zeitgeist |ˈtsītˌgīst; ˈzīt-|
noun [in sing. ]
the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time : the story captured the zeitgeist of the late 1960s.
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from German Zeitgeist, from Zeit ‘time’ + Geist ‘spirit.’
Poking around in cyberspace in an attempt to learn more about an individual who has some potential to be the next leader of this country turned up a few interesting things. Among them, Zeitgeist the movie. First time through this was pretty amazing. It actually created a shift in belief.
Then looking at the site, it made a lot of sense to do exactly what it says right there under the movie, which is also the message of Krishnamurti, dont' believe this. Find out for yourself.
A little research settled some questions and some sleep created the motivation to write to the guy who put it together and share some observations. Rather than rewrite that again, here it is, find a link to the site for the movie below the comments. Here they are:
Comment#1: Love the piece on religion. This is an amazing and perhaps the most compelling argument to ignore organized religion that i have ever seen. I spent a good deal of time over the past year talking with people of strong religious belief, just to find out exactly what their story is along with coming to some practically useful conclusions for myself and these are inherently nice people.
So, i would love to send them your movie. Unfortunately, it slips over the edge by, in some spots, using the same sort of tactic (in spite of your 'find out for yourself' monition on the site) that it attempts to debunk. So, perhaps it is too late now to go back to the drawing board and re-edit. Perhaps not. The core message and material is all there.
I do believe that you can potentially 'save' a large number of people from wasting significant chunks of their lives under the weight of these delusions with this formation. In my opinion, you reach a wider audience and have a much higher success rate when you stop making people feel like idiots for the beliefs that they currently hold. A practice that Dawkins has yet to come to understand.
Comment#2: I had a friend who was at work on the top floors of the WTC on Sept 11.
I used to work in those buildings myself. I had heard people talk about this conspiracy theory before and walked away from the conversation every time, not wanting to go there. Your invitation to find out for myself was taken up by me as a result of the compelling nature of the movie. Three or four hours of reading Google searches was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the you come very close in part II to doing just what you uncovered as farce in part I.
Comment#3: Are you familiar with fractals? The work of Stephen Wolfram? G.W. Bush can not simultaneously be an idiot and a genius at the same time. The sheer number of people who would have needed to be involved in that 'plot' is staggering to imagine. The whole idea that the sounds of breaking steel or concrete as the buildings were collapsing being construed as explosions rather than phenomenon which took on the 'appearance' of explosions to people who never experienced an explosion outside the context of a movie or television is totally believable in a much larger way to me than the possibility of an army of subversives having entered the core of those buildings to systematically cut beams and wire the skeleton with explosives.
For that three or four hours of reading, it became apparent to me that the conspiracy theories are based on three things: 1. people getting paid to do things that they could not actually do because all of their experience (up to the time of that occurrence) was theoretical, attempting to cover their own asses for fear of the extended implication i.e. that others would point fingers at them as bearing responsibility. 2. too much t.v. (as you clearly point out) 3. the desire on the part of the govt to keep information out of the hands of other idiots who might use it (as in the case of the tapes from buildings around the pentagon).
Please do not construe this as some rant in favor of GWB. I believe that he is a human no smarter and probably no dumber than the average American. So thanks for the invitation to look into this stuff, now i am satisfied that i understand it well enough.
Comment#3: Again, back to the fractal theory. The probability of this being part of some grand plan 60+ years in the making is, to me at least, very close to the absurdity of creationism given what current 'science' has to say about observable evidence. Is there some small group of individuals who own the so called 'International Banking Cartel'? Who are these people? The Bush/Rockefeller families?
Again, just too implausible and again probably with more research, probably dis-provable. The rest of Part III however is again beautiful work that was educational. Love the concept of not filing a return or paying taxes, unfortunately, if you have assets in the country, sooner or later, they will start taking money out of your account. Sadly this is the truth. Millions of people own the banks. In fact you probably do too.
Anyone with a dime in a pension invested in stock owns them and yes, the pigs at the top of each corporation take an enormously excessive chunk right off the top for themselves. And yes, education is the only thing that is going to change that. Evolution (you appear to embrace that theory with your Carl Sagan clips) according to the experts is much closer to the fractal theory end of the spectrum than the grand plan theory. i.e. small (not meant as value judgment but in the sense of the spectrum from atom to universe) things effecting others create the impression of something larger and planned where impression is the operative word and planned is the resulting illusion.
If you got this far, thanks again, the whole thing has been very enlightening. Fifteen minutes into the first viewing I was formulating a plan to get it shown here in my town but an hour into it, those plans had dissolved back into the ether from whence they arose. Again, i believe that you could(and should in my opinion) be making the same argument about parts II and III that you made about part I. Don't believe this conspiracy stuff any more than you might the religious mumbo jumbo. The truth lies in the middle. That coupled with your closing remarks is a message that I could, would and should go out and help to deliver every day of my life. Zeitgeist 2.0! You already have the attention of a couple of million people, a rethink/re-edit might get you up to 2 percent of the population of this country. And, as you state in closing in the same sense that the middle way has, possibilities of enormous proportion. (but don't believe me, find out for yourself).
Final point here, are you familiar with Scott Atran? He has a message about terrorism, Bin Laden and the misconception of the masses that you would undoubtedly find worth a 20 minute investment. Summary (teaser) these people are losers/drug dealers who have nothing better to do with their time (no jobs) and zero organization. Take a look at what he has to say here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5701806759199654816
Good luck with this and if you get to a point where you can debunk these two other conspiracy theories as well as you have debunked the first one get in touch. I have lots of time to spread the message of 'don't believe this, find out for yourself' that is all (i.e. including iteslf) inclusive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment