Choose Your Illusion
The Internet world has been abuzz in recent months over an online-only documentary called Zeitgeist, The Movie. Viewable primarily on Google Video, the feature-length film is racking up daily hits topping fifty thousand, and a specific title search via Google’s engine comes back with three times as many results. With a tagline that poses the question, “What does Christianity, 911, and the Federal Reserve have in common?” it is readily apparent that this flick has an axe to grind.
Divided into three parts, the movie attempts to define the modern zeitgeist – “the spirit of the time” – as an elaborate global conspiracy arranged to consolidate the human race under a single totalitarian government. Within the first twenty minutes, the Christian faith is debunked as the product of an age-old Roman scheme to dominate the masses under a fabricated mythology borrowed wholesale from pagan sun worship. Jesus probably never even existed, the film argues, and his character was directly modeled after the gods of other world religions. Furthermore, these shared attributes are actually nothing more than recycled interpretations of the zodiac.
If you accept this revelation, then you are mentally primed for the following two chapters, which unleash a barrage of historical bombshells to expose the current world order as further perpetrations of deceit and thought control. Among other atrocities, we learn that the Bush Administration orchestrated 9/11; the media and public schools are in cahoots to keep us ignorant and complacent; and the Federal Reserve is a front for an international banking cartel with designs for a neo-feudalist world state. In the end, we will all be tagged with microchips, toiling in economic thrall to the Rockefellers – that is, unless enough people wake up to the truth.
Yes, this is an outlandish, grandiose, and paranoid take on reality. While there are hefty kernels of truth rattling around throughout, the film does some Olympian stretching in its ambitious game of connect-the-dots. And as could be expected, it is rife with inaccuracies and dubious scholarship from start to finish, as several critics have pointed out. Yet at its best, Zeitgeist is a flashy, riveting piece of renegade agitprop aimed at rousing an increasingly stupefied public to the world crumbling around their computer screens. Eye-catching visuals and a healthy disregard for copyright law make for some engaging segues, featuring voice-overs from countercultural icons like George Carlin, Bill Hicks, and Richard Alpert. We are even treated to highlights of an apoplectic Peter Finch railing against the hypocrisies of our times in Sidney Lumet’s Network. If its sights are on a mass media, short-attention-span demographic, Zeitgeist has its bases covered.
As with any work of propaganda, however, it employs liberal amounts of disinformation and ambiguity in driving its message home. Criticisms of the film’s take on Christianity dominate online reviews, and several convincing (or at least, better researched) rebuttals dismiss outright many of its tightly drawn parallels between Jesus and other deities. After a bit of web browsing and critical thinking, any amateur fact checker will quickly get tangled in Zeitgeist’s exegetical arguments.
For those familiar with the alleged conspiracies surrounding 9/11, the movie brings nothing new to the table, and even includes scenes from the notorious Loose Change online documentary that popularized these theories. Entitled “All the World’s a Stage,” Part Two assembles a pastiche of news footage and clips from various “9/11 Truth” videos to argue for the controlled demolition of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7. Numerous television specials, magazine articles, and websites have attacked many of the claims made here and unfortunately a balanced presentation of the debate is not attempted. One of the most compelling charges, that military air defense exercises were purposely conducted that morning to confuse NORAD interceptors and aid the hijackers, is left ultimately unsubstantiated. Part Three then attempts to stitch the entire jumbled picture together with a series of indictments that place the Federal Reserve at the heart of a plot for global corporate hegemony. Again, the film draws many serious accusations from unverifiable sources, leaving its conclusions hanging in uncertainty.
Once this slippery logic becomes obvious, Zeitgeist’s guiding premise – that authority manipulates truth to suit an agenda – gets mired in hypocrisy. Hard-line skeptics will spot these disingenuous tactics right off the bat, and more credulous viewers are advised to take it all in with a grain of salt. In a statement on the official website, the filmmaker himself even offers a caveat: “It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.” Disguised as an homage to rationalism, this disclosure merely provides an easy out. Yet despite its many flaws, there is something deeply compelling about this movie. Were it presented as a thought experiment rather than undisputed fact, it could play a vital role in the emergence of a new cultural paradigm, loosening one’s mind to reevaluate the most basic assumptions about reality.
Of course, this is the intention (and the danger) of potent propaganda. Several Zeitgeist enthusiasts have proclaimed in message board posts that the film has changed their lives, inspiring them to become politically active or to renounce their faith. Certainly, it is preferable that personal transformations of this magnitude be founded upon authentic knowledge rather than untenable half-truths. But this is also where one’s preconceived notions can come into play. For example, during a college course on ancient Israelite religion, I came to the realization that the foundational myths in Judaism were clearly syncretized from the beliefs of neighboring pagan sects. This was a defining moment and a dramatic turning point in my spiritual development. Zeitgeist’s treatment of Jesus as a messianic Frankenstein culled from preexisting pantheons hardly offends me, then, although I doubt its validity.
I have no qualms, on the other hand, with the film’s indictments against the greedy and violent institution that has terrorized its fellow man in Christ’s name for centuries. Organized religion is a powerful tool of political control, according to my worldview. Perhaps it takes an equally ostentatious counter-spell to break some people free from the hypnotic program. That’s one less fundamentalist zealot to contend with at the end of the day. Along the same lines, I am increasingly convinced of a sinister intent behind the neoconservative agenda of the Bush Administration. While I can’t prove their complicity behind certain nefarious events, for all the abominations and scandals that have come to light, it’s not something I couldn’t imagine. If the shock-and-awe allure of Zeitgeist’s conspiratorial claims encourages someone to question the President’s jingoist rhetoric, I will not protest.
The defenders of truth are not what they used to be. Our mainstream news sources have been transmuted into an extremely efficient propaganda machine. Under the current White House, journalists have by and large been reduced to instruments of indoctrination, parroting the talking points of the day as handed down from on high. Right-wing media moguls like Rupert Murdoch continue to consolidate the world’s networks, newspapers, publishing houses, and airwaves in a concerted effort to control the flow of information.
In recent years, the documentary film has come into its own as a means of counteracting these domineering forces. Everyone from Hollywood environmentalists to ex-politicians are embracing the form, giving strength to a much-needed voice of dissent. Michael Moore now moderates the national conversation with as much haughty authority as Tony Snow. Big-screen films like Fahrenheit 9/11, The Corporation, and An Inconvenient Truth pose a real threat to the status quo, challenging viewers to reconsider popularly held conceptions. While at times just as guilty of ad hominem manipulations as the mainstream channels they oppose, these movies help level the playing field in the battle for Western hearts and minds. Without them, the monopoly would be far more absolute.
It is not surprising that controversial documentaries like Zeitgeist and Loose Change have found a ready audience online. The Internet is the final frontier of democratic free speech, a forum where alternative voices are held in high regard. As objectivity in the mainstream press continues to take a back seat to the interests of power, bloggers and online activists have become crucial to the future of an informed public. Yet it is also important to note that in the blogosphere, the editorial is king. Opinion, sarcasm, and unabashed bias color much of the independent journalism on the web, with sites like Daily Kos and TPM Muckraker leading the charge for a new media shaped by personal perspective. This trend speaks to an empowering development in the intellectual psyche at large. Amidst an onslaught of conflicting possibilities, it is increasingly up to the individual to come to his own conclusions.
Like Peter Finch as the ill-tempered anchorman in Network, Zeitgeist seems mostly interested in riling us up. If enough people get “mad as hell,” the logic goes, we won’t be lied to anymore. But deception and conspiracy are deeply ingrained in our consciousness. From the Tooth Fairy to the Tonkin Gulf, false authority and fantasy shape our entire lives, calling into question the true nature of the world around us. With the rise of “reality” television, our popular entertainment now imitates life, and vice versa, to an unnerving extent. In a recent blog article, Reality Sandwich contributor Kal Cobalt observes, “We have learned how to obfuscate reality so well through media technology that it is no longer possible to definitively determine what is ‘real.’" Zeitgeist succeeds in capturing the spirit of this pivotal time, where “truth” and “reality” are no longer absolutes, but products of our own boundless imagination. Rather than get angry, we could simply choose to believe otherwise – and then we may truly be free.
Tweet- 8-13-07
- ST Frequency's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
I have this movie waiting
Synchronous?
Farct = Fact + Art
I have a lot of appreciation for your digestion of "Zeitgeist" as I was one of those people who, upon watching it, felt myself falling down a rabbit-hole of depression and anxiety as I suspended disbelief and entertained the idea that the future we are hurtling toward has been crafted and contoured by an elite hell-bent on the curtailing of individual freedoms and willing to commit atrocities in order to further their self-interests. I knew I was likely watching a smorgasbord of inaccuracies, but the through-line created between religion and institutions of government, media and finance felt bonafide. It jibed with ideas I've been exposed to through a variety of friends and acquaintances who have raised my awareness and through my own reading. I allowed myself to imagine a world in which a select few are playing us like so many chess pieces, and who have somehow hijacked the status quo, defining it as an instrument of suppression. I had dark thoughts that night, as I looked out my window at the void of the World Trade Center and remembered standing 200 yards from it as it burned. If what the documentary asserted was true, I was living in a society whose architecture was illusory, a fascist state with a cake of democratic makeup plastered on. I drifted off to sleep with a feeling of profound vulnerability, a sense of dread and a fervent wish that it wasn't so. Awareness of this last sentiment made it difficult to absorb in the days after the aggressive counter-arguments on the Internet. Was I merely trying to salve my anxiety? I shared the video with intelligent friends who had different reactions than mine. "This illuminati stuff's nothing new. It's always hard to swallow" was a common response. All of that counter information, much in line with ST's articulation above, has helped me to restore and maintain my critical faculties in the wave of what I've realized was a purely emotional response on my part. My conclusion is that "Zeitgeist" is actually a work of art in the dress of a documentary. Whether the filmmakers intended it as such is immaterial. It's facts are faulty, it goes for a jugular, limbic response, it tells a story that is both interpretive and allegorical. It's a creative piece, and as such, not a single word should be taken as fact. As a work of art, however, it has its own truth in the mind of the viewer, a loose conglomeration of sensation, experience and instinct that coalesces into an apprehension that something real is swirling in the ether. For me this is the form it took: modern society as it has been created is highly manipulated and controlled to a degree beyond what most of us realize; religions operate in part to divorce us from our true spiritual birthright, our relationship with the natural world; institutions routinely act on their vested interest in keeping the populace docile, distracted and/or misinformed; there is a vortex of confusion, misinformation and mystery around the attacks of September 11.
I'm not sure I appreciate these "Farcts" fully. I wonder if they'd serve us better as forthright creative works or more rigorous documentaries. Then again, as has been stated above, changing entrenched perception often comes in gurgling fits, not just peaceful ahas.
Policing the Rabbit-Hole
Martin--
Very trenchant commentary, thanks! I think you sum it up nicely in your assessment of "the form it took." We would surely be better served with a more supportable, better researched, and more tentative appraisal of these ideas. Many popular documentaries already do an outstanding job of this -- The Corporation, for starters, is fantastic and very difficult to contend with. If Zeitgeist is a lightning rod for controversy, it is also a magnet for possible converts to a new way of thinking about the world. As individuals who carefully straddle the fence between rational skepticism and intuitive knowledge, it is our job to make sure these desperate seekers don't just get lost somewhere else...
-ST
Thanks ST for shedding some
Thanks ST for shedding some critical and calming light on this film. Martin's comments seem to some up what many are feeling around the I was one of those people who, upon watching it, "falling down a rabbit-hole of depression and anxiety," which of course if you look at these emotions on a psychic, psychological, and energetic level, mainly disempower those who watch. This leads to further fear, paranoia, and "undgrounding."
I'm not 100% against propaganda. When done in a fun, playful, and/or positive way, it can be a wonderful tool for change.
I've always admired the passion and inspiration of Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Hopefully future films that challenge current power systems will empower us to become "winter patriot's" against oppression rather than paranoid deserters shivering under our beds.
holy endless review enlightened man!
Fear Laden
find the truth yourself
The responsibility - to
Reality-based Community
Remember this oldie but goody?
Clipped from Wikipedia:
The source of the term Reality-based Community is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Sweditzerland
Oh yes. This was the same feature where Bush was reported as arguing, in a room full of advisors, that "Sweden has no army." From the article:
"[Congressman] Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden," Bush said. "They're the neutral one. They don't have an army."
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: "Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army." Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. "No, no, it's Sweden that has no army."
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject."
Gotta love it...
-st
Actually...
The Swiss have the largest standing army in Europe. Military service in Switzerland is obligatory, and their army is constantly training and running exercises.
The famed "neutrality" of Switzerland has never meant going without an army... what do you think a "Swiss ARMY knife" is?
In fact, the neutral thing is vastly exaggerated. Switzerland was the most warlike country in Europe for many centuries after beating the hell out of the Austrian Empire over 700 years ago. They consistently annexed neighboring duchies and provinces, with major land grabs going all the way up to the 1800's. Their warriors were in such demand that every major army had a contingent of Swiss mercenaries (mainly pike & crossbow regiments). Why do you think the Pope has the Swiss Guard as the para-military force for the Vatican?
It wasn't until after Napoleon became the first to defeat them that the Swiss realized that fighting might not be so great... that and the fact that their banking empire proved to be able to quell any opposition better than war. Notice that Switzerland managed to remain "neutral" in WWII despite being sandwiched between Mussolini and Hitler. By the time France fell, Switzerland was surrounded completely by Axis nations, which paid them to transport goods and troops through the little alpine country!
Neither Holland nor Denmark (who were neutral in WWI) managed to avoid invasion and occupation. Anyway, you know there IS a good reason why people felt that the safest place to leave a shitload of money was Switzerland... and it's not because they are peaceful idealists.
We all came out to Montreaux
yes, but I have a Swiss Navy knife
-some stupid with a flare-gun
So you want more verifiable sources of info on these subjects?
I too enjoyed this movie, though I knew that there were many holes in the information offered up. I let that pass to some degree; it seemed to me that the point of the film was more to cause the viewer to question long held beliefs about the subjects presented, rather than prove/disprove any of the theories proposed.
So you've watched the film and are interested in a more in-depth, factual, verifiable look into the subjects presented? Well, check out these sources:
On religion:
Astrotheology and Shamanism: Unveiling the Law of Duality in Christianity and other Religions
- by Jan Irvin and Andrew Rutajit
On 9/11 and the government:
Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
- by Michael C. Ruppert
On our monetary system:
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
- by G. Edward Griffin
Remix
"Zeitgeist" is interesting because it is a true DJ style remix of at least a dozen previous documentaries. It samples and scratches like a true turntablist from sources both obvious and obscure.
("Loose Change," Aaron Russo's "America Freedom To Fascism," "Money, Banking, & The Fed," "Masters Of The Universe," Howard Zinn's "You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train," "911: In Plane Sight," a number of Alex Jones' features like "Terrorstorm," among a bunch of others and interspersed with tidbits from so-called mainstream media.)
Having seen all these documentaries and many more over the years, nothing said in "Zeitgeist" was all that shocking to me. I was more absorbed with the speed with which they managed to deliver their issues. Things that took other documentaries 90 minutes to say, they managed to do fairly thoroughly in 10. Like a good DJ hitting you with 20 jams in 20 minutes... all killer, no filler. An impressive display really.
Judging from the way many people react to it, I would say it is effective at getting its point across to people who have no previous knowledge of the subjects. Denial is the first stage of acceptance. For me it was like watching the Lord of the Rings movies after having read the books multiple times growing up.
As everyone has said, the truth of Zeitgeist's allegations are secondary to the reaction it tries to illicit. How can anyone know the truth of any of that stuff completely? Even the reassuring data used to refute this stuff is quite suspect. But it doesn't matter... these polemical arguments are not required to prove a case. All such a film need do is raise doubts and inspire you to check out the information for yourself.
We will never get to the bottom of much of this stuff. When discussing things that would be top secret, we must expect that what we are told must be a lie. Even schoolkids know this. To discredit a conspiracy theorist with mainstream data is just throwing fuel on their fire.
My opinion is that we don't know... and we have to get used to not knowing. What's more important, is to make people think and question the consensual reality. The Illusion is held together by our consent. Not just these dark and dirty power trip shadowplays... but the whole ball of cosmic wax. Reality with a capital R is a luxury we may never have. Epistemologically, it may actually be impossible to know anything.
The nature of our reality is wilder than we like to believe. Let's say we are all experiencing nightmares. We can wake up from these nightmares... but we'll still be dreaming.
The Cult of the Amateur
Stephen Colbert interviews author Andrew Keen in this clip -- interesting parallels to the topic at hand!
Stay tuned for a blog looking at this in more depth...
-st
Run with it...
Additional information
I can't prove anything in the first part about Christianity because my knowledge is very limited in this area. However, in regards to 9/11, I truly feel this was a self inflicting wound. Two things that convinced me the most were Operation Northwoods, and Operation Ajax.
Northwoods was a plan in the sixties to provocateur a war with Cuba. The plan included real state-sponsored acts of terrorism. When I say real, I mean they casually talk about blowing up airplanes with passengers in them, and blaming it on Cuba. Read the document here.
Ajax was a CIA coup to overthrow Mossadegh in the fifties. On the CIA's own website, they talk about how the plan involved false flag operations to put Tehran in a state of turmoil.
There are numerous other false flag operations that have occurred in the past, but I don't have enough time and space to cover them all. So why is it hard to believe September 11th was a false flag event that was used as a justification for war?
In terms of the central banks establishing a global monetary system, what about the EU and the NAU? These seem to be proof of this in the works.
False Flags...
I did particularly enjoy the film's analysis of WWI, WWII, and Vietnam as predicated under planned or provoked false flag attacks. I don't find much fault at all with readings of 9/11 as an event known in advance, and likely funded, by the Bush Administration and the larger cabals at work. Too many ridiculous and uncontested connections between the Bin Ladens and the Bush clan exist for there not to be some insidious conspiring at play. But I think the " 9/11 Truth" movement goes wrong in their focused efforts to make a case for direct involvement like the controlled demolition theory. A less controversial but equally incriminating angle would be to highlight the many levels of personal, financial, and political connections between the Saudi oil kings and America's cowboy dynasty.
My new favorite piece of evidence for this comes from an unusual source: Alex Grey. Look at his 1989 painting "Gaia" -- it hangs in the Chapel of Sacred Mirrors in NYC, and was featured in the liner notes of the Beastie Boys' Ill Communication. The piece portrays the spirit of the earth as a broad-trunked tree, sharply dividing scenes of idyllic natural paradise on the left, and industrial hell-on-earth on the right. Depicted in the lower right-hand scene, in a smog-filled sky, are two jet airplanes flying above the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Although it is hard to make out unless viewing the piece in person, standing abreast the tree in this scene is a business suited politician-type with his arm around the shoulders of a brown-skinnned, bearded, machine-gun-toting terrorist. Alongside them, overseeing the fiery destruction of the planet, is a man-sized phallus with insectile pincers -- perhaps we can call him "Dick."
Amazingly, Grey didn't make the connection between this prophetic painting and 9/11 until an observant fan contacted him about it by email. As a truly visionary artist, Grey "downloads" the imagery of his work from a higher source -- this is confirmation on a divine level.
-st
re: false flags...
>My new favorite piece of evidence for this comes >from an unusual source: Alex Grey. Look at his >1989 painting "Gaia" -- it hangs in the Chapel of >Sacred Mirrors in NYC [...].
I'm sorry I just felt I had to get an account and chime in here...
You seemed to be a reasonable person judging from your original review, tho I have not yet been able to check all your links. Unfortunately for you, I find your credibility gone out the window when you cite the above as "evidence". Cos u know, that's just ludicrous.
later
FBD
maybe not "eveidence" but...
Evidence
Thanks for your comment.
For sure, I was taking some liberties with the word "evidence" there... But to tell ya the truth, something about Grey's uncanny prescience strikes me as more compelling than any grainy video footage or fiery Alex Jones lecture.
Just my thoughts... I'd like to hear what others think on this.
-st
I won't even start getting into "the facts"
Well put! I saw Zeitgeist when it first came out, and though I found it thought-provoking, I was definitely concerned. Being an astronomer and coming from Catholic parents, I noticed the blatant flaws in the Christianity section. The rest gave me nothing new. I left with aroused sentiments but also a profound sadness. I knew that it didn't matter that the director left a caveat. It is too easy for people to blindly adhere to or to blandly disregard a film like Zeitgeist. So often it is difficult to find some one championing the middle ground.
Namaste. --EB--
your expertise
EB
I would be very interested in knowing the faults you found in the astronomical claims.
Best,
WN
As Terrence McKenna would say
What about the Present?
Sure, it is easy to distort events of the past and make them lean one way or the other, with clever phrasing in history books or the propagation of skewed information into the popular cultural memory.
But I am also interested in the way that, in our current day-to-day lives, notions of "reality" seem much less absolute. This is not so much an argument that each individual perceives things differently, and thus maintains his own reality, but rather an observation that on larger levels, across broader swaths of popularly accepted interpretations of events, what is real and what is illusion has become maddeningly difficult to discern.
I think that our media-saturated lives have much to do with this new mutable, fuzzy concept of what is "real." We are so conditioned to seeing the impossible played out on theater screens, that actual events often seem like something out of the movies. I spoke with a Brooklynite friend the other day about his unique vantage point to the 9/11 attacks. Watching the first tower fall on television, he ran upstairs to the rooftop of his building and saw the same image in reality, one smoking tower remaining. Running back downstairs, he saw the second tower fall on the tv, and turned around for the roof. And now, looking out across the river, there were none. The experience of witnessing these events simultaneously but in two different realms is quite profound, and I feel it speaks to a loosening of the borders between fantasy and reality in our consciousness.
Does anyone care to take this further?
-st
The experience of witnessing these events simultaneously. . .
I had the same stereo-bizarro experience on 9/11, across the river in Jersey , first noticing from the street the column of smoke and hearing others say a plane had hit the WTC (automatically thinking it must be a small plane), then calling the spouse to turn on the news and running back upstairs to the apartment (during which time the second plane hit), then watching from my window and on the tube the towers fall/were falling/fell again/fallen/falling (ad nauseum). As these things happened I also kept having the ludicrous thought, "where is Superman?"
Yes, but at the end of the day have I found peace?
reality sandwich
POST-MEMORY MACHINE
Bread & Circuses ..... being 100% Accurate is not the point ....
Like many others I have watched this Documentary multiple times. Nothing was new to me except part 1 was something I had not thought of to this extent. I have noticed some comments such as " Being an Astronomer and a Catholic " & " Columbus discovering America " Remember, Columbus is " Credited " for discovering America .... Discovery? Pretty bold statement as it was already inhabited for many thousands of years. Also, it is more than proven that Leif Erikson was here 500 years earlier.
My point is, as quoted from Braveheart: " History is written by those who have hanged heroes " We only know what we have been taught.
As for the Astronomical portion .... I am still working on that, as I have been involved with Astronomy for over 20 years. It should not be taken as 100% factual. I have contacted the creator of this film several times asking him to explain his statement with regards to Sirius and the belts stars, as I knew it was not correct. Peter J tried to tell me, but he did not know himself, that is ok. Peter is just putting together facts that others have discovered and presenting in a format that grabs our attention, as many of us have way too short of an attention span to read a book.
I corrected the belt star theory myself. Of course if anyone knows Astronomy or the sky, they will know that the stars do not move. ( Technically they do, but nothing we can notice), and the sky is pretty close to being the same now as it was 2000 years ago, except Crux cannot been seen from Jerusalem today, but it could during the time of Christ, and of course before.
What was meant to be said for the belt stars is that the ancients noticed around the winter solstice the belt stars and Sirius ( Which are always inline ) pointed in the direction of the sunrise because the sun moves horizontally from North to South, and South to North during the year around it's eastern sunrise. Only on the Spring & Fall Equinox's does the sun actually rise due east, and set due west in the Northern Hemisphere. This is of course what gives us our shorter and longer days, as the arc of the Sun's path changes.
As for Crux ( Southern Cross ) I'm still working that out. Did the Sun position itself right in the middle of Crux as depicted in the film? I do not know, but I will let you know. We already know that Crux was visible in Jerusalem during the time of Christ, but remember ... this film is saying that these Sun worshipping stories go back much further than the time of Christ. So, Crux was certainly part of history in and around this area. The Sun may not have positioned itself in Crux, but the ancients may have noticed this small, bright undeniable cross in the low south and create myths about it ...... that is the point of part 1.
I suppose you have to ask yourself what is more logical, as we are spiritual beings: A spirit enpregnated a virgin who gave birth to God's Son ( The one and only God ) who performed miracles and died for YOU! Or that being the superstitious and curious beings that we are seeked answers in the stars. ( Which is not so primitive folks as we technically all come from star stuff ) and without of Sun ( Sol ) we would not be here.
This film is designed to make you think away from the mainstream, and that is a good thing. Part 2 is nothing new, but opening your mind to part 1 will help you accept part 2. Yes, I agree 100% as I always have that Part 2 is true, or at least to some degree. We are surrounded by corruption, and your life and mine doesn't mean a damn thing to the power elite. We are worker bees .... I don't think anybody can argue with Part 3. My point to all of this is that we must do our own research and go with what makes the most sense to us. Open your mind without being scared, but be aware that not all is what it seems, and of course stop watching that damn reality TV and listening to what the news is telling you.
All and all an important film .... Worth seeing ... Enjoy it ... Aaron ( Antares 8 )
Sweet Jeebus
Jesus: I think he existed, but his message was not about the "church" or the doctrines and dogmas invented by same. See Gary R. Renard
The Cartels: Money makes the world go 'round. Perhaps a series of elites but not just one. The Corps may well take-over, but by then it should be considered "cool" to treat the planet and its people with dignity.
911: Complicity, guilt by omission. We let it happen to further an agenda. Maybe gave them a heads-up on those NORAD exercises. It was still planned by the "bad" guys.
Truth and fact
<p>Debate the issues raised by Zeitgeist. Have a little courage to throw out there something you believe to be more true than what is presented and we will work it out as a group. We can all learn something from this exercise. Vaguely saying there are many holes and inaccuracies does little except reinforce your own biases and make you feel better about your belief system.</p>
<p>I don't have a problem with anything that is presented in the movie, in so far as its accurracy is concerned. Truth tends to be an illusive in nature. You always have to reference something else to back a claim. Follow it far enough and there is no first reference. A better test is how do you feel about a given claim in your gut? Or better yet, look at truth on the level of all truth. Take for example the following statement. "The more certain I am of anything, the more certain it is that I am only asserting a limitation of my own mind." The test of admission to this class of truth ought to be that, if one were to accept the contradictory of the proposition, the entire structure of the mind would be knocked to pieces.</p>
<p>Let's be a little more precise and debate what is true. If something really polarized you in this movie, do some research and present your claim that seems more real.</p>
Wiki censored?
Interesting: after watching the film, I went to Wikipedia to get some more information, and was surprised to find no article about Zeitgeist. There was a general entry for the term "zeitgeist, " including standard External Links. Here is the tagged text I was treated to when I attempted to edit the External Links section to include reference to the film:
!--DO NOT ADD THE DOCUMENTARY MOVIE. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED AND DEEMED NOT-NOTABLE FOR WIKIPEDIA. IF ADDED, IT WILL ONLY BE REMOVED. THANK YOU. --
Since when does a documentary warrant disclusion from an encyclopedia like Wikipedia? On the grounds that it is "not-notable?" Just the fact that this message is here makes it notable...
more wiki news
After a little more probing, I was not surprised to find that there are whole discussion pages on Zeitgeist tucked away in the labyrinth of Wikipedia. The Admins deleted an initial posting of the article in July despite much protest from readers who contributed to the discussion. Factors such as copyright infringement and the lack of reliable sources commenting on the film were at play.
Thus, I am considering attempting a "Relist" action on the Deletion Review page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:drv), after first trying to contact the Admin who actually deleted the page. I encourage anyone else to look into this as well.
Conspiracy theories are getting the brush off here, in part because Wikipedia doesn't want their image tarnished by linking to such material. Clearly the film is an internet sensation and deserves scholarly attention from Wikipedia if nowhere else. Wikipedia is exactly where debate about this material should exist. I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist with a revolutionist agenda, but I think this film may make more people start to question what they are told. As ST pointed out, that is not a bad thing.
Yet more wikiwashing
Apparently there have been multiple reviews of the deletion, and Wikipedia seems bent on refusing an article about the movie, mostly based on the fact that it is an internet phenomenon exclusively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_Septembe...
Nothing is New Under - or About - the Sun/Son
Controversy sells, and guerilla film-making has padded more than a few pockets so far.
Anyone from anthropology 101 knows that all religions are closely related, that all myths stem from illogical but endemic attempts to interpret our realities and exert control over them.
This does not detract from the reality of mystical experience or epiphanies, from allying oneself with the divine, or any religiosity.
It's just that the route to enlightenment cannot be diminished by this sort of thing, that anything that rocks our ideas is interesting enough to tap into tons of minds and dollars, and I'm glad to see the important German word, "zeitgeist", finally enter the mass arena.
Reading Robert Graves would be isntructive to many.
Everything old is new again and repackaging old ideas sells new books, films, etc. This we all know.
And what does it matter whether there was an historical Jesus or not? He himself said that the message was the entire point - and it was (studiously avoided) to live Compassion for All Beings - even being born among "the very least of them", being accompnied by them at every opportunity, etc. didn't ensure that that message (that was diluted and distorted by mis-translations,etc.) was heard.
What Would Jesus Do?
Thanks
Where it all comes from
Having watched the movie 'zeitgeist' I too have the feeling of tumbling down the rabbit hole. If you want to know how the world became the way it is, if you want to know where all this comes from, the answer lies in the evolution of applied psychology...or a business man embracing our knowledge of psychology; Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's Nephew. This answer is in this documentary: Please Watch:
HAPPINESS MACHINES:
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=140
awesome great
PAYDAY
travel
Casino