ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[beachnut]

Hi beachnut.I dont actually remember raving about the movie merely that i quite enjoyed it.I quite enjoyed the De Vinci code as well but that doesn't mean I believe the content to be true, I just find it quite refreshing in these days of yet another Batman movie that there are film makers who are willing to make thought provoking films as opposed to endless action and sensationalism.Nowhere in the film as I recall is there any declaration that the contents are factual.The director obviously is all fired up on a few issues and has attempted to combine them in a single statement; ambitious to say the least but that doesn't actually negate its entertainment value.What was the last film you saw that sparked as much debate? It's all entertainment and food for thought at the end of the day and whether it provokes one to search out a little more thoroughly the information suggested or not is really neither here nor there.Hope the capitals are making your day dudalb.

I like fantasy movies too. The Code was fictional, but it is neat to see bs in movies and relax.

The Z movie is bs; it is an anti-intellectual, sort of like fraud, presented as fact, but just dumb tripe to fool people who fail to check the facts.

I love fantasy, it needs to be labeled as such. Alas, buyer beware, it is fraud, or some dumb guys who can't do any better. Reminds me of NAZI propaganda.

Some of my favorite movies are based on pure fantasy. Is the Z movie labeled fiction? It should be labeled fraud.

This web page is an incredible resource for this video:
http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

With all due respect to GreNME's effort on the CT wiki, this page covers every single claim made and explains the falsehoods presented well. Definitely a must read if you are on the fence about this film, or are interested in the counter arguments to the films claims.

This looks like a good place to understand some of the Z claims.

 

[Nick227]

Hi beachnut.I dont actually remember raving about the movie merely that i quite enjoyed it.I quite enjoyed the De Vinci code as well but that doesn't mean I believe the content to be true, I just find it quite refreshing in these days of yet another Batman movie that there are film makers who are willing to make thought provoking films as opposed to endless action and sensationalism.Nowhere in the film as I recall is there any declaration that the contents are factual.The director obviously is all fired up on a few issues and has attempted to combine them in a single statement; ambitious to say the least but that doesn't actually negate its entertainment value.What was the last film you saw that sparked as much debate? It's all entertainment and food for thought at the end of the day and whether it provokes one to search out a little more thoroughly the information suggested or not is really neither here nor there.Hope the capitals are making your day dudalb.

I also enjoyed Zeitgeist and the Da Vinci Code, though I thought the movie of the latter was crap. However, in terms of factual information, both are pretty limited. The writer of Zeitgeist strung together a heap of older conspiracy theories into a web of idiocy. It's just a propaganda movie, if you ask me.

Nick

 

[Stout]

Thanks for the link thesyntaxera.

Cheers

 

[lippard]

He's probably referencing the "Homegrown Terrorism and Prevention Act". As well as the fact that during a congressional hearing this year regarding HR1955 someone from the Simon Wiesenthal Center had a powerpoint presentation where AE911Truth was featured as a potentional provactuer for violent riots. I could be wrong though.

FYI on HR1955:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/12/dan-smiths-critique-of-rep-jane-harmans.html

 

[joemailman]

The Nonsense of Atheists

The nonsense of atheists is expressed here in this forum with their outright rejection of the Zeitgeist Movement and the possibility that they have been fooled just as the religious have have been for all of their lives. I would suppose that the great majority of atheists here are actually doing nothing to change the future nor are they even interested. They are probably just resigned to accepting the inequities of the world they live in while giving lip service to their intellect or the potential that their intellect affords them. There are even many, many suggestions as to the accuracy of the Jesus character as well as the accuracy and historicity of of the other gods and devils mentioned in these films. ( there are two films ). It is no wonder to me that there is so little questioning or even interest as to the possibility that their acceptance of conventional explanations of everything major is so apparent absent. Conspiracies do happen and where billion perhaps trillions of dollars in any currency are at stake it becomes far more probable.

Social change has always happened when either the "belly button touches the backbone" or through the buffoonery and incompetence of of those in control that forces the hand of the majority as was the case in the last election. And I even doubt the intelligence of the majority of Americans in the latter case. Social change through a reasoned, progressive movement does and will have the hardest time getting any kind of demonstration produced.

 

[Edx]

The nonsense of atheists is expressed here in this forum with their outright rejection of the Zeitgeist Movement and the possibility that they have been fooled just as the religious have have been for all of their lives. I would suppose that the great majority of atheists here are actually doing nothing to change the future nor are they even interested. They are probably just resigned to accepting the inequities of the world they live in while giving lip service to their intellect or the potential that their intellect affords them. There are even many, many suggestions as to the accuracy of the Jesus character as well as the accuracy and historicity of of the other gods and devils mentioned in these films. ( there are two films ). It is no wonder to me that there is so little questioning or even interest as to the possibility that their acceptance of conventional explanations of everything major is so apparent absent. Conspiracies do happen and where billion perhaps trillions of dollars in any currency are at stake it becomes far more probable.

Social change has always happened when either the "belly button touches the backbone" or through the buffoonery and incompetence of of those in control that forces the hand of the majority as was the case in the last election. And I even doubt the intelligence of the majority of Americans in the latter case. Social change through a reasoned, progressive movement does and will have the hardest time getting any kind of demonstration produced.

I was apart of the movement, but the first film is a piece of crap. Peter still supports all the same ******** he always did. I like how he didnt even touch 911 in his recent broadcast defending it. Maybe he will do it later, or maybe he knows how much of an idiot he will appear if he tries to.

I said I WAS apart of this movement because I like Jacque Frescos ideas even if its a bit idealistic. I also really liked Peters London presentation which I actually attended. But theres so much conspiracy crap attracting the most irrational fake skeptics I've ever seen. What a shame that Fresco had to be associated with it.

I will continue to look on as an observer, but no longer can I call myself apart a "movement" that is as intellectually backrupt as this one.

 

[Longfellow]

...(snip) There are even many, many suggestions as to the accuracy of the Jesus character as well as the accuracy and historicity of of the other gods and devils...(snip)

Now let me get this straight. You want us to believe, not only in the mythical Jesus Christ, but all other "gods and devils" as well?

Really?

I hate to be the one to break this to you but the Dark Ages ended a long time ago. I wonder if you might consider buying a program? That way you can keep up? Just a thought.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

No I think he is upset because we don't buy into the astrotheology nonsense in Zeitgeist. No true Scotsman. He is basically saying one is not an atheist if they disagree with the ideas in Zeitgeist.

Oh and I love his passive aggressive correction that there are 2 movies in thread that was created, lived, and died before Addendum came out.

 

[thesyntaxera]

The nonsense of atheists is expressed here in this forum with their outright rejection of the Zeitgeist Movement and the possibility that they have been fooled just as the religious have have been for all of their lives.

How have "they" been fooled?

I would suppose that the great majority of atheists here are actually doing nothing to change the future nor are they even interested. They are probably just resigned to accepting the inequities of the world they live in while giving lip service to their intellect or the potential that their intellect affords them.

Inequality is a fact of life. As individuals we can work daily to create a better society by doing right by our neighbor and raising children who are motivated to continue on the process of building and bettering society. Think global, act local.

No one needs a "Movement" to do any of that. Whenever people start going on about any movement I either think of Rain Man, or cults. Cults annoy me, almost as much as people who encourage others to participate in them.

There are even many, many suggestions as to the accuracy of the Jesus character as well as the accuracy and historicity of of the other gods and devils mentioned in these films. ( there are two films ).

Too bad they don't rely on actual history. Trust me, I looked into it.

Conspiracies do happen and where billion perhaps trillions of dollars in any currency are at stake it becomes far more probable.

The Zeitgeist conspiracy theory of everything is true because there is a lot of money in circulation and other conspiracies have occured?

Social change has always happened when either the "belly button touches the backbone" or through the buffoonery and incompetence of of those in control that forces the hand of the majority as was the case in the last election. And I even doubt the intelligence of the majority of Americans in the latter case. Social change through a reasoned, progressive movement does and will have the hardest time getting any kind of demonstration produced.

Are you just bummed because Ron Paul didn't get elected?

 

[lightfire22000]

The only part of this movie that was possibly vaguely accurate and original was the part declaring that Horus was the root for horizon. Looking them both up on Webster.com, I found that they both derive from the Greek horos, though one had an accent and the other did not. Horos supposedly means boundary in Greek. I don't know Greek so I apologize if I'm wrong.

 

[Edx]

Actually it was right about a few more things in the religion section, but left a lot of very real comparisions to old religions out or only touched on them. Shame really, could have pretty much made the same point without all the fringe claims.

 

[Slayhamlet]

The only part of this movie that was possibly vaguely accurate and original was the part declaring that Horus was the root for horizon. Looking them both up on Webster.com, I found that they both derive from the Greek horos, though one had an accent and the other did not. Horos supposedly means boundary in Greek. I don't know Greek so I apologize if I'm wrong.

No, they're not related. The English word 'horizon' comes directly from the Greek ὁρίζων (horízōn), which is the present active participle of the verb ὁρίζειν (horízein) 'to delimit, bound'. Thus it roughly means "that which delimits/bounds", i.e. the earth from the sky. The verb itself is derived from the noun ὅρος (hóros), which just means "boundary".

The name of the Egyptian God, on the other hand, was borrowed into Greek as Ὧρος (Hôros, note the long 'o') from Egyptian ḥr.w (probably pronounced something like Ḥāru). Since Egyptian is an Afro-Asiatic language, not Indo-European like Greek, there is little chance that the Egyptian name shares a root with Greek ὅρος. They're superficially similar, but that's it.

What Zeitgeist is taking part in is called folk-etymology. This is hardly surprising, considering Zeitgeist is anti-intellectual claptrap from start to finish. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a single fact in the whole movie.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Actually it was right about a few more things in the religion section, but left a lot of very real comparisions to old religions out or only touched on them. Shame really, could have pretty much made the same point without all the fringe claims.

Like what?

 

[Mangoose]

The only part of this movie that was possibly vaguely accurate and original was the part declaring that Horus was the root for horizon. Looking them both up on Webster.com, I found that they both derive from the Greek horos, though one had an accent and the other did not. Horos supposedly means boundary in Greek. I don't know Greek so I apologize if I'm wrong.

The name Horus does not derive from Greek. It was later transliterated into Greek, but it is a native Egyptian name.

Horus is recorded in Egyptian hieroglyphs as ḥr.w and is reconstructed to have been pronounced *Ḥāru, meaning "Falcon".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

 

[Edx]

Like what?

Off the top of my head it talks briefly about the Epic of Gilgamesh and the resemblance to the Genesis creation myth, which is true. The Old Testaement is not original at all. Also Jesus does have quite a few similiarities between other religious concepts and legends, the only debate is really just how many attributes are shared.

I also have a good story about the Lucifer myth and how it never meant the devil even at the time, but they didnt talk about that either

 

[Slayhamlet]

Off the top of my head it talks briefly about the Epic of Gilgamesh and the resemblance to the Genesis creation myth, which is true. The Old Testaement is not original at all. Also Jesus does have quite a few similiarities between other religious concepts and legends, the only debate is really just how many attributes are shared.

I also have a good story about the Lucifer myth and how it never meant the devil even at the time, but they didnt talk about that either

I'm not aware of any remarkable similarities that the Epic of Gilgamesh has with the Creation myth of the OT. Perhaps you're thinking of the flood myth? Yes, that much true. The stories of Noah and Utnapishtim obviously have a common source, but if I remember correctly Zeitgeist makes a bunch of dumb claims about the Hebrews "stealing" the myth and there being some sort of conspiracy to cover up the appropriation, even though that's exactly how myths have been passed down from century to century and across cultures for most of mankind's history. There's a kernel of truth there, but Zeitgeist completely misrepresents it in order to sell some stupid Dan Brown-esque conspiracy nonsense.

As for the Jesus/Mithras myth hypothesis that Zeitgeist pushes, I believe that has been mostly discredited. There was a long thread about it in the religion forum, if you want to have a look. Lucifer is simply the Latin name of the morning star. The Bible compares a number of different people to it, including Jesus himself. It's really nothing more than a metaphor.

 

[Edx]

I'm not aware of any remarkable similarities that the Epic of Gilgamesh has with the Creation myth of the OT. Perhaps you're thinking of the flood myth? Yes, that much true. The stories of Noah and Utnapishtim obviously have a common source, but if I remember correctly Zeitgeist makes a bunch of dumb claims about the Hebrews "stealing" the myth

Well its not so much they stole the myth its just where they myths originated, which probably came from the Sumarians originally which was probably based on a real local flood. The Hebrews were a nomadic tribe that would have taken on a lot of cultural and so religious notions of their neighbours, no need to call it stealing. But the point that theres very little originality in the Bible is still correct.

even though that's exactly how myths have been passed down from century to century and across cultures for most of mankind's history. There's a kernel of truth there, but Zeitgeist completely misrepresents it in order to sell some stupid Dan Brown-esque conspiracy nonsense.

And there lies its problem

As for the Jesus/Mithras myth hypothesis that Zeitgeist pushes, I believe that has been mostly discredited. There was a long thread about it in the religion forum, if you want to have a look.

Thats okay, its not just mithra. Theres a guy youtube called AronRa on youtube that knows a lot about this kind of stuff and Ive seen him discuss it many times on internet forums. While Zeitgeist is an exaggeration, there lies I think more truth in it than many skeptics have assumed, even though you do have to dig deeply. He is a good person to ask if you want to know about that stuff.

A silly connection I noticed Zeitgeist tries to make is with the other Moses type figures and how it claims they all have similar names with a wink and a nudge.

Now I havent checked on the ones they do talk about and how closely their stories resemble that Biblical Moses, however it completely ignores the fact that there is another Moses figure that doesnt sound like that name at all. Which is obviously whats known as "Hammurabi's code" which is very similar. Zeitgeist acts like the Bible just stole this kind of legend but the opinion of scholars seems to be not that they stole it, not even Hammurabi's code, but that this legend itself was so common throughout that area that you cant pin in down to one particular source.

Lucifer is simply the Latin name of the morning star. The Bible compares a number of different people to it, including Jesus himself. It's really nothing more than a metaphor.

I know, but it is relevant in this case.

The Bible doesnt speak of Lucifer, thats the Latin translation. The Hebrew words used are "Helel ben Shahar". In Canaanite mythology "Shahar" was the god of the Dawn and "Shalim" the god of the dusk. Helel ben Shahar is the quite literally "Helel, son of the morning". Helel is probably a name or title, I forget which.

Most places that talk about this only mention that Lucifer is Venus but this myth in Isaiah while not present in Canaanite mythology that we know about, is still reasonably refering to a legend based on their mythology. The legend being that Helel, son of the morning (ie. venus) tried to usurp his fathers thrown, the godhead El (ie. venus cant cant reach high enough up in the sky).

edit: I forgot to mention that in the New Testament it all got confused and they believed of course that Isaiah was refering to the devil personified. The Old Testament religion has no concept of a personified "devil". Satan was merely "the opposer", so anyone could be Satan. But this concept changed with the New Testament. It also speaks of Baalzeebub, saying that is Satan as well. But thats just a bastardisation of the name "Baal" one of the Canaanite gods that the Old Testament god has to deal with.

So in reality Baalzeebub, the devil and Lucifer are all different names for different characters not different names for the same character. I find this a very interesting story, but of course it wasnt in Zeitgeist they'd rather rely on fringe claims from Acharya S.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

If I am not mistaken. The Hebrews branched off from the Mesopotamian culture, which is why there exists linguistic similarities between the two groups. So the flood that took place between the Tigris and Euphrates is something that they would have also mentioned in their own cultural history, because it was something that took place in their cultural history. The real issue is the difference in the interpretation of the event, which is of course something Zeitgeist glances over because the point is the prove the thesis of D.M. Murdock.

It isn't an issue of "originality" as much as a cultural history that encompasses numerous distinct groups from a common source.

 

[thesyntaxera]

It isn't an issue of "originality" as much as a cultural history that encompasses numerous distinct groups from a common source.

Not to mention the impossibility of knowing the precise "who, what, when and where" of all othe overlapping, borrowed, or stolen concepts and cultural artifacts.

One can come up with all kinds of theories based in the available evidence, but will never really know for sure unless of course they invent a time machine.

 

[Edx]

If I am not mistaken. The Hebrews branched off from the Mesopotamian culture, which is why there exists linguistic similarities between the two groups. So the flood that took place between the Tigris and Euphrates is something that they would have also mentioned in their own cultural history, because it was something that took place in their cultural history. The real issue is the difference in the interpretation of the event, which is of course something Zeitgeist glances over because the point is the prove the thesis of D.M. Murdock.

It isn't an issue of "originality" as much as a cultural history that encompasses numerous distinct groups from a common source.

Thats really the point, you can prove essentially the same conclusion as Part 1 of Zeitgeist without having to use fringe opinions from D.M. Murdock.

A legitimate documentary talking about this indepth would still be very interesting.