliefs of those who are believers, or that I do not recognize the positive contributions that religion can and does make in societies. There is harm--great harm--that has been and is done by and in the name of religion, but demonizing all religion on that basis alone is shortsighted.



Let's examine a few of those so-called indisputable facts:

"Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire." He did no such thing. Galerius (Constantine's predecessor) legalized Christianity while Constantine restored confiscated property to Christians. He may have converted (the historical record is not clear on this point). He did not prohibit other forms of worship. Indeed, a full decade after his restoration of property, he was erecting monuments that continued to demonstrate the traditional Roman gods.

"Christ is an adaptation of the worship of Horus." Leaving aside the inherent siliness of relying the english language homophones, "sun," and, "son," which occur in neither Latin, Egyptian, Persian, Hebrew, Greek nor Aramaic, we are left with a whole pile of coindicences: December 21 is the shortest day of the year, and one can "perceive" the hours of daylight increasing three days later, which, coincidentally, is the time the three stars of Orion's belt align with Sirius, pointing to the approximate position of the sunrise, in the approximate position of Virgo. Somehow, this all creates the myth of the Three Kings and the Virgin birth. And of course, the supposed link to Dies Natalis Sol Invictus (birthday of the unconquered sun).

One fact that the filmmaker conveniently omits is that the first historical reference to celebrations of Sol Invictus don't appear any earlier than 354 and that the establishment of the date for Christmas likely occurred in the same century. Far from piggy-backing on an established religious festival, Christianity and Roman paganism both hit on the same idea: winter is gloomy, and a festival will cheer people up.

The Virgin birth, however, and the story of the Three Kings were already well established in the Gospels as early as the second century. So all these astrological coincidences are merely that: coindicences.

As for your suggestion of imposition, and that the State and Church were one, European history clearly contradicts you. The greatest political disputes of the middle ages and the renaissance were the establishment of barriers between the Crown and the Church. These disputes can be quite obviously seen in England as early as the 12th century, and even earlier in other parts of Europe. I don't disagree that the Church exercised great authority, but that authority was most assuredly checked by civil authority, even before the Reformation.



I am not particularly interested in supporting belief. What I am interested in doing is exposing sloppy or fruadulent research masquerading as a political treatise.



Call it an essay. Call it a bagel if you like. And I agree that it is certainly well articulated (that's part of what makes it so unethical). However, I do not agree that it is supported or that the evidence is researched in any rigourous fashion. When you go cherry-picking your facts you commit precisely the same ethical error that the Bush administration did in creating the arguments to support its ill-conceived foray into Iraq. It was wrong then, and it continues to be wrong.



All of which is irrelevant. Fundamentalists practice lazy dialectics. Absolutely. But the authors of this movie have done worse--they purport to support their claims with evidence when they know full well that their support is full of half-truths, coincidence, exaggeration, lies and irrelevancies. At least fundamentalists are honest (if misguided) about the source of their beliefs.



Actually, so far you have only purported to defend Part I of Zeitgeist: The Movie (to give it its proper name). Do you have the same defence for Parts II and III?

Right, as it stands, mythicist scholars are rare in biblical studies, and even mythicists have openly condemned Zeitgeist on its presentation of facts.