Zeitgeist, the movie

Actually, I just recently saw this movie. I took some notes and thought about it a little bit. The movie consists of three parts. It takes almost 15 minutes, however, before the first part starts, and the part before part one (the zeroth part) is not really about much. Beautiful, maybe, and maybe too long. Part I parallells Christianity with ancient religions, and claims that ‘the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun.’ Even though I sympathize with the filmmakers, no sources are cited in the movie (there are some sources on the webpage, but these leads are hard to follow). I understand that artisitcal considerations have to be taken into account when such a movie is made, but the lack of references makes the claims harder to check, and harder to believe. I cannot help but to think that the filmmakers have left references out for a reason. (There is even a webpage that gives money prizes to proofs of different claims from the first part of the movie. I assume this is propaganda from Christian people, but still. Don’t remember the address, google it!)

Part II of the movie attacks the offical story behind the 9/11 events (or the ‘myth’ about 9/11, as the movie calls it). I find this part better documented, however less interesting. I don’t know why, maybe because 9/11 is ahelluva lot more recent than Christianity and has, so far, required a lot fewer casualties. If the Americans, with the Bush familiy at the wheel, wants to fuck themselves up, I’m not too interested in the details, I guess. A selfish attitude, I know. Part II concludes that 9/11 was an inside job and has some interesting claims toward this end.

Part III is crazy stuff on how central banks work. The movie basically claims that ‘international bankers’, who are behind the Fed (I’ll call them the ‘Fedders’; the Fed is supposedly at the root of all major events in modern history), were responsible for the American engagement in WWI & II, the Vietnam war and more recently the engagements in Afganhistan and Iraq.

Towards the end the movie claims that the aim of the Fedders is to form a world government and let, as I understand it, ‘intellectuals’ rule. Actually an idea I don’t find all that repulsive. Maybe future generations could benefit from a superclass rule, given that it is responsible and ethical and all that? (Isn’t for example Catholism built on this principle?) The filmmakers claim that history has shown us that power corrupts. I am not convinced. The right people at the right place may well be incorruptible because it is in their own best interest to be so. What the history has shown us is that democracy, self-governed national states and so on are not all that successfull in providing people safe and stable lives.

There is a certain Darwinistic flavour to the idea of an emergence of a superclass of world rulers. I believe in Darwin. The promises towards the end of the movie that the power of love can rescue us all from evil is really cheesy, and downgrades my impression of the movie a whole lot. On a different note, after living a year in America, there is no doubt in my mind that the American people is not in control of their own government. I am afraid, however, that the same goes for most governments.

A big problem with movies like Zeitgeist is that it is as secretive and uninformative about its sources as the institutions it tries to criticize. This takes away a lot of the impact and places it in the category of movies not to take too seriously.

By the way: What links the first part to the last two parts? Is it simply demonstration of argument and convincing presentation of ‘evidence’ so the audience is less skeptical to the latter parts?

By the way 2: How does these conspiracy theories connect with the recent financial crisis, seemingly threatening to ruin most people in the western world? Is it just a new staged event designed to let the Fedders gain even more control over global companies and systems?

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “Zeitgeist, the movie”

  1. Kelsey Bell Says:

    Wow. I really hope that you are not apart of my generation and that you will soon be gone and unable to contribute to society as I will know it. If you honestly think that a central power would be a great thing for the world then your stupidity truly amazes me. Maybe you will be a little more interested in, “the Americans, with the Bush familiy at the wheel” fucking up America (and the rest of the world at that) when you, yes you the selfish person you claim to be, are being blown apart by explosives just so these bastards can line their pockets. Well at least they would be doing me a favor by getting people like you out of the world because lazy conformists like you are exactly what they want.

  2. kvams Says:

    Hey, my first hate-comment! Great. If you think I’m stupid, you are of course entitled to. I appreciate your opinion. Let me refine my idea a little bit. When I was talking about a central, world government of intellectual, responsible and ethical leaders, the Bush family was not exactly what I had in mind, nor any of todays ruling elite as I know it. If the movie was onto something about an elite ‘behind the curtain’ who tries to control the world, I would of course be outraged. Any responsible and ethical leader would be out in the open and not behind a curtain (for one thing, it looks stupid to stand behind curtains; I tried it last night and it really made my love handles stand out). However, I think the world is already on the move towards more central and bigger governing institutions, such as the European Union, and I think that is the right way to go.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: