Post
by M. Bréqs » Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:18 am
OK, I finally finished watching Zeitgeist. However, instead of a minute by minute critique which I had initially intended (I didn't think I would have that much to say, but I found that there was too much to criticize), here's my take on part I, II and III.
First part; This was hard for me to criticize considering I'm pretty atheist myself, but nonetheless the scholarship was weak. The Zodiac is generally considered to have been created around 500 BCE, but the filmmaker posited that it was much earlier. He ignored evidence; one example is his claim that "there are 4 commonly sited sources" of info on Jesus in history", when there's actually about a dozen more (that might not be "commonly sited" but nonetheless exist. My biggest complaint; IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHALLENGE RELIGION, CHALLENGE ISLAM, HINDUISM, AND OTHER RELIGIONS WITH THE SAME FERVOR WITH WHICH YOU CHALLENGE CHRISTIANITY.
Second Part: Ugh. There's enough 9/11 conspiracy arguments on the internet, I won't add to it.
Third Part: The start of the 3rd part seems a lot tighter; it's as if there were three different filmmakers with three different standards of evidence. OK, let's see; Federal Reserve bad, IRS bad, Bankers bad... I can see their logical train and I can follow it, and I'm not aware of much counter-evidence. However...
The Lusitania was sunk off the coast of IRELAND. It was not in German waters as posited by the filmmaker. It was not sent out as "bait", but was transporting munitions to England. Maintaining good relations with England was vital, and had America not joined the war, it would have lasted even LONGER (remember, it was pretty much a stalemate until 1917).
The attack on Pearl Harbour? Well, the theory that the Brits (and thus the Aussies) knew about the attack is pretty plausible, but it's not historical consensus that they informed the Americans. Read about a "Man called Intrepid", Sir William Stevenson. His job during the war was to get the US into the fight. And honestly, to stop Nazism and check communist expansion, it was certainly worth it from the British perspective. I don't think that the US would have willingly given up their battleship fleet, they would have achieved the same result having only one or two ships attacked. The transition to aircraft carriers was an emergency measure, that contrary to all naval doctrine at the time, actually worked out reasonably well in battle.
I won't defend the Gulf of Tonkin incident, that was a fiasco, but I feel the ONLY incident where a "false flag" operation was run.
Now, to get into whether we are being kept in a perpetual state of war for banking interests? I doubt it. We're fighting to win my friend, you have no idea how hard it is to find, fix and destroy our enemy. That's not intentional, since we are spending more money over there than we could ever recoup. But consider this; Is it not possible that American control of strategic resources like oil and the exasperation of the sunni-shiite divide is in the best interest of the world? Compare that to the resurgence of an oil-rich, unified Sunni-Shiite Islamo-fascist state? Given the choice between Islamic theocratic imperialism and the current world system, I prefer the status quo. Also, consider this; could the west be preventing a much bloodier conventional and possibly nuclear third world war by stymieing the re-unification of Islam?
Anyways, interesting film. The last 5 minutes got too gooey for my tastes. I'll willingly give up my arms and love everybody, but only if I'm the last guy to do it... and I'll tell you friends, I'm not the only person thinking that way so the odds of success aren't good.
