ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[Kenose]

I still think Zeitgeist serves some purpose. I wish much of it was simply left out, particularly their mistakes concerning 9/11, but I think the fact that the concept of banking families both influencing and at times dictating American policy at home and abroad is being expressed to so many people is extremely valuable. (As well as pointing out the general dumbing down of our culture, misplaced priorities and pastimes etc.)

Although I know it is wishful thinking to project my circumstance onto others, in my case, zeitgeist didn't turn me into a parrot of it's claims, it served as a primer from which I have been able to begin exploring the issues, as they are important ones. The film was an inspiration to my search for truth, not a hindrance.

 

[cisco]

The response:

With all due respect to your school, what a steaming load. Their screening of the film is an implicit endorsement.

Please show up with a rational viewpoint. A lot of people believe this stuff because no one speaks up about how ridiculous it is.

 

[Kenose]

Please show up with a rational viewpoint.

I think the responsible thing to do is to state that the film has some very demonstrable errors which should be brought to light, but that everyone should do their own research, and as cliche as it is, turn off their televisions

 

[quixotecoyote]

With all due respect to your school, what a steaming load. Their screening of the film is an implicit endorsement.

Please show up with a rational viewpoint. A lot of people believe this stuff because no one speaks up about how ridiculous it is.

Exactly. There's no point arguing with this guy, but of course they support the content of the film. Without a showing, the lies would not be able to spread during an event in the student union on March 15. Thanks to their actions, the lies have a possibility of being spread at that place on that date. Thus they have supported the content of the film.

I'm debating writing an angry-old-man letter to the local paper in addition to playing damage control at the screening.

I take some comfort that the enemies of reason on my beat are less dangerous than those at the University of Michigan.

http://antiracistblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/anti-semitic-and-anti-israel-speaker.html

I hope someone stood up to them there too.

 

[GreNME]

I still think Zeitgeist serves some purpose. I wish much of it was simply left out, particularly their mistakes concerning 9/11, but I think the fact that the concept of banking families both influencing and at times dictating American policy at home and abroad is being expressed to so many people is extremely valuable. (As well as pointing out the general dumbing down of our culture, misplaced priorities and pastimes etc.)

Except the claims made in Part III of the film are untrue. I don't agree with the notion that the dissemination of false information serves any benevolent purpose. If that were so, then the same argument applies with any other dissemination of false information, relatively speaking. That's a fairly ridiculous assertion, don't you think?

Also, you are going to have to clarify what you mean by "banking families both influencing and at times dictating American policy" in your statement. It would be nice if you could back it up with fact. The use of the term "banking families" alone is dubious in its vagaries as well as its implications, indicative of schools of thought that are based on nothing sound.

Although I know it is wishful thinking to project my circumstance onto others, in my case, zeitgeist didn't turn me into a parrot of it's claims, it served as a primer from which I have been able to begin exploring the issues, as they are important ones. The film was an inspiration to my search for truth, not a hindrance.

As I've said numerous times, "truth" is a relative word and does not require any basis in fact. So if you wish to deal in facts, Zeitgeist serves no purpose.

 

[Nick227]

As I've said numerous times, "truth" is a relative word and does not require any basis in fact. So if you wish to deal in facts, Zeitgeist serves no purpose.

But "facts" are few and far between from the era Zeitgeist Pt 1 is referencing. I mean, we don't even know what kind of mindset people had back then, let alone what really happened. Let's face it, the single most important figure from Western religious history, Jesus - we don't even know if he actually lived or not!

At some point I think it has to be acknowledged that a lot of people want change in the world big-time, and this is what's drawing literally millions of them to get into movies like Zeitgeist. I read the other day that nearly 10% of adult Americans are on prescription anti-depressants. There are yawning holes in our social fabric and battening down the hatches ain't gonna work no more. Zeitgeist is a fine movie that stirs people up to look for change. Why, even skeptics are kept busy rebutting it.

Nick

 

[cisco]

But "facts" are few and far between from the era Zeitgeist Pt 1 is referencing. I mean, we don't even know what kind of mindset people had back then, let alone what really happened. Let's face it, the single most important figure from Western religious history, Jesus - we don't even know if he actually lived or not!

At some point I think it has to be acknowledged that a lot of people want change in the world big-time, and this is what's drawing literally millions of them to get into movies like Zeitgeist. I read the other day that nearly 10% of adult Americans are on prescription anti-depressants. There are yawning holes in our social fabric and battening down the hatches ain't gonna work no more. Zeitgeist is a fine movie that stirs people up to look for change. Why, even skeptics are kept busy rebutting it.

Nick

Do you always think the end justifies the means? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

[GreNME]

But "facts" are few and far between from the era Zeitgeist Pt 1 is referencing.

That's simply not true.

We know plenty about antiquity, especially about antiquity as regarding the Hellenistic period and a good deal of Egyptian kingdoms. There's plenty more we're learning, but to say facts are few and far between denotes ignorants to the availability of those facts. Yes, depending on which culture you're talking about the amount of facts available differs, but on the whole we have a great deal of information from a lot of places in antiquity.

I mean, we don't even know what kind of mindset people had back then, let alone what really happened. Let's face it, the single most important figure from Western religious history, Jesus - we don't even know if he actually lived or not!

Please. We may not know what did or didn't happen specifically with regard to Jesus, but that would be because that area in Galillee and Jerusalem were considered "the boonies" where most of "civilization" at that time couldn't care less about. There's plenty of writing about other individuals around that time, people who were considered more significant. Finding facts about a Jew who may or may not have been killed by a Roman governor who was known to have killed many Jews while he held office is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. To be perfectly honest, outside of an agenda of wanting to "prove" or "disprove" Christianity, such a search is largely irrelevant anyway-- which is why the academic community tends to avoid it.

At some point I think it has to be acknowledged that a lot of people want change in the world big-time, and this is what's drawing literally millions of them to get into movies like Zeitgeist. I read the other day that nearly 10% of adult Americans are on prescription anti-depressants. There are yawning holes in our social fabric and battening down the hatches ain't gonna work no more. Zeitgeist is a fine movie that stirs people up to look for change. Why, even skeptics are kept busy rebutting it.

I don't like the term "skeptic" in noun form, so I wouldn't say I'm one. I am someone for whom skepticism is part of my critical thinking processes, a tool among many that I use to examine and evaluate the world around me. I'm not "a skeptic" because it sounds a bit exclusive or elitist to me, though I am perfectly happy with designating myself as "skeptical".

Sure, there are plenty of people who want to change the world. Spreading deceitful information might seem like change, but the irony is that their deceit or intellectual dishonesty makes them just the same as the machines they rage against. They're just replacing one debateable doctrine with another. That's not change at all. Moreover, though, I don't really see how wanting to change the world is a useful means to an end.

 

[Nick227]

Do you always think the end justifies the means? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I'm not saying that the ends justifies the means. I'm saying that people want change. If they didn't then they wouldn't be attracted to watching Zeitgeist. Millions upon millions of people are watching this movie. Personally, I think the attraction, and the desire for change, is more subconscious than conscious, but it's still there.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

We may not know what did or didn't happen specifically with regard to Jesus, but that would be because that area in Galillee and Jerusalem were considered "the boonies" where most of "civilization" at that time couldn't care less about. There's plenty of writing about other individuals around that time, people who were considered more significant. Finding facts about a Jew who may or may not have been killed by a Roman governor who was known to have killed many Jews while he held office is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. To be perfectly honest, outside of an agenda of wanting to "prove" or "disprove" Christianity, such a search is largely irrelevant anyway-- which is why the academic community tends to avoid it.

Well, there must be about a billion or so Christians out there, the vast majority of whom believe that Jesus existed. In fact, it's exceptionally important to them to believe that Jesus existed. Yet, there's basically bugger all proof of this. For a start, doesn't this just demonstrate how much people actually care about facts?

Academics don't touch the subject because they're scared to.

Nick

 

[cisco]

I'm not saying that the ends justifies the means.

Yes you are. You're saying the end (people believing Zeitgeist) justifies the means (Zeitgeist's lies.)

 

[GreNME]

Well, there must be about a billion or so Christians out there, the vast majority of whom believe that Jesus existed. In fact, it's exceptionally important to them to believe that Jesus existed. Yet, there's basically bugger all proof of this. For a start, doesn't this just demonstrate how much people actually care about facts?

No, it demonstrates just how little religion has anything to do with science.

Academics don't touch the subject because they're scared to.

No, it really is because it's largely irrelevant. Do you think that there aren't Christians who think that Jesus is largely a myth?

 

[Kenose]

Except the claims made in Part III of the film are untrue.

Really? All of them?

...

Also, you are going to have to clarify what you mean by "banking families both influencing and at times dictating American policy" in your statement. It would be nice if you could back it up with fact. The use of the term "banking families" alone is dubious in its vagaries as well as its implications, indicative of schools of thought that are based on nothing sound.

When I say banking families I primarily refer to Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild.

I plan on writing a paper on the basic evidence for what I have suggested. It will not be finished for a significant amount time, as I am in the beginnings of the learning process (and proud of it )

When I am finished would you like me to PM you a link to it?

If you are curious yourself I can recommend the following:

Carrol Quigley - "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time"

Nearly from the horses mouth, and biased - Quigley tells the reader that he has no objection to their actions or intentions aside from the fact that they wish to keep them secret in the first place. Hence the book I suppose?

From Amazon reviews:

------------------------
The archetype of "Tragedy and Hope" is the work of Procopius, a courtier in the time of the Byzantine emperor Justinian, whose official history, the " De Aedificiis," celebrated the accomplishments of his monarch - but who supplemented it with a secret history, the "Anecdota," in which he spilled the dirt on the emperor and his wife Theodora. Much of the interest in Quigley's book centers around his dirt-spilling account of the machinations of international bankers and of the organizations they formed to exert influence behind-the-scenes on political and diplomatic activity, such as the Round Table, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations. While his discussion of these matters occupies a fairly small number of the book's 1300-odd pages, it has drawn the attention of so-called "conspiracy theorists," mostly on the political right (e.g. the John Birch Society) but also some on the left, such as the sociologist G. William Domhoff, who pursue much the same theme - that the domestic and international policy of the United States (and other countries) are manipulated by a "power élite" in a way that makes their supposed democracy largely a sham.
------------------------

------------------------

The late Dr. Carroll Quigley was a professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University. He was, as his book reflects, brilliant, egotistical and opinionated. He also was a confirmed socialist who believed the world could be a better place if the educated elite ruled.

Former President Clinton said in 1992: "...As a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so."

Unfortunately, Dr. Quigley revealed the game plan of the elite when the elite (a shy group by nature and not at all given to republican government) didn't want it publicized. Far from wanting to hide this "network" (as he called it), Quigley was proud of it.

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies...but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
-----------------------

Interesting!

As well as:

Murray Rothbard - "A History of Money and Banking in the United States"

And also the brief "Wall Street Banks and American Foreign Policy" by the same author.

For a very recent work dealing with the topic I recommend Peter Dale Scott's "The Road to 9/11". (Note: Scott does not claim LIHOP or MIHOP. Give it a chance.)

 

[GreNME]

Really? All of them?

All of them implying a malicious conspiracy, yes.

When I say banking families I primarily refer to Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild.

Oh, so you're using it in the same manner FOX News uses the term "liberal" then-- completely devoid of any contrextual meaning and intentionally pejorative.

I plan on writing a paper on the basic evidence for what I have suggested. It will not be finished for a significant amount time, as I am in the beginnings of the learning process (and proud of it )

What you are basically saying here is that you've come to a conclusion before you even know what you're talking about. And you're proud of it?

If you are going to honestly search for information, why are you only listing conspiracy theory books in your recommendations here?

 

[Kenose]

All of them implying a malicious conspiracy, yes.

I think it's likely that you are wrong and hence am in the process of finding out.

Oh, so you're using it in the same manner FOX News uses the term "liberal" then-- completely devoid of any contrextual meaning and intentionally pejorative.

I think you should relax a little. If you reread my original post you should be able to sense that it wasn't mean't to be anything other than general. "Banking families" sure is vague, and suited my purposes perfectly! I think you've looked for an excuse to jump down my throat which has already caused you to make at least one silly statement, as we see below:

If you are going to honestly search for information, why are you only listing conspiracy theory books in your recommendations here?

Here you show your colors. Conspiracy theory books? Laughable. I'm not sure you even read what I posted...?

Tragedy and Hope is not a "conspiracy theory book". I have no idea how you could've come to that conclusion. It is a historian's perspective of recent history and it is quite thorough. Within the book Quigley outs a clique of individuals working to influence and manipulate both governments and economies for their own ends, which includes one world government. I'll remind you that Quigley actually agrees with nearly everything they do, aside from the fact that they wish their role in the world to remain secret. As another reviewer said, even this occupies a small number of the book's many pages.

"A History of Money and Banking in the United States" and "Wall Street Banks and American Foreign Policy" are not conspiracy theory books. I feel like I'm stuck between disappointment and laughter here. Murray Rothbard was one of the world's premier economists, and a historian. (He wrote a very well reviewed set of books on Revolution-era America and the country's discovery called "Conceived in Liberty" as well as "A History of Money and...") For you to write any of the three books I've give here off as "conspiracy theory books" and thus, with your implication, not trustworthy, is truly ridiculous. You have taken your premature and generalized image of me and applied it to the literature I recommended. Shame on you.

You've also created a popular paradox, and it's helpful in illustrating the problems with your perspective and many others. If a book describes what can be called a conspiracy, regardless of how reputable the author may be, as you have shown, it is worthless and untrustworthy. We certainly can't use it as a source for explaining current events or the past. And research, also, is worthless and untrustworthy if an individuals' secondary sources of information are books which describe what can be called a conspiracy. No matter how factual. Thus, in your world, the only books that we can gain reputable perspective and understanding from are those which do not describe conspiracy. Hence, in your world, there is no evidence for, nor any existing conspiracy!

Hilarious!

What you are basically saying here is that you've come to a conclusion before you even know what you're talking about. And you're proud of it?

I've come to the conclusion that the extremely wealthy have a significant influence in the politics and foreign policy of the United States. I have not come to a conclusion as to what degree or extent this is the case.

Are you claiming that they do not have this significant influence?

 

[Stout]

this movie. Personally, I think the attraction, and the desire for change, is more subconscious than conscious, but it's still there.

Nick

Nick...I'm seriously considering agreeing with you on this only there's one big question. Change, to what, exactly ? There's no shortage of people out there fearing a coming dystopia, there is, however, a shortage of people making suggestions as to how they can have a direct affect on averting this dystopia without compromising their lifestyles.

I've come to the conclusion that Z-day might not be as bad, or as big of a deal as we may think. First of all, most of the venues are universities, which means impressionable kids, quite a few of, by their nature, self identify as dissidents, counterculture, enlightened...what have you. So I've got to estimate the number of Z-day attendees who will be getting "new" information as being pretty small.

So far, in real life, Zeitgeist has been an easy movie to "debunk" as most people who've only watched this movie, or others like it, haven't done ANY research on any of the topics covered at all. Here, on the JREF, I may be a debunking rookie, but when it comes to IRL...I'm a pro.

Somewhere, in this thread maybe I mentioned a friend of mine who'd seem part of this movie and was all up in arms about the microchip conspiracy as she'd seen an advert for a credit card with a microchip in it and " connected the dots" Turns out, she knew nothing about the technology in question and all IO had to do was mail her a few links...viola....a "believer" is educated.

Speaking of tracking....why are so many people attracted to using their traceable plastic when making purchases ad leaving a paper trail everywhere they go ? One would think, that is one were seriously "afraid" of being tracked, they'd use good ole anonymous cash instead.

Part 1 is easily dismissed with a "who cares?" attitude. So there's indications that Jesus was based on "other" myths....big whoop..Zeitgeist is only using the Egypt connection so authors who've written books on the subject can get rich at the gullible public's expense....Part 1....crushed.

Part 2 can just be laughed off as being the domain of teenage paranoid nutters. Most people haven't done their research here either and when I ask them, specifically about what part of Part 2 left an impression on them ( usually the answer is CD ) I point out how needless that step would have been. I mean, seriously, did the towers actually collapsing have any real significance when compared to the whole idea that mainland America is actually being attacked ? No......Making the whole idea of CD silly and redundant.

Part 3....I usually ask "what's your problem with fiat monetary systems?" Which usually draws silence born from ignorance.

Then I segueway into a very real threat...global warming...and what are you prepared to do about it outside the typical band-aid on a brain tumor solutions like most people prefer...like posting on the internet about how much they hate SUV's,,,or going to a protest.

By the time I get around to "Would you give up air travel to save the planet and society ? "....Zeitgeist is pretty much forgotten.

 

[Nick227]

Yes you are. You're saying the end (people believing Zeitgeist) justifies the means (Zeitgeist's lies.)

I don't really see how you can connect the two, but I'm pretty sure this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying people want change. Actually, it's not really even a consciously motivated decision to believe for most.

The rationalist's fear is that people become so deluded they believe in nonsense and the world goes to pot, but actually the conscious process is secondary. The barely conscious desire for change motivates. It's not really so much about facts.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No, it demonstrates just how little religion has anything to do with science.

Well, you can read it how you wish. I don't think people really care about science. Religion fills a core need in the ego and while that need is there people will go for. No amount of rationalising will stop most of them, in my experience.

No, it really is because it's largely irrelevant. Do you think that there aren't Christians who think that Jesus is largely a myth?

Come off it, what academic, what university, is going to come out and proclaim that Jesus is a myth? They're scared to. Science can't stand up to the reality of people's feelings. It's too cerebral.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nick...I'm seriously considering agreeing with you on this only there's one big question. Change, to what, exactly ? There's no shortage of people out there fearing a coming dystopia, there is, however, a shortage of people making suggestions as to how they can have a direct affect on averting this dystopia without compromising their lifestyles.

I've come to the conclusion that Z-day might not be as bad, or as big of a deal as we may think. First of all, most of the venues are universities, which means impressionable kids, quite a few of, by their nature, self identify as dissidents, counterculture, enlightened...what have you. So I've got to estimate the number of Z-day attendees who will be getting "new" information as being pretty small.

So far, in real life, Zeitgeist has been an easy movie to "debunk" as most people who've only watched this movie, or others like it, haven't done ANY research on any of the topics covered at all. Here, on the JREF, I may be a debunking rookie, but when it comes to IRL...I'm a pro.

Somewhere, in this thread maybe I mentioned a friend of mine who'd seem part of this movie and was all up in arms about the microchip conspiracy as she'd seen an advert for a credit card with a microchip in it and " connected the dots" Turns out, she knew nothing about the technology in question and all IO had to do was mail her a few links...viola....a "believer" is educated.

Speaking of tracking....why are so many people attracted to using their traceable plastic when making purchases ad leaving a paper trail everywhere they go ? One would think, that is one were seriously "afraid" of being tracked, they'd use good ole anonymous cash instead.

Part 1 is easily dismissed with a "who cares?" attitude. So there's indications that Jesus was based on "other" myths....big whoop..Zeitgeist is only using the Egypt connection so authors who've written books on the subject can get rich at the gullible public's expense....Part 1....crushed.

Part 2 can just be laughed off as being the domain of teenage paranoid nutters. Most people haven't done their research here either and when I ask them, specifically about what part of Part 2 left an impression on them ( usually the answer is CD ) I point out how needless that step would have been. I mean, seriously, did the towers actually collapsing have any real significance when compared to the whole idea that mainland America is actually being attacked ? No......Making the whole idea of CD silly and redundant.

Part 3....I usually ask "what's your problem with fiat monetary systems?" Which usually draws silence born from ignorance.

Then I segueway into a very real threat...global warming...and what are you prepared to do about it outside the typical band-aid on a brain tumor solutions like most people prefer...like posting on the internet about how much they hate SUV's,,,or going to a protest.

By the time I get around to "Would you give up air travel to save the planet and society ? "....Zeitgeist is pretty much forgotten.

Well, let's wait and see what happens.

I mean, finally, no one really knows what the **** is going on. There's always the option to lock yourself up in your head and rationalise your way to convincing yourself you do but, actually, you still don't. Scientific rationalism has brought a lot of seeming stability to the human psyche and human world, but I rather doubt it's sustainable long-term. It's just based on an unexamined concept, for a start. But let's not go there again.

Nick

 

[cisco]

Come off it, what academic, what university, is going to come out and proclaim that Jesus is a myth? They're scared to. Science can't stand up to the reality of people's feelings. It's too cerebral.

Nick

How 'bout Richard Dawkins, Oxford University. One of the most respected institutions of higher learning in the world, by the way.