h1

Zeitgeist – two out of three ain’t bad

September 9, 2007

After seeing the film Zeitgeist mentioned in quite glowing terms on a few other blogs I decided to check it out myself and I have to say that it is one of the most frustrating things I’ve ever watched.

Calling your film Zeitgeist is a pretty daring move – you need to make sure you do a damn good job if the film is to deserve the title. The reason I’m feeling frustrated is that parts two and three live up to the title but part one falls flat on it’s face.

I think they really dropped the ball with the first part by giving in to their own prejudices in an attempt to deconstruct and discredit Christianity. I used to share the world view of the film-maker(s) regarding Christianity and there was a time I would have loved part one of the film. There came another time though when I began to see that my position was basically one of reverse bigotry.

Because there are a lot of people associated with Christianity who are clearly hypocrites I thought it was OK to openly disparage that whole sector of society. I remember the little rush I used to get every time I discovered something that discredited the religion but eventually it dawned on me that my dislike of them was no different to their dislike of people they didn’t approve of. I was as much a bigot as them, I just faced a different direction.

These days I have a much more nuanced view, I can see the difference between the people and the book they say they are following and also the difference between the people and the institutions. Organised Christianity is no different to any other institution, be it government or corporate or whatever.

The truth is I actually found part one to be absolutely riveting, it was full of fascinating information that I’d never heard before, (which I haven’t tried to verify incidentally) but if this is to be the film of the spirit of our times then part one needs to go in the trash and the film maker(s) need to return to the drawing board.

The exceptional bias of the film maker was readily apparent due to the gleefully patronising narration of part one and if that wasn’t bad enough the whole thing began with a grand five minute montage that included a telling of the evolution fable. I’m not trying to be provocative using the word fable to describe evolution I just think that’s the way it’s used by a lot of people. I don’t know if the film makers were aware that they were putting their own religious views up front and I don’t know which is worse: That they knowingly attempted to bludgeon us with ‘their’ story or that they were completely unaware that they had put their religious viewpoint in first before attempting to debunk another religion.

Another mistake they made was that of mistaking connection for causality. I was fascinated by the astrological relationship with the story of Jesus’ birth but to present it as if the astrological patterns automatically begat the story from the bible is quite misleading.

Obviously I can’t prove that their claim is wrong but then a Christian could argue that the patterns of the stars are put there by God to confirm the story and I wouldn’t actually be able to disprove that claim either. Which is my precisely my point.

They makers of the film also do not have a handle on the spirit of Christianity (although neither do a lot of Christians for that matter). They say nothing about the central theme of love running through the New Testament nor the idea of grace. It’s a pity really because a brief understanding of these ideas would tend to suggest that the acts of the church in the middle ages were not consistent with the bible and that maybe something else was going on. As it stands at the moment we have both the institutional church and it’s attackers insisting that the institutional church represents Christianity in the face of a great deal of evidence, via the church’s behaviour, to the contrary.

Something else I have a problem with is the lack of understanding of the effect that Emperor Constantine had on Christianity. Briefly; he took what was a kind of underground movement and turned it into the official religion of the empire. All of a sudden Christianity went from being an enemy of the state to an excuse for the state to go on library destroying crusades etc etc etc, you know the rest. To tie early Christianity in with the oppressive church of the middle ages and not mention this change would tend to indicate a pretty superficial understanding of the subject.  The middle ages was the result of the usual lust for power on the part of the elites, the difference this time round was just that they had found a particularly powerful voodoo to control the population with.

These are only some of problems with part one that have occurred to me, I’m aware that there are other areas that people will say that I need to deal with before I can really claim that the film makers dropped the ball but I don’t want to waste any more time going down that particular track because there’s a much bigger problem with part one of the film.

It’s irrelevant.

The power of the church began to wain, ever so slowly, with the creation of the King James version of the bible several centuries ago. Though unintelligible today it was written in the language of it’s time and took power away from royalty and the clergy who controlled what the population knew of the book my only printing it in Latin. Here I agree with the makers of Zeitgeist, by controlling the truth of their religion the church was able to control the people, the only thing was, it was the truth of the monstrously hypocritical difference between the institution’s behaviour and it’s book that they were hiding.

The institutional church was still powerful for a long time afterwards and many of the break away groups of the last few centuries themselves became institutionalised but the Christian scene today is characterised by a comparatively high degree of diversity with a lot of growth in independent and egalitarian churches, as well as more and more people meeting in their homes. There are still people out there trying to recreate hierarchical church models in an attempt to grab power but frankly the Christian landscape reminds me of the model of a post crash world that crash bloggers regularly describe. Which is to say a world in which it is no longer possible for any one group to dominate the globe and in which each country has devolved into a bunch of little fiefdoms with lot’s of uncontrolled territory in between. This is certainly not the nature of an institution that has us by the balls, nor is it an institution we should be overly worried about.

As annoying as many visible Christians are in the US they are no more than a sideshow – much like the bible-thumping US President himself. We would do well not to be sidetracked by them.

**********************************************

So if they don’t use spiritual voodoo to control us, what do they do now? Ironically enough in part three there’s an excerpt from an interview with the late Aaron Russo who knows the answer to that question. In this interview he recounts how Nick Rockefeller told him that one of the elite’s goals was to separate children from their parent’s at a very young age, enabling indoctrination to begin as early as possible.

We should be on the lookout for other ways they cement their power by pitting us against each other. For instance: black versus white, Christian versus Muslim and Christian versus Evolutionist.

Zeitgeist talks about how religion is used to separate us from nature but I would say that the separation starts from a much earlier age in modern times the child is separated from the mother at the very moment it is born, I don’t know if hospitals still smack a child to make it cry out but they do still often whisk it off to be weighed and prodded as soon as the cord is cut, only returning it to the mother after it has been cleaned and swaddled in blankets. Even when the mother gets full control over her child her cultural conditioning is such that she will likely attempt to feed it with a bottle and almost certainly leave it alone in the dark to sleep by itself while attempting to ignore it’s terrible plea’s for help.

As bad as all that it for a child it is only the beginning. Separation from the parents is further enhanced by our coercive parenting styles and the coup de tat is delivered via 13 years of hard-labour at our penal-like educational institutions.

This should be the real story of part one of Zeitgeist – the story of our times. How the treatment of our babies and children sets the groundwork so that people always gravitate toward strong authority figures no matter how irrational they may actually be. It sets the groundwork so that they feel powerless even though en masse they could topple any government. It sets the groundwork so that people are ineffectual zombies struck dumb by the myriad of entertainment distractions passing by their eyes. Little wonder that almost all any of us can do is sit slack jawed on our couches mesmerised as we watch planes fly into buildings over and over and over again.

As for the small percentage of us who actually get off our couches, well it appears that it’s relatively easy to distract us with a myriad of false activism issues like, oh I don’t know, the Evils of Christianity?

There is also the small matter of the mainstream media… however I imagine that anyone who is reading this blog is on to that particular game so I’ll leave that untouched for the moment.

So if we were to remake part one of this film how would it look? Very briefly, In order to examine how we are shaped as subjects of the Rockefeller empire I imagine we’d be looking to interview people like Jean Liefdloff, John Taylor Gatto, and Derrick Jensen…. Hmmm, who else?

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. I hadn’t thought of that while or after I watched it, but I totally agree that the subject of separation from family/parents would have been much better for this film in place of part 1. A few people I know weren’t interested in watching the rest of the film after the first few minutes because they presumed it was just another crazy religious brainwash… then again, if it did go into the separation aspect instead, I’m pretty sure those same people would have turned it off anyway…

    Posted by: Ian | 09/11/2007

    Maybe it should go in reverse, or start with 911 and have the seperation thing last anyway

    Posted by: Aaron | 09/11/2007


  2. The information in part one as far as the comparison between gods is concerned is 99% inaccurate. I’m not a christian either but I want to find truth not conspiracy. I researched this in a variety of historical religious texts and real encyclopedias. Not one bit on the internet.


  3. Got any useful links for us Anonymous


  4. well done annom! please send links to at least show us your evidence. . . . .


    • see comment below for more info on “innacuracies” (lies) in pt.1 of sheitgeist.


  5. if anyone wants info on the 99% inaccuracy(lies) of part 1 of “sheitgeist” go youtube:
    1/2 – The Truth About ZEITGEIST THE MOVIE
    the info is based on a NON scholarly fiction called “The Christ Conspiracy” by Acharya “S” (formerly known as “Ess”) who has now been certified as a twit or something thAt sounds like thAt.
    the stupidest part of peter joe’s “mock-u-mentally” is he spends all that time at the beginning dissing the Bible only to end with a warning about “the mark of the beast” which we first reaad about from a 2000 year old document entitled “Revelations of Jesus Christ” in the longest published book called “The Holy Bible”…someones been sheitgeisted peter, and it ain’t me.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: