Zeitgeist, The Movie Review

Zeitgeist, The Movie - a running commentary:

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche kicks things off by announcing that spirituality means...intuition, among other commentary about the "theistic tradition." There is no actual video yet, just a few screen effects. Mr. Trungpa was a Tibetan Buddhist teacher who died of heart failure at age 48 after years of alcohol abuse, according to Wikipedia. He's also the author of Drinking Your Way To Nirvana: A User's Guide To Buddhism. Really? No, not really.

Almost 3 minutes in, this Trungpa fellow won't stop...and he does sound a little tipsy. He gives me the impression that I would enjoy drinking with him.

Trungpa closes his nonsensical ramblings by expressing that it's "very funny indeed" that we continue to "vote for the presidents." This is all amongst echo effects, kind of like the "in the bush...in the bush...in the bush" thing from Ozzy's No More Tears video. More Trungpa words: "Waiting to be dead...waiting to be dead...waiting to be dead (dramatic echoes!) Not trusting 'nowness' properly (?). Maybe that's why we seek religion, maybe that's why we march in the street, maybe that's why we complain to society, maybe that's why we vote for the presidents. It's quite ironical..."

That's very close to verbatim and is pretty much gibberish, yes? I don't understand his point, and I reject "ironical" because proper new word certification procedures were clearly not followed. But maybe all of this relates somehow to the rest of the movie, although it's not a very good sign that this drunken babbling is the way the filmmaker* chooses to start his explanatory quest.

First video: Missiles firing, lots of them, eventually some mushroom clouds.

This takes us to a jaunt through the universe, starting with earth and moving to the sun and some galaxies and fun stuff. I noticed this tag line while I waited for the damned thing to actually start: "What does Christianity, 911 and The Federal Reserve all have in common?" I don't know, the fact that all three should be preceded by "What do" instead of "What does?" Probably the Masons made all of them happen and the Masons are mysterious and oddly evil somehow. "You know Bob, the dollar bill sure is strange! What's with that eye on top of the pyramid?"

But maybe not? I love this stuff - so I'll give it some chance to make sense.

Back to earth - cells dividing, cool animation of amoebas turning into fish, turning into higher life forms. So this is a documentary about...everything, ever. I have to admit, I dig it so far. I've always wanted to know everything.

It's important to get the next sequence down correctly. Eventually, the life form progressions turn into a human (naturally), and then a hand appears, then the hand grasps a pencil and proves that the hand's host body can perform the mathematical equation "1+1=2." Yes. Then the paper with the equation on it disappears, and a different mysterious hand places a Holy Bible where the equation was. And then the hand drapes an American flag over the Holy Bible. Next, planes fly into the WTC and more random missiles and explosions. I'm not leaving anything out, except for me kinda yelling "umm...what the fuck, did I miss something!?" to nobody. So we as humans learned simple math, wrote the Bible, started America, and 9/11 happened and shit started to generally blow up.

Let me write that down again..."simple math...bible...America...9/11...shit blows up." Okay, got it. What am I in for here?

Jumping around from WTC collapse to mass graves in Vietnam or Cambodia, can't tell which. No Adagio for Strings, but similarly unhappy music at a slightly faster pace with percussion here and there. The percussion intensifies things, you see. Dead children, random unhappy people from what appears to be the Middle East. Still no narration whatsoever, but what would the narrator say at this point? Bad things happen to good people because we figured out math?

At 8:45 in, "Zeitgeist" appears on the screen! The title screen's appearance at this late point suggests to me that there is not enough material for a movie, so sad music and disturbing images have so far taken the place of actual exposition, along with the drunken Buddhist ramblings. But there is still hope! I mean, at least it's exciting, right?

Jordan Maxwell claims we've been lied to! Who is he? From his official site: "Jordan Maxwell continues as a preeminent researcher and speaker in the fields of secret societies, occult philosophies, and ufology since 1959. His work is not only fascinating to explore, but too important to ignore." I love these guys, I really do. And I did just write in my last blog that I'm open to UFOs, but that's mostly because when several eyewitness accounts and pilots say the same thing, I find it interesting. And that's a far cry from "ufology" - the study of UFOs as if they undoubtedly exist as alien spacecraft. Like I said, I'm open to the possibility that we can't explain some things that fly around, not sold on the reality that aliens just jam in and out of the atmosphere. Unfortunately, Mr. Maxwell recommends this book: Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy, to which he supplies the foreword. If I find out that a major publisher accepted this work for distribution, I will immediately gut myself Samurai-style.

Jordan Maxwell intimates that "I don't know what God is, but I know what he isn't."

The "False Dilemma" logical fallacy:

A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

So a person can't know what God isn't if they don't know what God is, and I think it's clear what this fellow is claiming, that he knows that god isn't y, without knowing what set of qualities x even represents, and how exactly ...anyway... this man is a source used to present information in a "serious" documentary? Seriously? He does say "damn" and "dammit" a lot though, a verbal trait I've always enjoyed. His reference to God in this case is about our "masters" and banking cartels and a vaguely messed up education system. It's all vague actually, but it's very dramatic, and that's what's really important when the room is dark and then you smoke some pot.

George Carlin makes a vocal "appearance" with his bit about religion being the biggest bullshit story every conceived, and God is an invisible man who lives in the sky...funny shit when Carlin did it. But now he's dead, and I'm watching a cartoon of God in the sky, in a cloud specifically. With Carlin's voice in the background among some of the worst keyboard/drum/shlock music ever produced. I can't dance to this. I can't believe any of this.

Animations courtesy of Ruprecht Monkey Boy.

Part I is called "The Greatest Story Ever Told." So here's hoping that there is only one part, and then this will be the best movie ever made despite the awful, eternally long, ridiculous intro.

Zodiac symbols, the twelve months, other prophets/deity types (Horus, Dionysus, etc.) are being used to show that the biblical word of God is all borrowed from earlier stories and astrology as it relates to Jesus. I'm looking forward to the jump from "Christianity is borrowed" to "Christianity is evil." Although the narrator claims that Christ's crown of thorns is actually "sun rays" as he and all of these other prophets are variations of a sun god. Okay, sure! None of this magical nonsense actually happened anyway, so let's go ahead and get to the point before I just go completely nuts.

*** Bullshit Alert! Category: Astronomical History ***

The precession of the equinoxes: The movie claims that "ancient Egyptians, along with cultures long before them (who exactly?) recognized that approximately every 2,150 years, the sunrise on the morning of the spring equinox would occur at a different sign of the zodiac." If they did, they never expressed it: A fellow named Hipparchus is credited with discovering the precession of the equinoxes somewhere between 147 BC and 127 BC. Wiki: "...if the ancient Egyptians knew of precession, their knowledge is not recorded in surviving astronomical texts." The movie claims that they were "very aware" of precession. Really? But they never bothered to record that knowledge? There is some evidence that temples were built and then torn down and rebuilt to coincide with some star orientations, but that hardly proves that they knew of precession, and seems like a pretty damned inefficient way of doing anything - tearing down and rebuilding the same buildings over and over again. The proof is in the narrator's language: "very" aware. One is either aware or unaware. The only reason to use "very" is because the claim is weak. Burden of proof requirement: Failed, due to lack of credible evidence necessary to support the claim. Let's move on.

The narrator trips along, taking bible passages wildly out of context to make astrological points about the Age of Pisces and the Age of Aquarius, and doesn't back up claims of biblical mistranslations and generally annoys me as much as anyone does when they take things out of context, especially stupid things.

The criticism of the basics of Christianity continues in the area of plagiarism of past stories and this all points out what everyone knows: You need faith to believe this stuff because otherwise it's bullshit. It's not real! I'm shocked, I really am. Besides, while this stuff is interesting when presented a certain way, logic and reason suffice quite well when debunking Christian claims or any other religious claims. You don't need all of this pseudo-historical astrological silliness. Bill Hicks is now in the film; why not just show a half-hour of Carlin and a half-hour of Hicks? All of this dumping on Christianity would be much more entertaining.

Better though, that the existence of a man named Jesus Christ is questioned. Josephus's accounting is historically highly suspect, and the other three historians who are referenced when attempting to corroborate the "Jesus was a real dude" claim don't mention him specifically: There's a good chance this guy Jesus never even existed! So far, my favorite part of the movie next to the 417,000 missiles exploding in the intro. Present that evidence and people tend to get upset. I mean, if no Jesus Christ walked the earth then this whole Christianity thing is a much bigger test of faith than these Christians signed up for. I would prefer it if he were an actual human, because he seems like a good enough guy with a solid community organizer (ha ha) type of message. It's more fun that way - I don't have to think he was some god-guy to think that he was a good guy who really existed. Why not? Of course, the vast majority of historians have agreed that Jesus was an actual person, with the doubters being on the fringe. How much of this is just accepted without question is unknowable, but "Most Historians" v. "Zeitgeist, The Movie" is like "Mike Tyson" v. "Cicely Tyson."

Wild leaps! The Christian religion was created by Rome for political reasons related to control. This ignores any complexities related to Paul and the branching off of Christianity from Judaism, and while the involvement of Emperor Constantine is mentioned, how he was involved is not. So there is no evidence to support the claim that the historical Jesus was created in Rome for political reasons. It is a massive simplification of a complex process. The Vatican is blamed for the Dark Ages, exclusively. No other factors or potential causes are considered. Between the alleged politicization of Christianity by Rome and assigning blame to the Vatican alone for the Dark Ages, I think this is where the movie shifts aggressively to pure conjecture and absurdity. There is simply not enough evidence presented which would support these claims. It's an all out "blame Christianity" argument without any mention of other factors that contributed to the Dark Ages specifically. From Cornell University, "Ask An Astronomer":

I recently read an article that asteroids or something like that busting up in the Earth's atmosphere, was what caused the term the Dark Ages during the Middle Ages. Is it true?

It is true that there was a steep drop in the population of Europe in the mid-6th century, a time frame that coincides with what is commonly referred to as "the Dark Ages" (a period of time spanning several centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, from which there are few historical records of events in Europe). Most of this was due to a plague that is widely believed to be an earlier occurence (sic) of the Bubonic plague that struck Europe again in the 14th century, but there's also some evidence that there was some global cooling going on at that time. This would have led to lower crop yields, and caused the population to drop further.

The astronomical aspect isn't even necessary when doing a basic search for some of the potential causes for the Dark Ages. Why isn't any one of these elements present in the film's argument? Because it's just an assault on a religion and is not interested in a rational, fact based presentation. Christianity and its involvement with the power structure in the U.S. is ripe for criticism, but this kind of thing obscures responsible efforts in that pursuit.

Part II is called "All The World's A Stage." Based on the biased and often unfounded claims used against Christianity, and the clues that suggest we're suddenly moving toward 9/11 conspiracy theorist territory, I'm preparing to get angry. Should I? Well, I don't like religion much, generally, but I can actually see some good in different religions when the higher aspirations of good will toward others and betterment of mankind are the focus. That's pretty rare, but at least it's possible. Plus, religion is cohesive, and Christianity in this country, practiced among people and outside of politics, is a charitable force and often a positive influence. Having said that, there are several reasons to bring religion down a few pegs in this country, as we have seen the results of faith-based governmental leadership, especially in the foreign policy arena, and any continuation of that idea is unacceptable. It doesn't work.

But when it comes to 9/11...the facts are not in dispute. The issue is settled. These sorts of distractions are frustrating; fortunately most people have completely dismissed this nonsense. But let's see what territory we arrive in...

Well, the 9/11 Truth brigade is obviously involved, as this part of the movie is a controlled demolition claim. Read this:

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency Report of 2002 and the later National Institute of Standards and Technology report of 2005 regarding the reconstruction of the collapse events of the Twin Towers and Seven World Trade Center both contradict the controlled demolition hypothesis. On August 21, 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology released a 77 page report on the cause of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. It concluded that the collapse occurred because the building was set on fire by falling debris from the other burning towers, that catastrophic failure occurred when the 13th floor collapsed weakening a critical steel support column and that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water. The theories that the collapse was caused by explosions or fires caused by diesel fuel in the building was investigated and ruled out."

Passage from Wiki, everything independently sourced - check it out for yourself, check Wiki's sources, do what you have to and leave your emotions at the door. Check both sets of claims and come to the conclusion that makes the most sense if you haven't already. Read Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke for insight on the attitudes of the major players involved with 9/11; it's about incompetence and a misguided focus on Iraq instead of al-Qaeda, not about some lame-brained conspiracy theory that just doesn't make sense when independently sourced facts are considered and some basic homework is done. Popular Mechanics has a very good piece entitled Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report. Your technical questions, answered by experts in the field. Have a blast, knock yourself out, call grandma and tell her all about it. I saw the report years ago: I was satisfied.

By the way, as a movie: This is not very good, not very good at all. The earlier documentary aspect concerning religion is somewhat interesting, but that's the best that can be said. The graphics, animations, and most of the music are laughably poor. We've all seen the plane ram into the first Twin Tower; does it need to be replayed 9, 10 times in a row, really fast, with really loud whooshing and concussive sound effects? What does this add to an already sensational event? Bad - but worse, obnoxious - filmmaking. That's the most offensive aspect to these 9/11 "truthers" - they're so convinced that they're right and everyone else is wrong that they try to "shock" us into listening to them, at the same time debasing our emotional connection to the event, as if that connection isn't legitimate because we're all just so dumb and wrong about what actually happened. They have all of the special information required, and we're so stupidly accepting of whatever the government and the media tells us. Please. These people couldn't be more wrong, in every area of argument, and then they think they need to drive some point home by sensationalizing this mass murder. Misplaced audacity such as this doesn't get much more pathetic.

I have to admit, I fast forwarded through the rest of the 9/11 stuff and landed on this: New World Order, NAFTA creates North American-style EU, and then this direct quote from the narrator:

"By default of this agreement, the American Constitution will eventually be obsolete. You would think that a situation like this would be on the cover of every major newspaper. That is, until you realize that the people who are behind this movement are the same people who are behind the mainstream media. And you are not told what you are not supposed to know. The North American Union is the same concept as the European Union, the African Union, and the soon-to-be Asian Union. And the same people are behind all of them."

Yeah, wake me up when all that happens. These powerful people certainly have a lot of energy - far more than me, so there isn't much I can do to fight this unless I learn to breathe fire and piss acid. Can anyone possibly afford to take the years it would require to dispute all of these claims? This movie doesn't deserve the effort. How much baseless conjecture actually exists in the world? It may indeed be infinite. James Warburg gets the final quote from Zeitgeist:

"We shall have World Government, whether or not you like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

Mr. Warburg was a banker and special adviser to FDR. Wiki also tells me that he wrote the lyrics to the hit song Can't We Be Friends?, released in 1929 and the musical Fine and Dandy in 1930. Clearly, anything this man ever uttered should be taken as gospel truth. You have been warned and you will be assimilated. Probably in like a week or so.

* I used the words "filmmaker" and "filmmaking" in this entry - what the hell am I talking about? There isn't a bit of original footage in the whole thing from what I can tell. It's just a serial masturbator copy/pasting a bunch of whack-job crap into Microsoft Video Machine.