ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[Perikles]

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.
True, in this day and age covert operation is almost impossible, especially when it comes to global conquest. It's why I don't believe in conspiracies. I remember a peace rally where a philosophy professor jumped on stage and yelled out the war on Iraq was part of a conspiracy. As proof he waved the Project for A New American Century around. A document anyone can download freely from the internet. Still what was in the document was disconcerting.

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?
That's why I worked with the NGO Los Cachorros as a voluntary teacher. That's why I visit rallies. That's why I donate to good causes. That's why I try to make a difference. Fact is you won't make that difference on the internet.

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 think that is how heroes are made, it depends from the success of the party they belong to whether they are heroes or criminals.

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

I think there is a very strong reason to do so. Pedagogically it could be a very interesting tool, that goes for all forms of propaganda. Also for your own convictions and cognitive methods it's interesting what a completely different approach comes up with. There is the Socratic cognitive method, but there is also the Aristotelian one (thesis juxtaposed with an antithesis to come to a synthesis), but ofcourse this requires instead of specialising in seeing the bad in others to look critically at oneself. To achieve this is hard and painfull but it always leads to knowledge.

 

[GreNME]

Pedagogically it could be a very interesting tool, that goes for all forms of propaganda.

Pedagogically it's no different than having students engage in socratic debate over issues they are not initially familiar with. I don't see why using a film like Zeitgeist is somehow more useful at that methodology than something based more firmly in the world of real relevance.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

If correct facts are necessary, can I suggest you learn a few?

Any perception of anger or sulking you may have is pure projection. I have no interest in anything other than pointing out that when you make up "facts" to support your opinion, you are simply lying. I've pointed out your lies, you've tried to evade admitting to them, and in the process - as you admit - you've destroyed your own credibility. Thanks for that, because now I don't need to.

Enjoy typing your next angry rant in response. I won't be reading it.

Dave

 

[thesyntaxera]

Pedagogically it's no different than having students engage in socratic debate over issues they are not initially familiar with. I don't see why using a film like Zeitgeist is somehow more useful at that methodology than something based more firmly in the world of real relevance.

I going to have to agree. If I am understanding AJass correctly, we should examine it and debate it because not doing so is lazy, and does not help one(or a collective of people) to come to a better understanding of the subject?

Since this film and the discussions around it have essentially provided a clear picture of it as a fraudulent portrayal of history I see little merit in trying to derive some new angle on reality from it. If anything it is a rehash of idea's that are no longer considered to be(or never were) representative of the reality of the situation, and it is that at it's worst....the second part especially.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I feel a bit embarrassed. I completely let my opposition to this slide.

Bad skeptic! Ouch!

 

[GreNME]

I going to have to agree. If I am understanding AJass correctly, we should examine it and debate it because not doing so is lazy, and does not help one(or a collective of people) to come to a better understanding of the subject?

Since this film and the discussions around it have essentially provided a clear picture of it as a fraudulent portrayal of history I see little merit in trying to derive some new angle on reality from it. If anything it is a rehash of idea's that are no longer considered to be(or never were) representative of the reality of the situation, and it is that at it's worst....the second part especially.

Right. A better pedagogical tool for debate is using a subject more nuanced and not dealing with intellectual dishonesty on one side. Various economic models, private versus socialized medicine, coke versus pepsi-- all of those are valid topics for edifying socratic learning. Zeitgeist-- not so much.

 

[Perikles]

Well,
I have to include nazi propaganda in classes about WWII. I use interviews between Palestines and Israelians to expose the propaganda between the two. Why not ZG? It would at least get them interested and it offers a nice overview of what can be done nowadays in the field of manipulation.
Especially now there's a counterversion it becomes extremely interesting. My government imposed objective is to teach them democratic values, a critical attitude and research skills.
To me it can be used for that, I'll send them to the websites of both parties and have them do a rhetorical analysis bases upon a check list. It would be a great exercise and very involving for my students.
I had to read 1984 in school, it was a very clear warning about power, I think this movie can do the same.
But yeah I have no credibility here, poor old me, boohoo.

 

[Nick227]

Well,
I have to include nazi propaganda in classes about WWII. I use interviews between Palestines and Israelians to expose the propaganda between the two. Why not ZG? It would at least get them interested and it offers a nice overview of what can be done nowadays in the field of manipulation.
Especially now there's a counterversion it becomes extremely interesting. My government imposed objective is to teach them democratic values, a critical attitude and research skills.
To me it can be used for that, I'll send them to the websites of both parties and have them do a rhetorical analysis bases upon a check list. It would be a great exercise and very involving for my students.
I had to read 1984 in school, it was a very clear warning about power, I think this movie can do the same.
But yeah I have no credibility here, poor old me, boohoo.

ZG is certainly an excellent example of how to take a remarkably small amount of fact and blow it up to create a worldview that so opposes our typical historical viewpoint. It's a propaganda masterpiece that Goebbels or the Saatchis would have been proud of.

One thing I think Part 1 does highlight, is just how reticent the orthodox Christian church has been about revealing their true beginnings. Because of this, movies like ZG can assert all sorts of nonsense and it gets believed.

Nick

 

[GreNME]

Well,
I have to include nazi propaganda in classes about WWII. I use interviews between Palestines and Israelians to expose the propaganda between the two. Why not ZG?
It would at least get them interested and it offers a nice overview of what can be done nowadays in the field of manipulation.
Especially now there's a counterversion it becomes extremely interesting. My government imposed objective is to teach them democratic values, a critical attitude and research skills.
To me it can be used for that, I'll send them to the websites of both parties and have them do a rhetorical analysis bases upon a check list. It would be a great exercise and very involving for my students.
I had to read 1984 in school, it was a very clear warning about power, I think this movie can do the same.
But yeah I have no credibility here, poor old me, boohoo.

There's no need to play the victim before anyone even responds.

I would ask what your class is in the first place, because the subject matter isn't necessarily suited for most science and only a few humanities anyway. However, if your class is more one of rhetoric and debate logic, then the Zeitgeist film is a good a topical structure as asking the kids to debate the veracity of Birth of a Nation or, in some ways, to argue that the Earth is flat or any number of conspiracy theories.

The problem is that you're going to find yourself set against a great deal of difficulty from the start having a debate where the two sides aren't simply talking past each other in the first place. Even here, though a few of us (Nick, thesyntaxera, myself) might hold the same or similar conclusions about the subject matter we still came to these conclusions in somewhat different ways. Before we found ourselves a verbal platform where we could agree on definitions-- and you'll find yourself spending more time on that than anything else if you really wanted to follow through with it in a classroom-- we were talking past each other a good deal. This is actually why I mentioned the socratic method specifically, because one of the first steps with it is establishing an agreed-upon set of definitions.

So yes, technically you could bring in the Zeitgeist film or Loose Change or practically any conspiracy theory film or literature for a claassroom exercise in rhetoric, but like I said before I don't see the usefulness of doing so or how it could be any more helpful than other subjects for which there are already more generally-accepted definitions set up for at least some dialogue. What I'm saying is that I can only see doing such a thing making the process harder on the students, and not in a way that challenges them-- more in a way that poisons the well before the debate even begins.

So, unless I'm missing something here and the advantages of using it have already been mentioned that aren't more accessible using other subject matter, I fail to see the benefit to using conspiracy theories in a classroom setting.

 

[Nick227]

Well,
I have to include nazi propaganda in classes about WWII. I use interviews between Palestines and Israelians to expose the propaganda between the two. Why not ZG? It would at least get them interested and it offers a nice overview of what can be done nowadays in the field of manipulation.
Especially now there's a counterversion it becomes extremely interesting. My government imposed objective is to teach them democratic values, a critical attitude and research skills.
To me it can be used for that, I'll send them to the websites of both parties and have them do a rhetorical analysis bases upon a check list. It would be a great exercise and very involving for my students.
I had to read 1984 in school, it was a very clear warning about power, I think this movie can do the same.
But yeah I have no credibility here, poor old me, boohoo.

I think you have to also be responsible with it. I was big into CTs for many years, and am still very sympathetic to some of the notions. But what keeps me more away these days is that I find so many of the CTists very much locked up in an early childhood drama to do with authority.

For me, if you're going to start leading kids into CT material you need to get clear with yourself where you're coming from, that you are not simply acting out your own subconscious.

This done, it could be a very interesting exercise.

Nick

 

[applecorped]

I think you have to also be responsible with it. I was big into CTs for many years, and am still very sympathetic to some of the notions. But what keeps me more away these days is that I find so many of the CTists very much locked up in an early childhood drama to do with authority.

For me, if you're going to start leading kids into CT material you need to get clear with yourself where you're coming from, that you are not simply acting out your own subconscious.

This done, it could be a very interesting exercise.

Nick

Which notions are you still sympathetic to?

 

[Keerax]

I just wanted to say thanks for being here for me guys. My campus just started its first Freethinkers Group and the second meeting was last night. We watched only the first third of the Zeitgeist movie and, I will admit, being ignorant of most of the facts presented, I accepted them as fact. I did get the feeling that I was watching some kind of conspiracy theory woo film from how it was presented, but never did I think that the rest of the film was just bat-s*** crazy. Luckily based on the overall feeling I got from the film (of what I did see) and my girlfriend's passing interest in Egyptian mythology to compare to what I was describing from the film, I decided to research the movie.

I went to Google (like you do) and did a search on the film and guess who popped up close to the top of the list?

You guys.

Thanks again for helping me realign my baloney detector! It doesn't get a randi.org tune up often enough apparently.

 

[Nick227]

Which notions are you still sympathetic to?

The US government may be a front for a globalising conspiracy. If it exists this front may have a negative intent. I find it's hard to prove but the possibility still concerns me. I'm also sympathetic to the notion that orthodox Christianity needs thorough repackaging.

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

The US government may be a front for a globalising conspiracy. If it exists this front may have a negative intent. I find it's hard to prove but the possibility still concerns me. I'm also sympathetic to the notion that orthodox Christianity needs thorough repackaging.

Nick

I would say the case for private business men/women working together to gain profit is more likely than a US based globalist agenda. The only thing negative about it is the general disregard for the well being of those effected by their well laid plans.

I think it is safe to say that business plays an influential role in american politics, but that role varies tremendously depending on who is in office.

Personally I think the mixing of politics and business is too compartmentalized to ever be any sinister NWO like entity.

 

[GreNME]

I tend to get from Nick the impression that he feels similarly, but only tentatively and because there's no overwhelming reason to behave otherwise at this point.

I can understand Nick's sympathies and while I don't share them exactly I do think that there's a lot of 'good old boys club' that goes on in many businesses today, and they like to spread their social network to politics whenever they can. I just don't see them doing it for control as much as I do money or business, which I personally don't find to be ethically better anyway. I still have quite a bit of the older rebel deep down inside that I don't let color my everyday expectations or observations (too much), so I know the feeling of tentative acceptance of the way things are until shown otherwise.

Heck, it's that part of me that initially drew me into investigating some of the 9/11 conspiracies, and my habits toward critical thinking that led me to conclude its conclusions weak and its premises flawed. The Zeitgeist stuff lost me from the first part because of my affinity toward Mid-Eastern history. I don't find Part II convincing at all and Part III just seems too jumbled and ironic in its eschatological take on things (ironic considering Part I).

 

[Nick227]

I tend to get from Nick the impression that he feels similarly, but only tentatively and because there's no overwhelming reason to behave otherwise at this point.

Yes, though I'm still more concerned about Bretton Woods than the "old school tie" really.

But generally I look at the world and consider that if there was a vast evil conspiracy out there then we would probably be in a far worse straits than we are. The planet just looks a bit of a mess to me, really. And prisons are rarely messy.

Nick

 

[Perikles]

I'm a history teacher by training but have taught English for an NGO in Peru and have decided to continue doing this. It offers me a chance to see the world, working and living all over which always leads to interesting insights and experiences. I studied and read a lot at the university, but looking back the things that taught me the most were experiences from traveling. If you see the downside of Western wealth, the cost a small Quechua farmer has to pay for the profit of a huge Western food concern, I'm just not too sure anymore about all that bla bla I hear in Belgium/Europe/the US. If you see hundreds of kids working in the streets of Peru and need to be to eat/sleep underneath a roof/go to school, a member of the UN and UNICEF, I'm not so sure about the use of those institutions anymore.
If the farmers of Ayacucho one month ago took to the streets of Ayacucho for making 5 eurocents per kilo of potatoes, the police shot three of them and the president came on the telly saying that the dead had it comming. If the farmers switch to coca production which makes them a fantastic 500$ a month, that's five to tenfold what they make with any other crop, the government destroys the fields with poisonous insecticide to safeguard their credit with the US, after all of that I don't believe in the big plans, ideals and wars anymore. Real politics are in my opinion to often perceived as conspiracies, while anyone, even those of us that fumble the facts, who has taken a good look at history, will know that every regime always is more preoccupied with their self interest. Democracy made our self interest as a nation their self interest as a politician, but that stops at the borders. The self interest of businessmen is not bound by any supervision, their companies have reached far beyond the grasp of any government or institution. Companies are so vital for the well being of states and their citizens they simply face no other competition than that of other companies. Do they conspire? No, they fight for their own survival and the most important thing companies exist for, profit. To a certain number of people this goes above human rights, to others not and so they try to balance both profit and morality. In the same way some governments don't care about human rights at all and just go for political and economical profit. Others look for a balance between the national or personal self interest and morality,the most common one human rights. Ususally those that do try to balance are forced to do so by the people they govern, usually by democracy.
The essence I think is democratic control. Face it, if there is no stimulation to act not only in "your" self interest, you will act only in your self interest. Besides, it's an economical world. Three bullets are a lot cheaper and less dangerous to campaign funding than forcing global concerns into paying fair prices. Declaring millennium goals by 2015 without creating any form of control on you trying to achieve them is simply easier than actually developping a new approach like you know full debt relief, a different price system (by definition against the interest of the people voting for you) an UN with the actual authority to make people stick to the treaties they sign....
Self interest is not a conspiracy, it is essentially human to prioritise that, but it creates huge problems and in very extreme cases wars, genocides and attacks on the rights generations fought and died for. I think based upon my experiences (but who says they are universally applicable) that the predominance of self interest without peer pressure to force altruism into the equation is a fundamental problem.

 

[Nick227]

Self interest is not a conspiracy, it is essentially human to prioritise that, but it creates huge problems and in very extreme cases wars, genocides and attacks on the rights generations fought and died for. I think based upon my experiences (but who says they are universally applicable) that the predominance of self interest without peer pressure to force altruism into the equation is a fundamental problem.

Well, personally, I figure the world is in a state of acute change, and there are hands behind the scenes.

In the mid 1940s the IMF and World Bank were set up at Bretton Woods. Over the course of the next half century they proceeded to set up the infrastructure, all across the poorer nations of the world, for global consumerism. The offered loans to a myriad African and Latin American countries, and to get the money the nation had to accept structural adjustments, the nature of which streamlined them for the global marketplace. A host of minor nations found themselves inextricably a part of the emergent consumer superstate.

This happened. It wasn't voted for by anyone visibly, but it was undertaken. So to me personally this indicates a clear degree of aforethought and covert control when one considers the phenomenom of globalisation. It didn't just spontaneously manifest.

What I'm not yet sure of is whether it will turn out good or bad. A lot of poor nations got deeply ****ed up in the short term. But in the mid and longer term for some things got a lot better. It's hard to call, and I still have the feeling that a lot is decided behind the scenes.

Nick

 

[Perikles]

Hey Nick,
I suggest you read White man's burden by William Easterly. He's an economist teaching at NYU and has worked for the world bank for sixteen years on several development projects. He explains why so many money, projects and plans failed.
About decisions behind the scenes, that is how it works, I trust in the participants to tell the public if there is a truly shocking plan or project.
It's better to look at the present and to act to improve it, than to doubt and criticise the past.
You're right to be critical of our development system, this is essential to come to improvements.
You should really read the book, it's critical but also constructive, angry but hopeful. Also don't forget that the collective consumer behavior of the Western countries and their consumer demands are far more destructive for the poorer continents and countries than some old treaties. Politicians in Europe try to cater to their voters, when it's not possible in action they do it in words. But the wish of the voter always comes first.

 

[Perikles]

I did some quick research on Bretton Woods. I checked Wikipedia in Ducth and English, One world Divisible a global history since 1945 by David Reynolds and my economic history of the newest times course by Erik Vanhaute.
Bretton Woods is responsible for providing monetary stability in the post world war II age. There is a strong correlation with the Marshall plan and one of the co writers was John Maynard Keynes, who however his ideas are considered to be flawed and irrealistic now was the ideologist behind our conceptions of the welfare state and social civil rights. It stabilised exchange rates in the non communistic world which was ofcourse a great help for a destroyed Europe that needed foreign investment.
It was in fact when Nixon in 1971 suspended Bretton Woods that a great crisis emerged (ofcourse the oil crisis didn't help too). Bretton Woods is not solely responsible for the economic miracles that occurred in Europe post 1945, but it definetely contributed.
The problems started when the miracle method applied in Europe was applied in other continents, disregarding more agricultural economies, less democratic regimes and different cultural principles. The intention was good, but like a Belgian proverb says: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."