OT: Zeitgeist - an interview with the maker of the movie

dango · Post by **dango** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:05 am

for anyone interested, my dad recently interviewed the maker of Zeitgeist for his radio show 'camp lovewave'. i know a lot of people here watched it, and those that did not should right away.

it is a great interview, about an hour long, so check it out. they go into a lot of sensitive and interesting subjects

http://camplovewave.com/sound/zeitgeist.mp3

enjoy!

d~

nate_D · Post by **nate_D** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:07 am

nice one! listening now. respect

koneko · Post by **koneko** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:50 am

thanks for linking to it. i liked zeitgeist but i bump in this interview into the same problem i had with the film itself. he speaks at the same time about the humanity and universe as a unity, as a one-organism, but keep having this "conspiracy" tone about "them and us", them lying us, them avoiding us from seeing reality etc. i just think that all of "them" are obviously us. i mean, who are these "authorities", those religion leaders, they are us, people like you and me. WE are lying ourselves, and WE create this false reality. it seems to me that he misses something, big time, by keep looking at things from within the underdog / suppressed point of view... just too populist to do.

ethios4 · Post by **ethios4** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:01 pm

koneko wrote:he speaks at the same time about the humanity and universe as a unity, as a one-organism, but keep having this "conspiracy" tone about "them and us", them lying us, them avoiding us from seeing reality etc. i just think that all of "them" are obviously us.

Same here. I only recently watched the 3 part, which is by far the best, IMO. The first part is interesting, but filled with so much misinformation and untruth that its hard to watch. The second part, too, interesting but just too unsaubstantiated. The third part is fascinating, and a excellent summary of anti-Federal Reserve views, but ends with the totally contradictory unity/duality framework mentioned here.

It drives me crazy the exceptionally poor standards of evidence, research, logic, and insight presented in the great majority of this "revolutionary information" that comes out these days. Most of these presentations are long on emotion and short on accuracy, to say the least. Alex Jones being a good example...Zeitgeist...Pharmacratic Inquisition...most 9/11 conspiracy stuff. In all of these examples, there is fascinating research to be done, and probably truth to be unconvered that really is revolutionary....so it's tragic that the people getting these ideas out there discredit themselves and the ideas by lazy scholarship, lack of receptivity to criticism, and in some cases a ridiculous attitude that there is even a eons old, omnipotent conspiracy to suppress the truth... which is why there's little substantion for their claims, and therefore you are brainwashed if you disagree. That kind of thinking does nothing to advance the cause...

Looking forward to listening to the interview later tonight...

OMI+NIK · Post by **OMI+NIK** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:32 pm

Sweet! This flick has been haunting me for weeks and I respect this guy's efforts in getting people to think.
I agree with you ethios4 about the first part but I love how he slaughtered that religion.
PEACE

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:48 pm

why is it contractictory? Im not sure what is meant about the universe comment but the people the 3rd part talks about are not at all like 'us'. 'We' are not from an extremely privileged family & in a place to play pawns with the world's population. You don't need a book length bibliography to see the faults of the financial system. its pretty damn obvious.

ethios4 · Post by **ethios4** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:20 am

OMI+NIK wrote: I agree with you ethios4 about the first part but I love how he slaughtered that religion.

Well, that's what I mean....it feels like a major attack, but upon investigation, 90% of the "facts" used to back up the attack are untrue, so IMO the film makers are just about as bad as that which they are attacking.

Meef Chaloin wrote:why is it contractictory?

Zeitgeist wrote:That which is essence in you and essence in me is indeed one.

The whole rest of the movie is about what "they" are doing to "us". Well, there is no "us" and "them" if we are all one in essence. So, IMO, they are positing a fundamentally contradictory message. Failing to apply the idea that we are all one in the difficult sense, ie - realizing your enemy is within you as well - would lead to "us" becoming "them" in the very instant "they" are overthrown, IMO.

ethios4 · Post by **ethios4** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:27 am

ethios4 wrote:...upon investigation, 90% of the "facts" used to back up the attack are untrue...

Tektonics has a surface-level rebuttal of some of the claims. It's a Christian apologetics site, and thus obviously biased, but then again, so is Zeitgeist and nearly every source they site for Part 1....Gerlad Massey, John Allegro, Jordan Maxwell, Thomas Paine, Archaya...I honestly think that for several of these people, their hatred of Christianity seriously clouds their scholarly judgment. Good luck tracking down strong sources for the great majority of the claims in Part 1...

OMI+NIK · Post by **OMI+NIK** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:24 am

dango wrote:
it is a great interview

d~

Indeed!

funknotik · Post by **funknotik** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:53 pm

Excellent film great interview. Question authority!!

Pitch Black · Post by **Pitch Black** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:57 pm

funknotik wrote:Question authority!!

Why?!!

Homebelly · Post by **Homebelly** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:47 am

ethios4 wrote:
ethios4 wrote:...upon investigation, 90% of the "facts" used to back up the attack are untrue...
Tektonics has a surface-level rebuttal of some of the claims. It's a Christian apologetics site, and thus obviously biased, but then again, so is Zeitgeist and nearly every source they site for Part 1....Gerlad Massey, John Allegro, Jordan Maxwell, Thomas Paine, Archaya...I honestly think that for several of these people, their hatred of Christianity seriously clouds their scholarly judgment. Good luck tracking down strong sources for the great majority of the claims in Part 1...

I'm not sure that any of these people "Hate" christianity,,
from what i've read over the years on this subject, the impression i get is that most of these people, and others that ask the same questions,, have a deep respect for the message of all religions but they "Hate" that this message has been subverted and used as a kind of crowed control with fear being the major weapon used to this effect by the organised "Religions". Where that becomes aplicable to most western/european people is through it's use by the Christian organised churches and denominations.

ethios4 · Post by **ethios4** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:01 am

Maybe "hate" is a strong word for it, but its the explanation I come back to when considering the blatant misrepresentation, almost fanatical disregard for facts, and scapegoating of the majority of humanity's problems mostly on one religion in particular. I think the distinction is not often made in such contexts between the organization of humans that is a religion, and the ideas that the humans have organized around.

It is people that have distorted the message and twisted it to control others. The truth statements made by any religion must be evaluated separately from its adherents, IMO. Zeitgeist uses the emotional catalyst of invoking the wrongdoing of humans within a religion to smuggle in spurious claims regarding the possible origin of certain ideas. If you throw out that which is speculative and controversial, there is almost nothing left....and yet the information is presented as though it is rock solid. If the makers of Zeitgeist were more honest about how disputable the "facts" they present are, they would certainly be a lot closer to the truth they proclaim, and probably have a lot less viewers.

Homebelly · Post by **Homebelly** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:22 am

ethios4 wrote:Maybe "hate" is a strong word for it, but its the explanation I come back to when considering the blatant misrepresentation, almost fanatical disregard for facts.

I don't want to seem like i'm picking a fight with you here, and i'm also no big fan boi of the "Z" movie. However,, it's very important when dealing with this type of argument that we assertain what exactly the "Facts" are.
So,, what are your facts,,,

ethios4 wrote:and scapegoating of the majority of humanity's problems mostly on one religion in particular..

There are a lot of reasons for this.Some of them might include the fact that this conversation is mostly heald in these types of enviroments between people that have the same theologicle back ground,, this includes all of the abrahamic religions including Jewdaism, Christianity and Islam. Also there is the super extra added bonus that of all of the main monothieastic religions, including Islam, Christianity has been the most evevangelicle and agressive of them all including all of the Crusades,, the Inquisitions and also many examples of forced and some times very violent conversions of other beliefes including Islam and Jewdaism.
Fear is a tool used by most religions,, but none traditionally more so than christianity,, especially the Roman version.

ethios4 wrote: I think the distinction is not often made in such contexts between the organization of humans that is a religion, and the ideas that the humans have organized around.

I'm not sure what your saying here,,,?

I am quite open to this conversation if it is kept civil,, but i have to go to work right now so i'll need to drop it for the time being.

Homebelly · Post by **Homebelly** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:26 am

ethios4 wrote: It is people that have distorted the message and twisted it to control others. The truth statements made by any religion must be evaluated separately from its adherents, IMO. Zeitgeist uses the emotional catalyst of invoking the wrongdoing of humans within a religion to smuggle in spurious claims regarding the possible origin of certain ideas. If you throw out that which is speculative and controversial, there is almost nothing left....and yet the information is presented as though it is rock solid. If the makers of Zeitgeist were more honest about how disputable the "facts" they present are, they would certainly be a lot closer to the truth they proclaim, and probably have a lot less viewers.

Do you edit this part,,or did i just not read it the first time?
This is a conversation i am very interested in pursuing.

OT: Zeitgeist - an interview with the maker of the movie

OT: Zeitgeist - an interview with the maker of the movie

Re: OT: Zeitgeist - an interview with the maker of the movie