http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=4
Matt Gregory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Diebert van Rhijn on Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:52 pm
A bit crude and simplistic, almost like a Michael Moore movie but still: good material. I've seen so far most of the first part about the solar cults and Christianity. What is not mentioned is the very obvious easy to trace fact that most of the mystery cults insiders were damn well aware that their ideas were so compatible with astrological and astronomical events. They called it "as above so below". This is the very ancient idea that events on Earth reflect the events in the sky and vice versa. So to point out they tell the same story is not really an argument against these cults but affirming their beliefs which where basically holistic in nature. For them it was obvious that a Messiah followed the story in the sky. Jesus in the Gospels also clearly was aware of the 'prophecies' and didn't make a secret he was fulfilling them step by step, in other words: he was following on purpose the 'cosmic movement' as contained in the Torah and other sources.
Of course most believers these days have lost the finer esoteric ideas of where most of their religion came from and this movie might give them something to chew on. But if this movie is intended to expose anything new to the more serious believer, I doubt it. They have heard it all before and refuted with success part of it and ignored the rest as being obvious or just distorted.
Diebert van Rhijn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Matt Gregory on Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:16 pm
I thought the Christianity part was good. I've never heard about the connections to astrology before. It almost ties everything together too well to make it believable. I mean why did every ancient culture split the consellations up into 12 zodiacs and have the same symbols for them, like bull, water-bearer,etc.? That seems kind of far-fetched unless astrology came from one place, which would be kind of weird.
Matt Gregory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Nick Treklis on Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:23 pm
I think the most disturbing realization I had during the movie is how the people that spoke out against humanity's ignorance, people like Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, and others were turned into tools to keep humanity in ignorance after they died. The "men behind the curtain" not only kill the people who wake up to the truth, but in turn use them as symbols to further their agenda even more so.
All in all I thought it was a great movie and I'm in 100% agreeance with it's message. Things are going to get much, much worse before they start to get better, assuming humanity survives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby DHodges on Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:16 am
Wow, that was an intense movie. The end reminded me of "Let's Visit the World of the Future," a movie Ivan Stang made back in 1972 when he was known as Doug Smith. Oddly, I don't see this movie online anywhere. (I have a VHS copy.) In Stang's vision of the future, the world is run by evil clowns, and most people frantically produce things all day so they can flush them down the toilet and buy new ones.
Matt Gregory wrote:I mean why did every ancient culture split the consellations up into 12 zodiacs and have the same symbols for them, like bull, water-bearer,etc.?
There is a completely different system of Chinese astrology. I wonder what impact that had on their religions and mythology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Matt Gregory on Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:22 am
An even better movie is Sicko. I saw it yesterday and it's become my all-time favorite movie. Vote for Kucinich! :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Dan Rowden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:20 am
Isn't he the Szechuan Sage from Iron Chef?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Jamesh on Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:14 am
yeah, close, sounds similar
Iron Chef Chinese Chen Kenichi 67-22-3 (75.3%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Matt Gregory on Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:33 am
Why does everyone make fun of Kucinich whenever I mention him? My dad said "He's too short!" You're all going to eat those words someday though! Kucinich is the man dammit!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Dan Rowden on Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:53 am
Hey! I got 12 points for him in that other voting poll thread! And Chen is my favourite Iron Chef!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Shahrazad on Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:35 am
Isn't Kucinich a vegetable? Oh wait, that's zucchini. Sorry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Carl G on Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:27 pm
Short politicians make poor leaders. For one, they can't reach the altar at the Satanic rituals.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Diebert van Rhijn on Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:13 pm
Watched the complete movie and that changed my opinion of it. I think as a whole it's a completely delusional, contradictionary and therefore self-defeating movie. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'men behind the curtains', if any, would have sponsored it to stimulate the ignorance that enables their own position.
Broken down in three items:
1. Religion.
The exact link between this and the points about 9/11 conspiracy and Federal Reserve didn't become clear to me during the movie. Were the greatest problems of the 20th century not caused by ideologies that were not religious? All the war imagery that the movie started with was hardly religious. Was the point to state that all religions are 'one'? This would be a weird point to make in light of the international bankers reaching for one world government and unity. It would be in their favor. Or did I miss something?
Many of the similarities listed between Christ, Krishna, Horus, etc are a bit contrived if one would look up the sources. The differences are often larger than the stated similarities and many of the sources and translations are disputed in theological debate. To list them as fact is irresponsible but I guess forgivable to make the overall point: that many religions are based on older traditions that included the believe that the sky reflected the earth, that the calendar was crucial for the ritual, that the ritual was essential to all our actions, etc.
Also the statement that myth does not contain truth is disputable. Only when 'truth' is defined as some scientific, laboratory born freakish thing. I'd argue like Joseph Campbell that the imagery of religion was consciously intended by the authors as metaphor. Perhaps they only reinterpreted the ancient symbols as referring to psycho-spiritual, not astro-literal-historical matters. Or as Campbell said: "religion can be defined as mis-interpreted mythology".
2. 9/11
The weakest part of the movie was the re-hash of the popular 9/11 conspiracy theories. Many of the points they tried to make are already debunked with great precision so one has to ask why did they bother? First being so all factual and theological about religion, digging for truth and then the next chapter they throw all mainstream research and critical thought out of the window and unleash full blown but poorly researched 9/11 theories.
It's even more tragic when seeing the 9/11 conspiracies (and others) as mainly the myth-making of our time. We see the forming of a myth out of a historic event, obscuring any possibility to develop a clear view on the event. So after we have truncated the old religion by summarizing it as some astrological misinterpretation we now have to embrace a new religion, the one were people 'behind the scenes' are plotting our destiny with near omni-science and omni-potency.
I see only the clash between the old religion and a new one in this movie. A battle of memes? The new religion is suggesting 'scientific' and 'critical' thought, using a surplus of references to hard to obtain work. Suggesting logical thought while ignoring some of the more obvious counter-arguments. It's wallowing in vagueness and generalizations while pushing against a 'they' and 'them' who have all cooked it up and prevent mainstream scientists and engineers from agreeing with the authors. Again creating such incoherent belief system around 9/11 is only in the favor of the mysterious evil bankers and will not worry them.
3. International banking and all you need...
Since I do not know enough about economics I cannot judge the quality of the arguments. I can't verify them. What I do know that there's an open globalist agenda in the minds of the political and economical elite. Every system where growth and progress are its main beliefs would want to grow, absorb, fuse or assimilate everything else to be able to do so. Aiming for one global virtual currency, government, market place and religion would be a logical outcome from this desire to expand. Shifting money around with the speed of light and under the control of a few would create in the eyes of some a near to perfect world.
There's a point here to make by the movie but they don't make it. The globalist agenda is out in the open and no Rockefellers are needed behind the curtain. Many leading politicians and scholars are promoting it all the same without needing any brainwashing by the CIA. It's a human tendency to create outwards control to get rid of the problems within. It's called the 'empire' disease. An empire to heal the emperor.
Conclusion
The most damning evidence of this movie's incoherency is its closing message: it's all about love, the power of love overcoming the love of power (hah, is there a difference?). All as opposed to anger, greed, distrust? Don't they know they all arise out of the same attachments? That there's only one type of will, one ultimate power?
Then they go on about seeing the world as one organism at war with itself or seeing the other person as essentially 'one' with ourself. On the ultimate level this might appear so but in the context of the movie it becomes the kind of new age drivel I'd expect from the 'Illuminati', the humanitarian warmongers, the one-world globalists.
To put these messages in a movie criticizing some mystery shadow bankers and power brokers - the 21st century Devil - is so ignorant that it almost justifies the title: Zeitgeist. Another title would be "The Dawn of the Dead". That one was already taken I suppose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Matt Gregory on Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:13 pm
Matt Gregory wrote:Why does everyone make fun of Kucinich whenever I mention him?
Ah, I think I may have found the answer:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 43,00.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Matt Gregory on Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:22 pm
I pretty much agree with you, Diebert. I'm not sure about the Federal Reserve part either, but I know that it's either jointly owned by private banks and the government, or it's owned by banks and overseen by the government. I also find it difficult to believe that the 16th Amendment to the constitution was never ratified, but it does go against the original constitution's rule that all federally collected taxes have to be apportioned between the states, but I don't think you can call an amendment "unconstitutional" since the very point of an amendment is to change the constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Diebert van Rhijn on Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:48 pm
Matt Gregory wrote: I also find it difficult to believe that the 16th Amendment to the constitution was never ratified, but it does go against the original constitution's rule that all federally collected taxes have to be apportioned between the states, but I don't think you can call an amendment "unconstitutional" since the very point of an amendment is to change the constitution.
I checked this in Wikipedia and found at the section Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments
One argument that has been raised several times (and always ruled meritless) suggests that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. This argument is based on the fact that the legislatures of various states passed ratifying resolutions in which the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress in terms of capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas).
There's more in that section about other technical arguments but it seems the courts continuously overrule these objections as baseless. I guess the movie makers would say all those judges have lost their grip on the constitution as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Zeitgeist the movie
Postby Matt Gregory on Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:16 pm
differed from the text proposed by Congress in terms of capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas).
That's funny. Yeah, this argument might be lame, but I'm sure if an amendment to a country's frickin' constitution was not ratified 90 years ago it would have been noticed by now.