ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[applecorped]

I find a radical manipulative propaganda movie promoting: religious tolerance, correct public investigation, civil rights, a fair tax system, a better credit system, a critical guarding attitude towards politicians and other persons or institutions of power and simply, ultimately democracy incredibly fascinating.
In class it would spark a great debate and I could learn my students about hictorical critique in using the debunks of this site. The manipulations are actually so over the top in your face that it's very easy to see them.
On a far deeper level than your facts it is a film that deserves more respect than it got here. It also indicates that a certain left in American society threw journalistic accuracy overboard, but hasn't the right done that already a long time ago?
I hoped to get a nice friendly discussion going about these points instead I'm crucified about some incorrect facts. Grenme you're alright dude

Incorrect facts? How are facts incorrect?

 

[Nick227]

I find a radical manipulative propaganda movie promoting: religious tolerance, correct public investigation, civil rights, a fair tax system, a better credit system, a critical guarding attitude towards politicians and other persons or institutions of power and simply, ultimately democracy incredibly fascinating.

Hi anotherJackass,

I think you still have to deal with the issue of just basic validity. With Zeitgeist, we've looked at Part 1 pretty closely, from both a mystical and an academic angle, and it is pretty weak, to say the least. The other two parts have been pretty much done to death on other threads at JREF. Factually, there's very little in the movie which stands up imo.

OK, so the intention might have been good - positive propaganda - but if you have to BS your way to do it, does this really achieve anything? I think it more puts people off the whole conspiracy scene than anything else. You watch the movie, you think "My God!", you check it out, and you find it's mostly either made up or highly exaggerated.

Does this really achieve anything so positive? Time will tell, I guess. Personally, I do like Zeitgeist. It appeals to me, but, sensibly, there are big questions about the validity of such an approach.

Nick

 

[Perikles]

Incorrect facts? How are facts incorrect?

Alright, this is a very tough one.

Take for example Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). He lived in a time when everybody believed the sun revolved around the earth. This theory was based by two ancient astronomers Ptolemaeus and Aristoteles. Copernicus (1473-1543) was the first to claim the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. Galilei believed Copernicus’ version and set out to prove it by sensory perception of experiments. He developed an empirical approach to prove his point. “The sun revolves around the earth, because Aristoteles and Ptolemaus tell usso,” said Galilei: “The earth revolves around the sun, because my sensory perception tells me so.”
So he looked through Aristoteles’ writings looking for errors he could prove to be wrong. He looked for incorrect facts. He was one of the only owners of a telescope of his time and thus he looked further than Aristoteles, he mechanically extended his sensory perception and compared his perception with what Aristoteles told him. Aristoteles described planets as huge crystal balls, completely flat and perfectly equal all over the surface. Galilei could prove with his telescope that this wasn’t so. He saw and showed sun stains to people and mountain ranges on the moon. But some saw clouds, others claimed to be scammed and said there were stains on the lens. Everyone saw the same things through the same machine, but derived different facts from it.
Galilei now had to prove two other theories based upon the same empirical approach wrong to convince people. First, to the naked eye it seemed the sun revolved around the earth. The second theory was that the earth didn’t move, because if it moved you would drop a stone from a tower and the stone would land further away, but it landed exactly underneath the dropping point. This also was proven by empirical perception of an experiment so considered proven. He solved this by accepting the perception but providing a completely different interpretation of what you saw and thus changed the facts derived from it. He introduced new terms to describe what was seen: Active movement and not active movement. If everything moves at the same speed everything seems to stand still.
It shows how there is an intimate connection between facts and theory. Facts are in natural scientific terms theory charged or theory dependant. There are always facts in society that are theory charged and thus can change when a new perspective, method, theory or belief changes the meaning of facts and with that the facts.

 

[Nick227]

Alright, this is a very tough one.

Take for example Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). He lived in a time when everybody believed the sun revolved around the earth. This theory was based by two ancient astronomers Ptolemaeus and Aristoteles. Copernicus (1473-1543) was the first to claim the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around.

Actually not. Aristarchus proposed it around 300 BCE.

Nick

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave,
stop picking at deliberately wrong facts put there to get you angry (sorry I deserve some fun too) and face the fact that you destroy a perfectly good point just because this or that doesn't check out. Besides history does renew constantly. Derrida, Foucault? knock knock. I too could've taken out my encyclopedia and checked the facts, I didn't do it Dave, because unlike you think in your arrogant Zeus strikes down from his mountain little speech I'm more interested in the greater stories and well sorry Dave but you are just not that important that I'm gonna dedicate time after work on that. I've got other stuff to do. I've made my point it's up to others to decide what's the most important. An endless detail picking discussion (I'll gladly provide more details that aren't correctly, your ego quite clearly needs it) or talking about the fundamental question if your debunking obsession isn't just as extreme as the conspiracy crowd. With you guys it's details your obsessing about and interpreting the slightest mistake as a denouncer of what a person knows, is allowed to say and basically is worth on this world. Gee, Dave, must be great to have a brew with you. I spot an obsessive narcist from miles away. I prefer to get the facts wrong and be happy.
Applecorped, if you want to subtle and funny, be subtle and funny.
Ciao dudes, don't forget to have sex once in while too.

If you don't want to let facts get in the way of a perfectly good uninformed opinion, far be it from me to try and change your mind. But with that attitude, don't expect to get any respect on a skeptics' discussion board.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually not. Aristarchus proposed it around 300 BCE.

You obsesive narcist. If you make anotherJackass get his facts right, he won't be happy!

Dave

 

[Perikles]

Aw, Dave,
stop sulking. It looks kind of immature. Besides I already said what's the worth of psychological hypothesis, none, I just think it's very funny to use.
Still dude, your ego and your in my opinion very old school positivism/skepticism keep you from missing a lot of good points. The points wasn't that the facts were wrong but that the extreme verbal aggression used and the constant intimidating indicate that it's not about the truth. It's about you feeling smart Dave. Well Dave, stop crying because someone gave you a taste of your own rhetorical medicine, and grow up. I have no problem with correct facts just with that incredible macho arrogant way of writing predominant on this board and it took just one, just one provocative answer to make you blow your lid off and actually denounce my right to expression. If I taught my students to discuss amongst each other the wame way in class I'd have to break up fights constantly. Out here, because anonymous we dare, it's considered the way to write. All you can accuse me off is pointing that out to to you, with blatantly incorrect facts. I hope you will actually get this, I saw fifteen year olds get this message very quickly.
And the correct facts thing, ofcourse it's undeniably true that correct facts are necessary but your reaction to that is somewhat over the top. So stop sulking Dave, it really makes you look very very childish.

 

[Perikles]

Nick,
you are right, Copernicus wasn't number one. So the book I based the text on "the construction of the past" by Lorenz was wrong pertaining that fact. Now does this make the book which describes a history of the search for truth in history based upon throrough academic research and does that good enough to be obligatory reading for history students in Belgian and Dutch universities and to be translated in different languages with several reprints, wrong? Should I doubt everything on the basis of that incorrect fact?

 

[Nick227]

Nick,
you are right, Copernicus wasn't number one. So the book I based the text on "the construction of the past" by Lorenz was wrong pertaining that fact. Now does this make the book which describes a history of the search for truth in history based upon throrough academic research and does that good enough to be obligatory reading for history students in Belgian and Dutch universities and to be translated in different languages with several reprints, wrong? Should I doubt everything on the basis of that incorrect fact?

Hi anotherJackass,

Why are you asking me these questions? Are you trying to get me to take responsibility for your mental faculties? I just pointed out an incorrect statement, actually because I only learned it myself last year and thought it was quite interesting.

Why not get back to discussing Zeitgeist?

Nick

 

[Stout]

Hi anotherJackass....

You do know that Dave was being sarcastic in his last post don't you ?

Anyways, in your opinion, what was the "point" of Zeitgeist ?

 

[jhunter1163]

The point of Zeitgeist was to make money off uninformed and gullible people.

Next question.

 

[Stout]

Well, yes, of course it is but I was hoping for a subjective world changing insight that transcends the obvious. I figure it was also one long anti-American rant seeing as how it was produced in Australia. After all, why would your average Aussie give a rip about American tax law ?

 

[Perikles]

Hehe,
'kay no more discussing a clearly proven faulty method to debunking.
I think Zeitgeist is a warning on different levels:
it warns us we shouldn't accept religious tales or doctrines without questioning.
It warns us about not closely watching your government.
It warns us about manipulation of facts and images.
It warns us about the dangers of bad education.
You can go on and on.
You can derive a lot from it, depending on what you want to see.
Curious what you guys will do with this. Will you actually look beyond the factual? Will you ignore everything that can't be used to make me look like a conspiracy theory adept, again? Will Dave get the point? Will someone actually make a point that isn't an insult in disguise?
To be continued, for eternity I guess.

 

[Perikles]

The predominant conspiracy theory on this site seems to me to be that anyone disagreeing is dumb/ignorant/gullible and part of the conspiracy of the conspirationalists.

 

[Stout]

Hehe,
I think Zeitgeist is a warning on different levels:
it warns us we shouldn't accept religious tales or doctrines without questioning.
It warns us about not closely watching your government.
It warns us about manipulation of facts and images.
It warns us about the dangers of bad education.
You can go on and on.

I can't argue with any of that except to say that, in my experience, that's not what people are getting out of the movie. Most people I've talked to are taking Zeitgeist at face value and treating it as a documentary.

As a for instance. I'm sitting around the pub a couple of months ago and a friend brings up the subject of micro chipping and delivers "the information" straight out of the movie. When I asked her where she got this info, she replied "some youtube video that someone had emailed her"

As it turns out, the video she'd watched was Zeitgeist part 8


She's seen an advertisement for a credit card with a microchip in it and made the "natural" connection that we were on the road to ruin. My attempts to 'educate" about RFID technology were an abysmal failure with her saying, "well, that's your opinion" and the like. In short, she'd become a believer. The subject was dropped

Eventually she emailed me the link to the video and I responded with several links explaining RFID and pretty much harassed her into actually reading them. I'd estimate the total amount of time I spent on her and this issue in the neighbourhood of 4 hours......4 hours to "debunk" one 10 minute video.

She's worried about "being tracked" but continues to use credit cards for almost every purchase...go figure.

So yes, I agree Zeitgeist gets people to think, but not in the way us open minded types would like.

 

[jhunter1163]

The predominant conspiracy theory on this site seems to me to be that anyone disagreeing is dumb/ignorant/gullible and part of the conspiracy of the conspirationalists.

I disagree. I've had a number of friendly and lively discussions on a variety of topics.

That being said, the posters here are (correctly, in my opinion) very hard on people who peddle demonstrably wrong information and speculation dressed up as "facts", which is pretty much what ZG is.

If you go against the conventional wisdom in any field, your road will be hard enough. If you twist interpretations and make stuff up and present your made-up evidence as "factual", the experts in your field will not only destroy your theory, but your credibility in the process.

What would happen if Murdock did now make an important discovery? Would she get a fair hearing or would she be dismissed out of hand because of the fantasy she promoted in ZG?

 

[GreNME]

Well, anotherJackass, I can see why you're feeling a bit overly-criticized here, but I do feel it fair to let you know that it could very well be a difference in communication between you and the few people who are challenging you. I understand what you're saying, and with regard to the messages that you think the movie conveys (not accepting tales on their own, not keeping aware of government action, avoiding manipulation and rejecting bad education) I can actually agree with that list. However, you need to realize that statements like asking people to look beyond the factual, along with your slight defensive nature after a few incredulous replies to your posts, are putting forth a characterization that maybe you don't actually mean to convey.

I don't think you're some kind of weird conspiracy theorist or anything. Instead you seem to be coming across to me as someone for whom the annals of history aren't as clear-cut or black-and-white in an academic stance. In theory I agree to a great degree, and in fact it's precisely that idea itself that keeps me skeptical of the messages being conveyed in the Zeitgeist film. Naturally, this outlook also keeps me critical of the more conventional views throughout history as well, and as it turns out many of those views have tended to change over time as more and more clarification (or ability to clarify) comes about. Once again, that strengthens my skepticism about the Zeitgeist movie, though, because the film seems to muddy the waters of discourse on the three parts of subject matter covered.

Part I: Seems to me to try to create a theosophy argument for religious conspiracy.

Part II: Feeds on the theosophical argument before it and argues that governments are orchestrating huge crises (with 9/11 as the example).

Part III: Sums up by using the previous two for tying up the conspiracies into a tight knot by implying that this theosophical, government-based conspiracy is controlling people through money and similar eschatological machinery-- which I find ironic (I can explain later)-- in order to bring about some malicious will to power that only the outsider-heroes who believe in the film can change.

I think Nick's statements about it being a propaganda extravaganza are dead-on. What seems to be the purpose of the film is not to necessarily convince someone (though it puts the propaganda in a very convincing context), but to strengthen and bring solidarity to a number of conspiracy movements. Why do that? I'm not exactly sure, but it could be any motive from marketing to honestly thinking they are going to change the world to a combination of those and other motives (anti-Fed arguments often contain throwbacks to old antisemitic literature). I wouldn't say I know the mind of the producer(s) of the film as far as goals, but I can say when and where I find the claims within the film to be based on fantasy or comprised or deliberate misunderstanding or lack of understanding of nuance and context.

I don't think what you're saying is very different from what I'm saying, anotherJackass, but the way you're saying it appears to be sufficiently different that it's being taken in ways you don't intend and it might be (or might soon begin to be) frustrating you.

 

[Perikles]

I agree with the replies to my last posts.
Yes I provoked my own spanking in trying to make the point that in my opinion to quickly people are intimidated into withdrawing their point of view and bullied into humiliation. I agree that it destroyed my credibility here, but imagine me treating my students the same for making that mistake. In the end, this way of judging alienates people from the debate and than all you need is a friendly conspirationalist to be emotionally inclined to accept the other point of view.
The misinterpretation of the movie even when confronted with debunks indicates to me that something is very wrong with American society. If ZG becomes plausible to people it means American democracy is currently functioning in such a way you rather believe Bush is like Hitler than a democrat (not a reference to the party) trying to protect his country from a threat in what he thinks is the best way. I think people in America doubt their country's system and leadership. The conspirationalists accept that doubt and use it to their advantage. Out here, having that doubt seems the best guarantee to be considered a retarded nut, while the doubt is based upon hard arguments to counter.

 

[Nick227]

She's seen an advertisement for a credit card with a microchip in it and made the "natural" connection that we were on the road to ruin. My attempts to 'educate" about RFID technology were an abysmal failure with her saying, "well, that's your opinion" and the like. In short, she'd become a believer. The subject was dropped

Eventually she emailed me the link to the video and I responded with several links explaining RFID and pretty much harassed her into actually reading them. I'd estimate the total amount of time I spent on her and this issue in the neighbourhood of 4 hours......4 hours to "debunk" one 10 minute video.

She's worried about "being tracked" but continues to use credit cards for almost every purchase...go figure.

So yes, I agree Zeitgeist gets people to think, but not in the way us open minded types would like.

I appreciate that it was no doubt a drag to have to spend time doing this, but personally I think there is some validity in being concerned about these things.

In my opinion, a lot of things are apparently organised in our world outside of the public gaze. Globalisation is an excellent example of this, imo. It is natural that people are somewhere concerned about what is actually going on. Fears arise. Can we really really trust the politicians? Do we really know where it's all leading? I don't want it that a few generations down the line we are looking at a microchipped future. I know the technology isn't available yet, and may never be, but I am ok with people being concerned about this stuff now because I think this is at least some level of insurance for the future.

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

In my opinion, a lot of things are apparently organised in our world outside of the public gaze. Globalisation is an excellent example of this, imo. It is natural that people are somewhere concerned about what is actually going on. Fears arise. Can we really really trust the politicians? Do we really know where it's all leading? I don't want it that a few generations down the line we are looking at a microchipped future. I know the technology isn't available yet, and may never be, but I am ok with people being concerned about this stuff now because I think this is at least some level of insurance for the future.

Hmm....

The thing is though, a lot of that technology does exist in some form now. We can be tracked, and we can be spied upon if the powers that be so choose. However, what makers of material such as this film and others(AJ comes to mind) fail to remember is the near impossibility of such things actually transpiring. The sheer levels of bureaucracy and oversight in between are a staggering hindrance to any plans of global conquest at a covert level.

You mention globalization, and it surprises me that people like AJ don't look at that topic closer. There is certainly enough fiscal impropriety going on there to make any reasonable person disgusted, and yet it is ignored. There are literally thousands of cases of human rights abuses that are regarded as collateral damage to seemingly sensible business practice....the point I am trying to convey is that there are REAL things to be pissed off about...why make stuff up?

Films like this, and the many others out there are made to capitalize on the our secret fears...mainly so some guy or gal can take the credit for "blowing the whistle" and make a name for themselves, thus becoming a hero to a small, and apparently gullible few who refuse to leave the reality tunnel of their choosing. Then rolls in the prima donna complex once hundred or thousands of people start writing them praise for "opening their eyes"....

I don't think there is any reason to debate any potential merits of these films, or the subtext that some people here have claimed to see in them because the subtext that I see is that some people got bored and wanted attention...not anticipating the zeitgeist it would become on the internet.