Zeitgeist film

[Rahila]

Have any of you seen Peter Joseph's films "Zeitgeist" and "Zeitgeist: Addendum"?

If so, what do you think of them?

 

Basically, the first film is a conspiracy theory film discussing the flaws in christianity, the validity of 911, terrorism, and the war in iraq, as well as the flaws in the structure of our monetary system (capitalism).

The second film further talks about the flaws in our monetary system including international banks, debt, interest, and big corporations. It then goes on to explain that our worldview is seriously flawed, and we need a major social reform. It proposes "The Venus Project," which is a technology and resource driven society.

 

You need to watch it to really know what I'm talking about. While it is an extremest perspective, and it may be seen as a form of propoganda, it really does make some good points about our global society and how much we have [bleep]ed up, as well as what our true potential is.

 

If you haven't watched them, I highly recommend it if not to believe everything they say, but at least to spark interest and thought about our world.

 

Here's a link to the main website where it will provide links for both of the films:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

 

Heres the link to the venus project (resource based economy) website:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

I've seen both. I actually thought it was quite interesting, especially the money = debt bit. But I'd like to do some research before I believe much I saw there.

 

Quite a good film, though.

[Rahila]

I've seen both. I actually thought it was quite interesting, especially the money = debt bit. But I'd like to do some research before I believe much I saw there.

 

Quite a good film, though.

 

Yea, I'm not promoting this film saying "every word of it is true!" But a lot of it simply makes sense, and along with further research can provide some serious food for thought.

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

The 9/11 conspiracy theory section to me is the least credible area... Plenty of evidence is given, but I can't accept that it was the government. (Not because I think the government is just dandy, but it seems sort of pointless to do.)

[Skull]

Two films I've been meaning to watch, but never got around to. Maybe I'll download them sometime in the next few weeks or something/

[obfuscator]

I have watched the original, and was highly unimpressed - basically every assertion made could be disproved by anyone with access to wikipedia.

[OldJoe]

I have seen this before.

I view it as half-lunacy conspiracy.

 

While i have to admit, that i don't, and never will, support a globalist agenda, i find these movies amusing.

To question the validly of 9/11 is bullcrap. It is all made up by conspirators that wish things to be different. No matter how left you are, you could never assume that G.W.Bush would initiate an attack on his own country. It is bullcrap and will forever be.

As do i find the marionette "puppie" belief on Obama. Is their an elite in the world? Yes. Do i believe they decide on who to to be the United States of Americas next president? No.

I also find their mumbo-jumbo bullcrap attack on capitalism is of small significance. Capitalism is the best way, and at the very lest, no mad conspirator will ever change my mind on it. Which i won't.

[Diesel]

My first thought was this: Smashing Pumpkins - Zeitgeist

 

I'm not a big conspiracy theory kind of guy, however I do believe that many aspects of society were created by idiots and are therefore idiotic, and as long as these idiots exist, idiotic decisions are going to be made.

[Napalm]

I've only seen the first one. The first part, the one about religion was OK, interesting but nothing really certain, as it's open to interpretation and it can't be proven. The rest seemed too pulled out of their asses, and I'm not the kind of person to believe a conspirator.

[obfuscator]

My first thought was this: Smashing Pumpkins - Zeitgeist

 

I'm not a big conspiracy theory kind of guy, however I do believe that many aspects of society were created by idiots and are therefore idiotic, and as long as these idiots exist, idiotic decisions are going to be made.

I'm curious to hear what about society you find to be "idiotic" and what surefire methods you have of improving these things.

[Alg]

It sounds like a typical "conservative = ultimate evil" kind of thing. Doesn't sound interesting to me, at any rate.

The one societal flaw that nobody seems to touch on is how often more extreme political views resemble their opposites. If a similar film was made about the right, people would be calling [cabbage] so loudly that the internet would break.

[Diesel]

My first thought was this: Smashing Pumpkins - Zeitgeist

 

I'm not a big conspiracy theory kind of guy, however I do believe that many aspects of society were created by idiots and are therefore idiotic, and as long as these idiots exist, idiotic decisions are going to be made.

I'm curious to hear what about society you find to be "idiotic" and what surefire methods you have of improving these things.

 

Well, just to point out one, since I was recently in Italy, the Catholic Church. They have so much wealth amassed that it's mind blowing. Instead of hoarding it like they've been doing, why not use it to, say, end world hunger, promote worldwide literacy, or provide medical care for underdeveloped countries. I've been a Catholic all my life, but there are things about the Church itself that I just don't agree with.

[obfuscator]

My first thought was this: Smashing Pumpkins - Zeitgeist

 

I'm not a big conspiracy theory kind of guy, however I do believe that many aspects of society were created by idiots and are therefore idiotic, and as long as these idiots exist, idiotic decisions are going to be made.

I'm curious to hear what about society you find to be "idiotic" and what surefire methods you have of improving these things.

 

Well, just to point out one, since I was recently in Italy, the Catholic Church. They have so much wealth amassed that it's mind blowing. Instead of hoarding it like they've been doing, why not use it to, say, end world hunger, promote worldwide literacy, or provide medical care for underdeveloped countries. I've been a Catholic all my life, but there are things about the Church itself that I just don't agree with.

This wealth you speak of, where is it exactly?

 

Did you know Pope John Paul the Second died with exactly $0 to his name, and he once gave his papal ring to the mayor of a town in Brazil because he felt so helpless seeing their poverty?

 

I'll assume you're talking about the "priceless art" in which case I question why you think the church should sell their art off to end poverty, yet you don't demand the same thing of art galleries all over the world.

 

In fact, there are thousands of agencies sponsored by the Catholic Church with an anti-poverty focus - some of them by the Vatican directly, others by subsidiaries - for example Share Life.

[Diesel]

[hide]

My first thought was this: Smashing Pumpkins - Zeitgeist

 

I'm not a big conspiracy theory kind of guy, however I do believe that many aspects of society were created by idiots and are therefore idiotic, and as long as these idiots exist, idiotic decisions are going to be made.

I'm curious to hear what about society you find to be "idiotic" and what surefire methods you have of improving these things.

 

Well, just to point out one, since I was recently in Italy, the Catholic Church. They have so much wealth amassed that it's mind blowing. Instead of hoarding it like they've been doing, why not use it to, say, end world hunger, promote worldwide literacy, or provide medical care for underdeveloped countries. I've been a Catholic all my life, but there are things about the Church itself that I just don't agree with.

[/hide]

This wealth you speak of, where is it exactly?

 

Did you know Pope John Paul the Second died with exactly $0 to his name, and he once gave his papal ring to the mayor of a town in Brazil because he felt so helpless seeing their poverty?

 

I'll assume you're talking about the "priceless art" in which case I question why you think the church should sell their art off to end poverty, yet you don't demand the same thing of art galleries all over the world.

 

In fact, there are thousands of agencies sponsored by the Catholic Church with an anti-poverty focus - some of them by the Vatican directly, others by subsidiaries - for example Share Life.

 

 

Well, while we were there, we took a few tours, each costing a pretty penny per person. Think about thousands upon thousands of people taking these same tours per year. Not to mention all the donations, money received from wills, etc. that they receive all the time. (I know a few fairly wealthy individuals that gave their estates to the Church after they died.) But yes, as you said, I was mostly referring to the art, architecture, and other valuables that they've gotten over the years. I expect more from the Catholic Church than from art galleries because art galleries are privately run businesses. They aren't looked at for moral and spiritual guidance, nor are they looked at as a trend setter in service to others. I would think they would be willing to sacrifice any piece of art if it meant that someone's life were improved. Maybe that's because I'm not an art fan, but that's another subject altogether.

 

As for John Paul II, why would the Pope need money? I highly doubt he would be denied anything if he wanted it, and if it weren't provided, I suspect it would likely be put on the Church's tab. If he had any money at some point, it wouldn't surprise me if he, like many heads of corporations do, had invested (given) his own money to the Church. Pure speculation there of course.

 

I do realize that there are agencies in existence that do great, great work around the world, but is this really all that they're capable of?

 

edit: Apologies for getting this slightly off the original movie topic.

[Rahila]

I have seen this before.

I view it as half-lunacy conspiracy.

 

While i have to admit, that i don't, and never will, support a globalist agenda, i find these movies amusing.

To question the validly of 9/11 is bullcrap. It is all made up by conspirators that wish things to be different. No matter how left you are, you could never assume that G.W.Bush would initiate an attack on his own country. It is bullcrap and will forever be.

As do i find the marionette "puppie" belief on Obama. Is their an elite in the world? Yes. Do i believe they decide on who to to be the United States of Americas next president? No.

I also find their mumbo-jumbo bullcrap attack on capitalism is of small significance. Capitalism is the best way, and at the very lest, no mad conspirator will ever change my mind on it. Which i won't.

 

I never would have thought 911 could have been an inside job, but there is a lot of undeniable evidence making its validity questionable. The fact that all the buildings (including a building that wasn't hit) fell demolition style is undeniable, you can see it for yourself. On top of that, the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon disintegrated from the heat, which is highly unlikely. The anti hijacking unit (forgot there name) somehow managed to fail that morning when they have NEVER failed before. There's people who testified that explosions went off BEFORE the plane hit the building. You cannot deny that there is questionable evidence that could dispute the validity of the "attacks". It's a matter of seeing past socially constructed beliefs about our country and having an open mind that there may be some people with bad intentions in power. Now this does not necessarily mean Bush is to blame. If you think about the people behind the scenes with IMMENSE power (big corporations/international bankers), and how they desperately wanted the U.S. to go to war for financial reasons, this conspiracy does not seem to farfetched.

 

The way we all think/act/feel is HUGELY related to our societal situations. We're all brought up with patriotism and told that our country is the best and we do things for the greater good (this applies for everyone in every country). To accept radical IDEAS (not facts) as plausible, you need to see past this and look at the grand scheme of things)

 

Sorry if that post didn't really make sense, I'm very tired at the moment...

[obfuscator]

Well, while we were there, we took a few tours, each costing a pretty penny per person. Think about thousands upon thousands of people taking these same tours per year. Not to mention all the donations, money received from wills, etc. that they receive all the time. (I know a few fairly wealthy individuals that gave their estates to the Church after they died.) But yes, as you said, I was mostly referring to the art, architecture, and other valuables that they've gotten over the years. I expect more from the Catholic Church than from art galleries because art galleries are privately run businesses. They aren't looked at for moral and spiritual guidance, nor are they looked at as a trend setter in service to others. I would think they would be willing to sacrifice any piece of art if it meant that someone's life were improved. Maybe that's because I'm not an art fan, but that's another subject altogether.

 

As for John Paul II, why would the Pope need money? I highly doubt he would be denied anything if he wanted it, and if it weren't provided, I suspect it would likely be put on the Church's tab. If he had any money at some point, it wouldn't surprise me if he, like many heads of corporations do, had invested (given) his own money to the Church. Pure speculation there of course.

 

I do realize that there are agencies in existence that do great, great work around the world, but is this really all that they're capable of?

 

edit: Apologies for getting this slightly off the original movie topic.

 

Wait...you took a tour, of a famous building, filled with priceless art...and you had to pay an admission fee? Unheard of. After all, the cost of maintaining such a thing is so low they should let everyone in for free.

I know of wealthy people who have given their estates to the government, and corporations, but you don't tell them how to spend the money. Art galleries are privately run business - as in fact is that element of the church when talking about their display of art.

 

JP2 never had any money - he became a priest at a young age and never saved. The church paid for everything he needed to do his job - other than that he owned nothing more than the clothes he wore (and not even the official ones at that). I'd like to see you do a job making no pay for 30 years and be content to never possess anything more than clothes.

 

You're exhibiting a commonly found syndrome in society that likes to blame the church for everything and suggest that they fix everything - while I'll be the first to admit the institution is far from perfect this is frankly unfair. Do you donate money to charity? Do you go on social work projects to underdeveloped countries to make a difference? I somehow doubt it.

 

 

 

I never would have thought 911 could have been an inside job, but there is a lot of undeniable evidence making its validity questionable. The fact that all the buildings (including a building that wasn't hit) fell demolition style is undeniable, you can see it for yourself. On top of that, the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon disintegrated from the heat, which is highly unlikely. The anti hijacking unit (forgot there name) somehow managed to fail that morning when they have NEVER failed before. There's people who testified that explosions went off BEFORE the plane hit the building. You cannot deny that there is questionable evidence that could dispute the validity of the "attacks". It's a matter of seeing past socially constructed beliefs about our country and having an open mind that there may be some people with bad intentions in power. Now this does not necessarily mean Bush is to blame. If you think about the people behind the scenes with IMMENSE power (big corporations/international bankers), and how they desperately wanted the U.S. to go to war for financial reasons, this conspiracy does not seem to farfetched.

 

The way we all think/act/feel is HUGELY related to our societal situations. We're all brought up with patriotism and told that our country is the best and we do things for the greater good (this applies for everyone in every country). To accept radical IDEAS (not facts) as plausible, you need to see past this and look at the grand scheme of things)

 

Sorry if that post didn't really make sense, I'm very tired at the moment...

 

The buildings were designed to collapse inwards on themselves, as makes sense given their location. This actually saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. Hundreds of physics models have proven this was the normal way for them to collapse.

 

The plane that hit the pentagon disintegrated? Untrue. They found a huge number of plane parts at the location, including dead bodies. For every person looking for their moment of fame willing to say some [cabbage] for a movie for their moment of fame, there are hundreds of others who can testify otherwise.

 

This conspiracy is far fetched, there's no avoiding that. People want to think conspiracies are true, that's exactly why poorly constructed garbage like these movies so easily preys on the mind of those who don't really want to know - they just want to be told. Ironic, considering the supposed purpose of the films.

[Diesel]

Well, while we were there, we took a few tours, each costing a pretty penny per person. Think about thousands upon thousands of people taking these same tours per year. Not to mention all the donations, money received from wills, etc. that they receive all the time. (I know a few fairly wealthy individuals that gave their estates to the Church after they died.) But yes, as you said, I was mostly referring to the art, architecture, and other valuables that they've gotten over the years. I expect more from the Catholic Church than from art galleries because art galleries are privately run businesses. They aren't looked at for moral and spiritual guidance, nor are they looked at as a trend setter in service to others. I would think they would be willing to sacrifice any piece of art if it meant that someone's life were improved. Maybe that's because I'm not an art fan, but that's another subject altogether.

 

As for John Paul II, why would the Pope need money? I highly doubt he would be denied anything if he wanted it, and if it weren't provided, I suspect it would likely be put on the Church's tab. If he had any money at some point, it wouldn't surprise me if he, like many heads of corporations do, had invested (given) his own money to the Church. Pure speculation there of course.

 

I do realize that there are agencies in existence that do great, great work around the world, but is this really all that they're capable of?

 

edit: Apologies for getting this slightly off the original movie topic.

 

Wait...you took a tour, of a famous building, filled with priceless art...and you had to pay an admission fee? Unheard of. After all, the cost of maintaining such a thing is so low they should let everyone in for free.

I know of wealthy people who have given their estates to the government, and corporations, but you don't tell them how to spend the money. Art galleries are privately run business - as in fact is that element of the church when talking about their display of art.

 

JP2 never had any money - he became a priest at a young age and never saved. The church paid for everything he needed to do his job - other than that he owned nothing more than the clothes he wore (and not even the official ones at that). I'd like to see you do a job making no pay for 30 years and be content to never possess anything more than clothes.

 

You're exhibiting a commonly found syndrome in society that likes to blame the church for everything and suggest that they fix everything - while I'll be the first to admit the institution is far from perfect this is frankly unfair. Do you donate money to charity? Do you go on social work projects to underdeveloped countries to make a difference? I somehow doubt it.

 

I'm not complaining about having to pay an entrance fee, because I know that maintaining everything costs money. Hell, they made sure to mention it a few times on the audio guide. I'm just saying that restoration can't cost as much money as they're raking in from these ticket fees, but I'm no expert on art restoration.

 

Ok, John Paul II had no money. I was just speculating on what may have happened if he had money. The point is that the Church paid for his needs, so he didn't really need it.

I know for a fact that I couldn't survive doing a job without pay, but that's the commitment he, and other religious, have made.

 

Actually, in my last post I was pondering whether or not to add that I believe we need to do our fair share. I've helped rebuild a schoolhouse for a village in Mexico near the border of Belize. I donated what I could to the mission collection at school each week. I volunteer at my parish. I know that's not awe inspiring to say the least, but I have done something. While the Church shouldn't have to do everything, they are one of the most powerful and influential organizations in the world. (If not the most) Just think of the response the world would have if the Church announced that they were going to pay for the needs of the poor, even just for one year. I think the world would pummel them with more donations than they could imagine. People would be inspired to find a way to help. In my opinion, the biggest thing that turns people off from international service and even service in their own neighborhoods is that it's just going to be a drop in a huge bucket. Having the Church take such a large initiative may give people the peace of mind that, hey, what I'm doing is actually going to make a difference.

[obfuscator]

I'm not complaining about having to pay an entrance fee, because I know that maintaining everything costs money. Hell, they made sure to mention it a few times on the audio guide. I'm just saying that restoration can't cost as much money as they're raking in from these ticket fees, but I'm no expert on art restoration.

 

Ok, John Paul II had no money. I was just speculating on what may have happened if he had money. The point is that the Church paid for his needs, so he didn't really need it.

I know for a fact that I couldn't survive doing a job without pay, but that's the commitment he, and other religious, have made.

 

Actually, in my last post I was pondering whether or not to add that I believe we need to do our fair share. I've helped rebuild a schoolhouse for a village in Mexico near the border of Belize. I donated what I could to the mission collection at school each week. I volunteer at my parish. I know that's not awe inspiring to say the least, but I have done something. While the Church shouldn't have to do everything, they are one of the most powerful and influential organizations in the world. (If not the most) Just think of the response the world would have if the Church announced that they were going to pay for the needs of the poor, even just for one year. I think the world would pummel them with more donations than they could imagine. People would be inspired to find a way to help. In my opinion, the biggest thing that turns people off from international service and even service in their own neighborhoods is that it's just going to be a drop in a huge bucket. Having the Church take such a large initiative may give people the peace of mind that, hey, what I'm doing is actually going to make a difference.

 

What would be the point of letting these things be publicly viewed if there was no profit made? Would they only take the bare minimum they need for restoration, and let the building fall into neglect? Who pays the people who study and document the art? Who takes care of the administration?

 

I agree with you, that we all need to do our fair share - and in fact the church states that it is a human responsibility to care for those less fortunate. But the church isn't a charitable organization - starting a charity and actually having it work is an incredible amount of effort, far more so than simply money can buy. Also, paying for "the needs of the poor" is very ambiguous. Who is poor? What is poor? What are they going to do?

 

Unfortunately in this world we live in, charity cannot be blind. Countries like Uganda have had money thrown at them, yet almost none of it has reached the people who need it.

 

I also am unsure where you think the church's "enormous wealth" comes from.

[Range_This11]

I'm sorry, but if you think that the Catholic Church is some sort of charitable, saintly organization, you're lying to yourself. They haven't changed much since the middle ages.

[obfuscator]

I'm sorry, but if you think that the Catholic Church is some sort of charitable, saintly organization, you're lying to yourself. They haven't changed much since the middle ages.

As much as I'm glad to hear your opinion, it would be nice if you actually had some kind of proof and were willing to specify what exactly you don't like.