So.... After reading all the discussions and arguments, maybe.... Start over?
Hey, I'm new here so, please allow me to introduce myself.
I'm 28 and a historian by formation. Ever since high school where I studied Latin and Greek I have been very interested in rhetorics whether in writing, image or word. I have looked into the science of manipulation as well studying psychology (I'm a teacher so during my teacher training I just read books that went beyond psychology of the adolescent) and business manuals on how to get people on your side. I've really done my best to develop a BS detector and am truly very critical.
On the other hand I also have a firm humanist/christian/social(ist, sorry I'm European it means I'm a democrat but believe in taking care of the weak) moral base that made me look at injustice in history and the world today. I also refuse to just look at websites about it. I have worked with an NGO and intend to do that more too.
Why do I tell you people all this BS about myself? Because I believe that before any statement can be made there should be an authors introduction on his perspective and the sciences it is based upon.
I watched Zeitgeist, have acquired it upon my computer, and intend on having a closer look. I am a historian and I thought the bibliography that rolls across the screen at the end to be a good starting point. I will report on the authors and the scientifical level of those works later on.
Still, right now, I would like to address the rhetorics over content attitude that made reading the posts about Zeitgeist very tedious. I am not impressed at all by slurs, "research" that usually is just clicking through to Wikipedia and comments based upon 6 minute viewings of the movie.
Now, about Zeitgeist, part by part.
I don't have a problem with the theoretical part of the first part. In fact, general studies about religion always unveil a far more symbolical truth behind the fairy tales and moral myths that make up most sacred books. The message of the movie and I find this, considering the times, one to applaud, is that all religions in one way or another worship the same god. That to me is a message that is essentially peaceful. I have looked into many religions, current ones and ancient ones and have found interesting insights in all of them. Ever since my grandfather who fought with the nazi's started preaching about how bad the jews were and how bad gays are and that all of them should die, bla bla bla, I have hated stubborn and prejudicious people who choose to stick to only one ideological perspective instead of looking around at the fantastic philosophical wealth the human race acquired throughout its history. I take empathy and compassion as a guiding principle because if you read well you will find this in all the holy books. I like the film for showing us we all in essence worship the same, I don't like the film for holding religion responsible for great crimes. Religions don't commit crimes, their followers and especially those who claim to represent the voice of God, do.
The second part about 9/11. Well, this to me was quite scary. I have always focussed on the consequences (I'm against war, period) and not on the event itself. I am sceptical about the arguments in the movie. So many false images were perceived to be real in history (Hitlers little playful jump after conquering Paris? Fabricated) and well those have been clearly debunked on this site. I don't think the administration could be responsible for the deaths of their own constituency and more importantly sponsors. Still I was scared because of the completely ludicrous way the 9/11 commission worked and the total disregard for the publics right to information by the Bush administration. Ofcourse there are conspiracy theories if you communicate in such a rediculous way.
Thirdly the whole global conspiracy theory. It is the truth that certain incidents were staged throughout history to rally public support. Hitler burned the Reichstag with this objective and had border incidents executed by his troops on the border with Poland to justify entering. Japan made a train explode to justify entering China. This is a very common thing to do for warhungry governments. But, why only the evil empires that lost the war?
It is generally accepted among historians that the Lusitania was deliberately sent into German waters, without military escort and not in a larger ammunition convoy. It is also very true that not only the US and Australia but also great Brittain knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbour.
The philosophy of FDR and Churchill was that extreme times call for extreme measures. That is also why Churchill deliberately allowed certain German bombardments to happen even though the RAF in equipment and number could've easily prevented for example the bombing of Coventry. Yes, this can be discussed, yes there will be people that disagree, but I believe cruelty in war and manipulation of the population not to be the privilege of the losers of the war.
I have the "testament" of McNamara on dvd (the fog of war 12 lessons from the life of Robert McNamara) and here he clearly states that Tonkin never happened. Something no conspirationalist would accept is that it happened by mistake. I know global politics to be more improvisation and luck than anything else and far less is based upon strategy or plan trhan any conspirationalist would ever believe. The statement that the war was prolonged on purpose, well, I doubt it. The mass bombing strategy states that a war is won by suffering a minimum of damage and dealing a maximum by air bombardment. With total control of the air the US thought it would be sufficient to keep bombing and defend South Vietnam from being invaded. The information the VC and NVA received came from top South Vietnamese officials and other spies. I saw honorary pictures for them in Hanoi a few years ago, you wouldn't need those if you were in direct contact with the US command. Ofcourse there was a prohibition to enter Laos and Cambodia, to enter would be against the agreement the US wanted to force the NV to accept in the first place. Also don't forget the fear of China and the madness of Mao. Laos and Cambodia were bombed but only when the US had given up on the treaty and China had made clear not to intervene.
So historically we're dealing with half truths and ongoing controversies about the moralitity of the decisions made. In favor of the theory of the film is that it is a fact that the US economy hugely benefitted from all three wars, this is undeniably true. Eisenhower warned in his resigning speech for the power of military industrial complex. It is a fact that the US invades countries on a regular basis throughout the post WWII period and that a large portion of the US economy benefitted from it. I believe that research should be done considering the way the transactions between arms industry and government take place. The fact that this is not done creates conspiracy theories.
Phew, I can't help it but I don't like to start in soundbites. There is more to talk about. i'm particularly interested in the side I can't know much about the federal reserve and the tax system. I don't think that the named banker families are protected by an aura of virtue and respect for the fellow man so I wouldn't be surprised if a megalomaniac as Rockefeller actually tried to get a hold on the state. Please, I'm open for correct discussion of this.
Now my conclusion so far about the movie. Truth is a very volatile thing and especially in film it is impossible to be complete, therefor every documentary is thoroughly debunkable. To me, it is a warning for the third part, a yell for a truly independent official investigation of 9/11 for the second part and a very interesting and beautiful theory about world religions for the first part.
Okay, shoot, guys.
