Zeitgeist

[ka0snba21]

Hey everyone. As crazy as it sounds I'm new to the forum thing so please forgive any mistakes I might make. I actually just joined to find/start this thread. To Jeff, Alex, Dan, Steve, whoever may be further behind the scenes than Steve that I am unaware of, and to all the viewers who contribute (whether it be through backgrounds, emails, donations, or merely by tuning in every week), I greatly enjoy and look forward to the show every week. Thanks for continuing to contribute to the production of such a great high quality show...and keeping it free.

I don't know if it has already been discussed on these forums (if it has I would appreciate if someone could point me to the thread), but I just saw this movie called "Zeitgeist". And upon completion I immediately felt like I had to do something. Being unable to think of much else at the time I felt I had to show everyone I could. I have been watching the Totally Rad Show for some time now so after showing most of my friends, I wondered what the Totally Rad Show and its community might think of it.

Zeitgeist is a non-profit, two hour documentary broken into three major parts. It focuses on religion, 9/11, the Banking institutions, and then ties them altogether in what I thought was a coherent manner. If you are sensitive to any of those topics, I urge you to watch with an open mind as the movie may offend some people in regards to their belief systems. I in no way mean to offend anyone, I just felt like passing along information. So i apologize in advance if the movie does offend anyone. That is not my intention, nor do I feel that is the intention of the movie. Whether or not you believe it is entirely up to you. One of the messages of the movie, I believe, is to intelligently find things out for yourself. So do just that if you feel the need.

It can be watched in its entirety and completely for free at

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html

sorry I don't know how to make it a link =\ so if that doesn't work please just copy and paste the above url

Sorry for the long post. Well I am eager to hear what our favorite movie critics, Jeff, Alex, Dan, Steve and the rest of the Totally Rad Show community has to say in response to the movie. Please check it out and post your opinions.

[tehboris]

I would class this thread as spam tbh.

[fuzor]

I saw this last year... I taught it was very interesting documentary. I wouldn't believe everything they said (do your own research) but it shares some thought provoking stuff.

[gobo]

Pretty much all I've heard from any reasonable person/source is that this is just more crackpot stuff like Loose Change.

That said it's always good to get differing viewpoints to try to make you think about things in a different way.

[tokenuser]

Spam? Borderline.
Conspiracy theory nutjobs? Absolutely.
Worth a review on TRS? Nope.

There are a lot of "facts" presented, but the argument is flawed because of incorrect assumptions or non-validated basic premises that an otherwise valid argument is built upon.

"The King of France is bald." Might be true ... but France has no King.

[ka0snba21]

I'm sorry that it was perceived by some as spam. What can I do to make it and future posts less spammy?

I do agree with Fuzor. Don't just take someone's word for it. Intelligently and critically check the stuff out for yourself before you come to any conclusions.

And to tokenuser, I was curious as to where exactly you found "incorrect assumptions or non-validated basic premises". I respect everyone's opinion and I just want to get a better understanding of yours. Lastly, I'm not familiar with the quote "The King of France is bald". I'm not quite sure what it means. Could you help me out?

[stubadub]

It was your first post and you said "Hey guys, check out this movie at this site!" There wasn't much you could do to make that suggestion less spammy, other than waiting until your presence was more accepted as a regular forum user.

[tokenuser]

And to tokenuser, I was curious as to where exactly you found "incorrect assumptions or non-validated basic premises". I respect everyone's opinion and I just want to get a better understanding of yours. Lastly, I'm not familiar with the quote "The King of France is bald". I'm not quite sure what it means. Could you help me out?I'm not going to go back and rewatch the thing again, but "The King of France is Bald" comment is a reference to predicate calculus (logic theory), and is used as an example of where a valid sounding argument is based upon a flawed (false) premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description).

Now, with a basic knowledge of Russell's Theory of Descriptions as it pertains to this "documentary" (what exactly is it documenting?), take a look at this web site (http://www.webcitation.org/5XbaeIRZA). They are far more indepth than I could go into in a post.

FWIW - I am not a neo-con right wing evangelical. I am neither Christian (I am not religious at all), nor Conservative (socially liberal, fiscally conservative - which is an interesting culture clash), and I am not American (despite living in the US, I am not a US citizen - nor do I plan to become one). Nothing in the movie offended me except its inaccuracy. Zeitgeist had all the hallmarks of being researched from The Enquirer or other supermarket conspiracy tabloids. I was seriously expecting an appearance from Batboy or Bigfoot.

[ka0snba21]

Thanks for the links tokenuser. I understand the quote now and I agree with you to an extent that in some instances the logic applies. I'm looking forward to reading more from the other side of the debate in the other link you posted. I'm not defending the movie in saying this; and correct me If I'm wrong, but I respectfully feel as though you might possibly be coming to these conclusions (like deeming it inaccurate without reason) based on someone else's opinion (i.e. that apparently biased site).

I just thought the movie was interesting and felt like sharing it with people. I'm not saying it is true or false because I haven't sufficiently researched (from both sides) the topics discussed for myself as yet.

And stubadub, thanks for the advice. Ill take that into account and try to be less heavy handed for the future.

[tokenuser]

and correct me If I'm wrong, but I respectfully feel as though you might possibly be coming to these conclusions (like deeming it inaccurate without reason) based on someone else's opinion (i.e. that apparently biased site).Sometimes the only way to counter extreme bias (like the movie) is with something that counters it point by point (like the website).

As you research, you will find that the information in the website accurately refutes the "evidence" presented in the movie. You might call it bias - but the website cites readilly accessible evidence in a standardised manner instead of just hand waving and saying "yeah, we read something in this book once by this guy that died in 1872 ... its out of print, and the only copied are held by high ranking government officials, but we had an insider who can't be named let us in on the secrets."

Its not a documentary, and pretending to be such is an insult to the intelligence of the viewer. I have read somewhere that at one point the producers claimed that the movie was not a documentary, and was intended to open your mind to the possibilities and promote discussion in the community. If thats the case - they should stop promoting the movie as fact and fess up to the movie being a work of fiction.

Still - I can see it as being a popular selection on PrisonPlanet, or other Alex Jones website.

[warreng1983]

I saw it a while back. I enjoyed it. Didn't believe/agree with everything, but I did enjoy some of the stuff I learned (like the many many religions and their similar mythologies that are based off of the Sun and three stars of Orion's Belt). I would definitely recommend that people watch it, and then form their own opinions (which should always be the case).

Regardless, it's not something for the guys to review--it's too controversial. If they thought Sicko was too controversial to review last year, they definitely won't be reviewing this one.

[ka0snba21]

I definitely agree with you that the movie is biased. Which is why I feel it should not be taken at face value. A site like that one however, as stated in its introductory "about" section, was created to debunk the movie. There's nothing wrong with that, but to me that does not speak very much of objectivity.

Yes, the movie took a biased approach. But I don't think an equally opposite bias is required to "debunk" anything. Movie aside, genuine truth, I believe, can stand on its own without the need for support from bias. It's unfortunate Peter Joseph took such a biased approach, but that doesn't mean a debunking site or two should close your mind.

I also respectfully feel you are being biased by making mention of that web site's source citations as if the movie doesn't also have it's sources cited just as "readily accessible". And you say you read somewhere that at one point the producers claimed ___. Then you continue, If that's the case - ___. That is the point; we don't know. Until you ask the producer himself (mind you there is only one, not plural like you wrote) there is no reason to stipulate if x then y based on mere hearsay.

I think you are intelligent, tokenuser and I am enjoying our conversation. I hope you're not taking my tone as hostile or anything. I only feel the need for this little disclaimer because I've found it's easy for miscommunication to occur when textually speaking over the internet.

[ka0snba21]

And yeah, I agree with you Warreng1983 if Sicko was too much for the guys then this is not even a question. I was thinking more along the lines of a response in the thread from the guys. Not necessarily on the show. Again, I'm new to this so if they don't usually do that or whatever the case may be, my bad not being clear.

[comhcinc]

I saw it a while back. I enjoyed it. Didn't believe/agree with everything, but I did enjoy some of the stuff I learned (like the many many religions and their similar mythologies that are based off of the Sun and three stars of Orion's Belt).

the problem with that statement is that what you are talking about isn't true.

[tokenuser]

I definitely agree with you that the movie is biased. Which is why I feel it should not be taken at face value. A site like that one however, as stated in its introductory "about" section, was created to debunk the movie. There's nothing wrong with that, but to me that does not speak very much of objectivity.(v) debunk, expose (expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas) "The physicist debunked the psychic's claims" [Source: Princeton Wordnet]

If you'd like to see what a biased website refuting Zeitgeist is, check this one out (http://zeitgeistmovieisfake.com/truth/).

A site that debunks is a little more antagonistic than others, but in this case, I think it is justified. Zeitgeist is making some pretty heavy claims, and if you are impressionable sometimes it takes equally heavy tactics to make you listen to fact and reason.

I also respectfully feel you are being biased by making mention of that web site's source citations as if the movie doesn't also have it's sources cited just as "readily accessible". And you say you read somewhere that at one point the producers claimed ___. Then you continue, If that's the case - ___. That is the point; we don't know. Until you ask the producer himself (mind you there is only one, not plural like you wrote) there is no reason to stipulate if x then y based on mere hearsay.

One of the biggest rebuttals I receive is that the film "isn't mean to be true, just to open your mind to other possibilities." The problem with this logic is that there are better ways to show someone alternative view points other than blatantly lying to them. Most importantly, most people who do like this movie, do believe it, they don't see it as just some metaphorical mind-opening experience. [Source (http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/) - yes its the same site I linked earlier. I thought I read it somewhere else, but I can't find the original source]

As to the producer - yes, I said plural. "Peter Joseph" ... interesting name. Lots of strength. Lots of biblical respect. A name you can trust. Unfortunately, its not his. The producers real name is James Coyman. Interesting point - and this is a straw man, and I wouldn't use it in a real debate, but his "production company" is GMP, LLC. According to the city of Westchester (NY), that is Graphic Management Partners, and is a Office Equipment company. It doesn't add up. [Source (http://www.westchestergov.com/pdfs/ECODEV_employersSICcode.pdf) - pdf file. Notice what I am doing? refuting a point and providing a source]. FWIW - if you check out IMDB, you'll see Tony Shore listed as a co-producer ... so I feel pretty safe saying "Producers".

I think you are intelligent, tokenuser and I am enjoying our conversation. I hope you're not taking my tone as hostile or anything. I only feel the need for this little disclaimer because I've found it's easy for miscommunication to occur when textually speaking over the internet.I dont have issues with people having a differing opinion than my own. Your postings are well thought out an articulate, so dont appear to be trolling or inflamatory.

[ohhoe]

And yeah, I agree with you Warreng1983 if Sicko was too much for the guys then this is not even a question. I was thinking more along the lines of a response in the thread from the guys. Not necessarily on the show. Again, I'm new to this so if they don't usually do that or whatever the case may be, my bad not being clear.

Anything Michael Moore produces is just as annoying and propaganda filled as a fox news broadcast, but obviously from the other side.

I can't stand him.

[ka0snba21]

Wow. Yeah that site is pretty bad lol.

And yeah I did find his name a little odd when I first heard it. If what that particular site says is true and that isn't his real name it makes one wonder why the fake name. I guess I could think of a few reasons myself for the possibly fake name and/or company. Why do you think he might be hiding his identity?

Sorry if I was mistaken about who produced it. While imdb does list Tony Shore as co-producer, I didn't see his name on the site's credits, nor does "Peter Joseph" ever credit him, when asked, in the few interviews I've heard him do.

Yes, I notice what you're doing. But It seems like every source you cite facilitates what seems to be your predisposition on the subject. It's one thing to not believe but it's another to not want to believe. Don't take that as my presumption that the movie is true. Again, I'm not defending the movie or saying any of it is true. I'm just saying a site or two is not enough to make the determination in my opinion. If those few websites you've cited are honestly sufficient evidence for you then so be it.

I don't know if that's an intentionally ambiguous condescension I'm sensing from your responses or not, but all I'm trying to say is look at both sides equally.

Thank you, but I wouldn't go so far as to say my opinion is necessarily different from yours. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're telling me the movie isn't true and all I'm saying is give both sides a fair shake. Is there really anything wrong with that?

[tokenuser]

Wow. Yeah that site is pretty bad lol.

And yeah I did find his name a little odd when I first heard it. If what that particular site says is true and that isn't his real name it makes one wonder why the fake name. I guess I could think of a few reasons myself for the possibly fake name and/or company. Why do you think he might be hiding his identity?

Sorry if I was mistaken about who produced it. While imdb does list Tony Shore as co-producer, I didn't see his name on the site's credits, nor does "Peter Joseph" ever credit him, when asked, in the few interviews I've heard him do.

Yes, I notice what you're doing. But It seems like every source you cite facilitates what seems to be your predisposition on the subject. It's one thing to not believe but it's another to not want to believe. Don't take that as my presumption that the movie is true. Again, I'm not defending the movie or saying any of it is true. I'm just saying a site or two is not enough to make the determination in my opinion. If those few websites you've cited are honestly sufficient evidence for you then so be it.

I don't know if that's an intentionally ambiguous condescension I'm sensing from your responses or not, but all I'm trying to say is look at both sides equally.

Thank you, but I wouldn't go so far as to say my opinion is necessarily different from yours. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're telling me the movie isn't true and all I'm saying is give both sides a fair shake. Is there really anything wrong with that?I went into watching Zeigeist with a open mind. I am not a religious person (as I stated before), but have done personal research on world religions in the past.

The first part of the movie has enough facts in it to make the movie seem credible. Its not particularly accurate, but does follow a farly accepted Christian belief structure, and an academic approach that shows how much of the rituals (not Biblical teachings) of the Christian faith were co-opted by religious leaders of the time to persuade the pagan/roman/greeks of the time to worship the "Son" god.

Then the second part starts down the slippery slope of well trodden and disproven 9/11 conspiracy theories to evoke an emotional response, finally slipping into what is truly the crux of the movie and what "Peter Joseph" was building up to - fiscal policy conspiracy.

By providing a basis that meshes with the conservative evangelical target audience in part 1, he establishes a raport and credability with the audience. He then feeds that with mix a half truthes and invalidated "evidence" that - based on the "truth" of part 1 - must logically follow as being true as well. Following on form the flawed arguments in Part 2, he then deals his part 3 - which he carefully lead the viewer to.

I am not sure how old you are, or your religious/political beliefs, but a general complaint my wife (a college professor) has with her students is a lack of critical thinking. We are both Australian (mid/late 30s, liberal by US standards, University educated, no religious affiliations - though if push came to shove, I am Anglican (Episcopal) and my wife is Catholic), and analytical thinking was drummed into us in high school and through University. Neither of us take things at face value - looking behind the presented information to question both the validity of the evidence, and the source. The people being targetted by this movie are like her students - some college education, but a general lack of critical/analytical thinking - if you are told something is true, it must be.

Looking at the source of information in the movie is interesting. No peer reviewed academic articles are sourced. For Part 1, that is OK - academic literature in historical studies is often published in texts, not journals. But the sources for parts 2 and 3?? No credability at all. Take a look at the authors of the books, and their backgrounds.

[ka0snba21]

I think you are missing my point. It seems you're not even addressing what I'm saying anymore. I am simply commenting on obtaining information in any respect at this point and you keep on making arguments for why the movie isn't true. You say you went into it with an open mind (I take your word for it) and you've long stated your opinion of the movie. Fine. But you give me sources that refute the movie. The next guy gives me sources that support the movie. I'm not sifting through all that "he-said, she-said" just to coin the movie this, that or the third. That debate can go on forever. It's not about that.

And why are you suggestively summarizing the movie? That is a very well thought out, valid and intelligent interpretation of the movie. I genuinely applaud that. And if that's the conclusion you've reached then that is just fine. But objectively speaking, that's all it is. Just one interpretation. There are many things open to interpretation. And until you have at least spoken with the creator, he outright states what his intentions were or something along those lines of clarity then how can either of us "know" his intentions?

I don't know what, if anything, you're alluding to by asking me my age and referring to what your wife's students lack immediately thereafter but if you are being condescending, there's no need for that tone. I am early 20s, still in school. I respect religion to an extent, but I don't know enough about enough of them to subscribe to any one in particular. Although I don't officially claim a party I guess one could call me a liberal.

Part of my family is actually also Episcopal. I just thought that was a cool little coincidence. I rarely meet Episcopalians outside of their congregation. They say hey, lol.

[kilroyperrywinkle]

A Pastor's Kid here...

I know Religion.

Its a away for a small amount of people to convene their wants to a larger group of people. Religion is club, most churches require you to give a membership due, and agree to their dogma.

Notice the use the world "want" I do not mean that as a good or bad thing. Wants can be good, they can be a message of service and love. Or they can be a message of division and scapegoating.

Depends on who's in that small group.

It has been my experience that most religions are well meaning, but most of the people in those small groups are just too invested in them to not look out for their own religion's self interests.

Faith though is different, its different for everyone, its faceted and sparkly...

That being said...

This is a load.

I'm sorry... I'm really sorry, but horrible things do "just happen." There are no men with mustaches in smokey rooms planning and scheming, I have a hard time believing in such a large scale conspiracy, someone always talks....

Its also my experience that if you need to point out "the truth" (the bs behind the 9/11 and "faked" moon landing "conspiracies") to someone, they weren't looking for it to begin with.

[tokenuser]

I think you are missing my point. It seems you're not even addressing what I'm saying anymore. I am simply commenting on obtaining information in any respect at this point and you keep on making arguments for why the movie isn't true. You say you went into it with an open mind (I take your word for it) and you've long stated your opinion of the movie. Fine. But you give me sources that refute the movie. The next guy gives me sources that support the movie. I'm not sifting through all that "he-said, she-said" just to coin the movie this, that or the third. That debate can go on forever. It's not about that.I think you have missed my point. I am saying "look at the source of the information". If you have a pain in your lower abdomen, do you go the aol.com "keyword:abdomen" and find out that you have a ruptured appendix, or do you go to a doctor and find out that it is actually mild food poisoning - but you be OK in a day or two? You need to find a credible source.

You might think that the sources I provided were biased - because they set out to discredit the movie. That is true - they will be biased. But you miss the point that the site is providing rebuttal evidence from credible sources ... sources that you have access to. As a rebuttal, they providea counterpoint to the initial claims. Bias? No - just contradictory evidence.

I would encourage you to read them and draw your own conclusions.

And why are you suggestively summarizing the movie? That is a very well thought out, valid and intelligent interpretation of the movie. I genuinely applaud that. And if that's the conclusion you've reached then that is just fine. But objectively speaking, that's all it is. Just one interpretation. There are many things open to interpretation. And until you have at least spoken with the creator, he outright states what his intentions were or something along those lines of clarity then how can either of us "know" his intentions? Let me reverse the question ... have you spoken to the producer/author?

All we have is hearsay.

I don't know what, if anything, you're alluding to by asking me my age and referring to what your wife's students lack immediately thereafter but if you are being condescending, there's no need for that tone. I am early 20s, still in school. I respect religion to an extent, but I don't know enough about enough of them to subscribe to any one in particular. Although I don't officially claim a party I guess one could call me a liberal.Condescending? No ... but you prove my point about the target audience. It is you. You are the one that he wants to buy the DVD. You are the impressionable market he is targeting. I fall outside his target demographic. I am the skeptic.

Part of my family is actually also Episcopal. I just thought that was a cool little coincidence. I rarely meet Episcopalians outside of their congregation. They say hey, lol.Technically I am Anglican (Church of England - the dominant religious denomination in Australia). Unlike many other religious denominations, Episcopals believe in personal worship - so you dont see them advertising their faith like many othes do.

[ka0snba21]

Lol. You apparently hear much better than you listen. I get your point. Based on the sources you've tapped (I disagree with you, they don't have to be biased) you disagree with the movie. That's perfectly fine. And although it's beside the point, even one site that took the approach of "let's take a look at both sides and fairly see what might be true or false" instead of " I created this site to debunk" might have been nice.

My point is that the clearly biased movie as well as it's clearly biased counter sites are all valid. Even if I found 10 substantial sources in a row that favored either side, there is too much information out there for me to start claiming what the creator intended and take a stance of belief or dismissal. Given how controversial the subject matter is, at that point I would then try to find, say, 10 substantial sources, that oppose the aforementioned 10 and fairly weigh them against each other. That is one example of how I objectively and "critically" try to obtain information. You obviously have your own methods. To each his own.

Lol. No I have not spoken to the producer/author. You're absolutely correct. All we have is hearsay. How can you make that statement after coming to all these conclusions about what the creator set out to do. Are all your conclusions and opinions based on hearsay?

I appreciate the lack of condescension but I prove your point? Please explain to me how that works when I've never even once took a stance in favor of nor oppose to. All I said was it was interesting, I wanted to show people and hear their opinions. My mere interest in the movie and people's opinions thereof makes me impressionable? And why would anyone buy the movie when it's not only free to watch online but also consensually available for download? All that aside you're making more assumptions based on what you said yourself is hearsay. You're not only assuming what his target audience may be, you're presuming he even has one.

If you're "technically" Anglican why bother to put Episcopal in parenthesis? And oh, I didn't know that about Episcopalians. Thanks for the tidbit. ^.^

[tokenuser]

I hear better than I listen? Not exactly - I understand exactly what you are saying, but find your evaluation metrics flawed, and overly forgiving of the film

Because of the controversial nature of the film, you wont find anyone doing a side by side pro/con comparison. The "pro" is the film itself ... the "con" is any site the refutes the claims in the film.

Believe what you will. I have no control over that - nor do I want it, but I would encourage you to look at counterpoint arguments without bias just because they are "debunking" something presented as fact. Your negativity to the sites I presented was based on the idea it was a website setting out to debunk the movie. Did you read the content of the site or dismiss it? I at least watched the movie.

BTW - why use Episcopal in ()? Because most Episcopals would not realise that the Anglican church has the same basis in the Church of England, and is a "rebranding" for a local market.

[ka0snba21]

You're here ready to pass judgment based on some hearsay and I'm just being open to both sides. But I'm flawed because I am "overly forgiving of the film" in doing so? Lol.

Assuming no one will objectively do a side by side comparison is just the narrow minded thinking I disagree with.

What is so "negative" about me considering it all valid? We both agree it is all bias. The movie and the sites. Yes, I read a decent amount of your sites and I'm saying it's all valid. Why are you still arguing with me?

Taking the movie as pro and searching for cons is one way of looking at it but it's not thorough nor "critical" enough for me. You're being critical of one side, I'm open to being critical of both.

[comhcinc]

i am tired of reading this mess.

kaosnba21 that movie is full of shit. end of story. it has noting to do with "keeping an open mind" or being "unbaised". the movie lies. plain and simple.

everyone that knows anything about the subject matter knows that. it is easy see that you don't.

go take a class or something.