Zeitgeist – The Movie

This film came out in June this year, and Alice sent me a link recently.

I normally run a mile at conspiracy theories, preferring coincidence, cock-up and “passive self -interest”, but I have to say this three-part story is very interesting, going through several cycles of contradiction and paradox – which is no bad thing.

The overarching theme of world-government domination by a handful of power-mad bankers for whom fear and war is big business contrasts with the more benign, organic one-world gaia. ie the problem is not the idea of one-world and borderless government, but how it is achieved and who holds the power.

There is a large middle section on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, much detail of which I still don’t buy, even though the “false flag” terror incident was clearly a convenient trigger for those seeking a pretext for war. Again passive self-interest can engineer plenty of useful coincidences – for my own agenda, this is the hypocrisy of accepted decision-making norms.

The first section is about the ubiqity of mythology behind Christianity – quite straight-forward and entirely credible. The final section is about central banking and taxation. The common theme is the one big conspiracy. Some real issues even if it is too glib to point a finger at “them”.

The real message of the film is to promote critical thinking. No bad thing.

(Joe Campbell and Bill Hicks both figure; unfortunately so does the nutcase known as David Icke. Prejudice should not put you off watching the film right through.)

3 thoughts on “Zeitgeist – The Movie”

  1. Thanks for checking it out.

    I’m going to visit Angela in November and will watch it with her.

    I’m turning the poor girl into a sceptic at a very young age… this after she gave me a book by Deepak Chopra for Christmas. But now it looks like I’ll need to be pointing out come things about this movie to her….not that she hasn’t already seen them for herself.

    Conspiracy theories make me crazy. Who can be counted on to keep secrets for very long?

    While you are still receptive to my recommendations. Check out the newest “Skeptic” if you haven’t already. Dawkins is featured heavily, but also some other good stuff.

    I like this font size so much better.

  2. Hi Alice. Actually I’m almost caught up with a backlog of your suggestions.

    I’ve only just recently read McEwan’s “Atonement” – I bought it a year ago, and Sylvia read it – too many well used situations, country house / WWI / class for my taste – BUT an excellent read and an excellent story. Looking out for the film. (I really liked “Saturday” but Sylvia disliked the central character.)

    And I’ve just read Hume’s “Enquiry …” Despite a very promising start I did find that disappointing. I’ll have to blog about that.

    BTW the point about these kind of conspiracies is that it is 95% in the subconscious so no-one really needs to keep secrets for them to happen; the memes take care of themselves, and the human parasites simply tag along with the cultural parasites, whilst we normal humans stand by incredulous. This is so close to my core agenda I really must try to write something cogent – the reason I’m fascinated by coincidences and conpsiracies depite not believing in “them”.

  3. Yes, I’m still reading “Enquiry…”, just a few pages at a time. I breezed through “Dialogues…” probably because I was traveling through twelve states at the time.

    I found something humorous in “Enquiry..” early on.

    “And Addison, perhaps, will be read with pleasure, when Locke will be entirely forgotten”

    That time, obviously, has not yet come. I believe this comment was in regard to easy philosophy vs. profound philosophy. And it seems that there may be some kind of conflict between Hume and Locke since he is mentioned quite a lot. I wonder in what way the questions have changed regarding human understanding because of cognitive science.

    From what I recall Matt’s favorite guy (?) had something to say about that.

    BTW, I read and copied for my daughter Chalmers essay about the easy problem and the hard problem…it doesn’t really relate, but while we’re chatting…

    I like what you said about conspiracies and the subconscious. And I look forward to your cogent writing about them.

    By now I’ve forgotten much of what “Atonement” was about. Except that at the end we learn that the storyteller is an author and that she betrayed the young man and he died….but that you’re not really sure what is real.

    Maybe the movie will clear that up.

    I still wonder about your comment about “Enduring Love” and the prisoners’ dilemma. Should I have known it? Did McEwan know it? I remember that you believed that he knew it and didn’t like that he used it so “unsubtly”

    Gotta get used to these capitals.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.