• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Zeitgeist, The Movie

Interchange

TRIBE Promoter
Anyone seen this I am sure there is a few on here that have.

It is an amazing watch it dissects religion, 911, the Rothschild's, Rockefellers, war, ties it all in together. It is a lot to take in but soooo interesting.

You can download it for free on www.tv-links.co.uk under documentaries.

here is the website for the moviehttp://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
 

DaPhatConductor

TRIBE Promoter
i saw it, loved it, and posted it a while back but i don't think anyone wrote back.

if you want to buy a dvd for $5 hit me with a pm and i'll send yo the super secret webpage where you an order it.
 

organik

TRIBE Member
^^ i'm pretty sure I responded when you posted it the last time... anyways awesome movie!!! I've recommended it to a few friends and they loved it.

I PM'd you for that link, would like to have this on DVD.
 

Dialog

TRIBE Member
Fileshared it and promptly ruined my roommates evening by showing it. Actually, one didn't want to watch and was doing email and stuff within earshot, and by the end of the first part he was sitting with us, transfixed. He even brought it up the next night at dinnertime, it had preoccupied him the entire day. Making copies to give to friends who can handle it.

Exceptional in its overall scope, that 9/11 only forms one part of a much larger picture.
 

unique2100

TRIBE Promoter
Wow. This is definitly the kind of thing that once you watch it you feel changed. Very thought provoking, powerful, and scary. It ties in a lot of thought and theory. Big Brother is watching.

in·fra·struc·ture /ˈɪnfrəˌstrʌktʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fruh-struhk-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization.
2. the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools.
3. the military installations of a country.
[Origin: 1925–30; infra + structure]

—Related forms
in·fra·struc·tur·al, adjective

—Synonyms 1. basis, foundation, support.
 
Last edited:

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
loved this doc,

i emailed the maker of the film to ask questions about some of the info, specifically the blurb about state funded schools. he replied pretty quick and seemed cool about answering my questions.

hopefully they do another soon.
 

billy

TRIBE Member
i'm about 122 minutes in. pretty heavy stuff. i'm interested to see how all the parts tie in together.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
While I tend to agree with the general message of the film I take issue with much of the way it’s executed.

First, if at least in part the film is meant to inspire "revolution" as its final tag line suggests, then it ignores a very real and ironic constant of all revolution -the production of more and often greater tyrants.

Second, a theme in the film is that society is 'controlled' at least in part by instilling and stimulating artificial divisions within its fabric then its an undermining point that the film itself relies heavily on the very divisive philosophy of populism to achieve its goals. But I guess the film maker would likely dismiss that as a necessary evil.

Finally, setting aside the sloppy inferences of complicity in 9/11 and such, there are many historical and factual inaccuracies that the filmmaker takes much liberty with. But I'm sure the likely demographic for the film wouldn't be the types to provide the necessary fact-checking.

I like the narrative of the film. The nature of religion, theism, order, money supply, war, anti-intellectualism, history, anthropology, progress, willful slavery, all interestingly tied into similar themes. The style of the film is one I tend to enjoy with a seemingly omniscient narrator trotting out images, quotes, and video to tell the story. Limit the interviewed talking heads, and self-indulgent content, and rely most on a montage of sources available to us all. At the very least it attempts to raise consciousness on a necessary level, and that's admirable.
 

unique2100

TRIBE Promoter
OTIS said:
Limit the interviewed talking heads, and self-indulgent content, and rely most on a montage of sources available to us all. At the very least it attempts to raise consciousness on a necessary level, and that's admirable.
Agree 100%
 

DaPhatConductor

TRIBE Promoter
yea, there are definitely some issues with this thing, but all in all i have to give the mysterious 'peter' props. it's really inspiring that one person with a computer and time can make such a difference.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
I'd like to watch this but is it like Loose Change where everyone was like "omg that was soooo good" until you tell them about the factual innaccuracies? (ie. Condoleeza Rice called SF Mayor Willie Brown herself to tell him not to fly on 9/11). Cuz I've seen enough of that shit.
 

annec

TRIBE Member
If you're interested in this, the Naomi Klein book should be interesting as it gets into topics this brings up about corporations cashing in on tragedies, and people giving up their rights. She had to have all things researched and proofed because she doesn't want to get sued.
 

man_slut

TRIBE Member
annec said:
If you're interested in this, the Naomi Klein book should be interesting as it gets into topics this brings up about corporations cashing in on tragedies, and people giving up their rights. She had to have all things researched and proofed because she doesn't want to get sued.
I was listening to Naomi on CBC radio yesterday. She discusses torture techniques and how those similar practices are implemented when we have a majour traumatic events on a national or regional scale. That is, there is a small window of opportunity while torturing someone (these methods were developed at McGill university if anyone wanted to know) when a skilled investigator can extrapolate information from the torture victim. The victim actually views the investigator as a "father figure" in a way. This same premise is applied when natural or unnatural disasters occur. There is a small window of opportunity to take advantage of a shocked population. The people will actually look at the government as a trusted father figure and we get quagmires like Iraq and the implementation of other policies that would normally never get passed (patriot act and crazy tax cuts for the rich) when the public has its guard up.
 

Mr_Furious

TRIBE Member
Just curious, to all the people talking about inaccuracies, how are you guys aware of this?

Perhaps I'm not as well versed in current events, and I'm not a historian, so when I see a documentary like this, I have to just assume that some of it is true, and some of it isn't.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
The religion section has been pretty thoroughly debunked... here's a sampling:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=98970

Dr. Steven Jones is quoted in the religion section, if you want to see what else he's been up to check the wiki:

"Dr. Steven Jones.

from the Wiki:

Like many professors at BYU, Jones has an interest in archaeology and the Book of Mormon.[4] For example, he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence regarding the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas.[5]

Jones also claims to have discovered evidence that Jesus Christ visited the ancient Mayans. His paper on the subject is no longer on the BYU website, but it is available elsewhere.[6]"

Then there's the 9/11 section:for starters the movie repeats the easily debunked claim that "the FBI still regards 6 of the hijackers being alive", which is just plain UNTRUE:

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Then there's the "international bankers" section which repeats a lot of the formulas we've heard over the years which I could go into, but just thought I'd start with the religion and 9/11 stuff... :)
 

Mr_Furious

TRIBE Member
praktik said:
The religion section has been pretty thoroughly debunked... here's a sampling:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=98970

Dr. Steven Jones is quoted in the religion section, if you want to see what else he's been up to check the wiki:

"Dr. Steven Jones.

from the Wiki:

Like many professors at BYU, Jones has an interest in archaeology and the Book of Mormon.[4] For example, he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence regarding the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas.[5]

Jones also claims to have discovered evidence that Jesus Christ visited the ancient Mayans. His paper on the subject is no longer on the BYU website, but it is available elsewhere.[6]"

Then there's the 9/11 section:for starters the movie repeats the easily debunked claim that "the FBI still regards 6 of the hijackers being alive", which is just plain UNTRUE:

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Then there's the "international bankers" section which repeats a lot of the formulas we've heard over the years which I could go into, but just thought I'd start with the religion and 9/11 stuff... :)
I'm not trying to be argumentative at all, but the way I see it, isn't any de-bunking just as, if not more falsified, than the conspiracy theories in the first place?

Those examples cited above don't appear to be any different than the examples cited in the film.

It's no secret to anyone that in order to prove someone that they're wrong, you don't actually have to prove anything....Except a shadow of a doubt. As long as you can prove that you're golden.

In the history of time, when has anyone ever been able to convince anyone of anything? There's always skeptics, and there's always someone who de-bunks whatever it is that people claim to have done or seen.....And in the end, nobody has any real proof of anything.....Just a collection of contradicting evidence and references.

In respect to the film Zeitgeist, who really knows the truth when it comes to jesus, 9/11, the Government, the Federal Reserve and so on and so forth. Who would know if Jesus actually existed except Jesus himself?....And if you're not Jesus himself, and you didn't meet him personally, then any and all references supporting or going against his existence are 2nd hand, and totally open to conjecture.

The references cited above are all internet links, and a lot of people would say that the internet is the most unrealiable resource available to us.

Some people think that Elvis is still alive.....And the rest of us understand that once a human dies, he's dead for good.....But who's to say that he's not ressurected and roaming the earth, just like Jesus Christ?.....Or maybe as a spirit? Can any of us really prove or dispprove that without a shadow of a doubt?

.....So really (IMO) what it comes down to, is who can formulate a better argument......And that has aboslutely nothing to do with the truth.
 
Last edited:

praktik

TRIBE Member
Mr_Furious said:
In the history of time, when has anyone ever been able to convince anyone of anything? There's always skeptics, and there's always someone who de-bunks whatever it is that people claim to have done or seen.....And in the end, nobody has any real proof of anything.....Just a collection of contradicting evidence and references.
Well, we can throw up our hands and say "the truth is un-knowable", or we can try to get as close as we can with the evidence we have available.

The fact is that Zeitgeist, and other movies that have pervaded the "Truth Movement" (Loose Change, Freedom from Fascism, etc etc) all DO come from an intellectual tradition that claim to possess a "truth" - a "truth" that the movie "exposes" to the uninitiated. These films have no qualms about making claims of "truth" and don't have the prevaricating attitude of doubt ("Is Elvis Still Alive?") that you display in your reply.

Whether or not our evidence comes from "internet links", books, movies, interviews, magazines or newspapers, we should be able to weigh the claims irrespective of the source. These are all just mediums after all.

You asked how some people were aware of "innacuracies" and I pointed to just a few. Since we are talking about this on "the internet", I thought "internet links" would be most appropriate - allowing you to persue the information I provided quickly without having to go to a library or a government archive or a video store.

Do the innacuracies add up to damning evidence that shoots the whole movie into the trash heap? Or are they merely isolated inconsistencies that don't hurt the overall argument of the film?

These are things you must decide for yourself. From my point of view, the premises of the movie are flawed, the methodology is flawed, and the movie is most interesting to me from the sociological perspective it grants into the mindset and tradition of conspiratorial thought than it is from any special access to "truth" or any supposed "revelations" it contains. I admit to being fascinated by what makes people like the creator of the movie tick, and how products like this (and Alex Jones' recently released "Endgame") fit into the "Culture of Conspiracy".
 
Last edited:

Mr_Furious

TRIBE Member
praktik said:
Well, we can throw up our hands and say "the truth is un-knowable", or we can try to get as close as we can with the evidence we have available.

The fact is that Zeitgeist, and other movies that have pervaded the "Truth Movement" (Loose Change, Freedom from Fascism, etc etc) all DO come from an intellectual tradition that claim to possess a "truth" - a "truth" that the movie "exposes" to the uninitiated. These films have no qualms about making claims of "truth" and don't have the prevaricating attitude of doubt ("Is Elvis Still Alive?") that you display in your reply.

Whether or not our evidence comes from "internet links", books, movies, interviews, magazines or newspapers, we should be able to weigh the claims irrespective of the source. These are all just mediums after all.

You asked how some people were aware of "innacuracies" and I pointed to just a few. Since we are talking about this on "the internet", I thought "internet links" would be most appropriate - allowing you to persue the information I provided quickly without having to go to a library or a government archive or a video store.

Do the innacuracies add up to damning evidence that shoots the whole movie into the trash heap? Or are they merely isolated inconsistencies that don't hurt the overall argument of the film?

These are things you must decide for yourself. From my point of view, the premises of the movie are flawed, the methodology is flawed, and the movie is most interesting to me from the sociological perspective it grants into the mindset and tradition of conspiratorial thought than it is from any special access to "truth" or any supposed "revelations" it contains. I admit to being fascinated by what makes people like the creator of the movie tick, and how products like this (and Alex Jones' recently released "Endgame") fit into the "Culture of Conspiracy".
I totally agree.

It just seems like a lot of the skeptics, (not necessarily you) spout as much of what they refer to as "truth" as much as the maker of Zeitgeist does.

It just seems like in these discussions, a person could get lost in the amount of evidence that either supports, or goes against the subject in question.....And the unfortunate thing is that not all those pieces of evidence are relevant, or even deserve to be heard.

When watching Zeitgeist, I had to consider the fact that it may have contained some, or a lot of inaccuracies......And if nothing else, it was a great film for bringing about subjects that have never been discussed on that platform.

In terms of 9/11 Loose Change, I didn't feel like it had the message of "truth-telling" like everyone on here commented. I could have missed something, but to me, it just seemed like it posed a lot of questions, and provided evidence to prove the validity of their questions.....But that's all it seemed like to me....Questions.

Even the tagline: ask questions, demand answers, fits into that mandate.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Ran into a buddy of mine on the weekend I worked closely with about 7 years ago and see once every few years at parties...

Conversation turned to politics and as soon as he asked: "Have you seen Zeitgeist?" I realised he is among the "converted".

Z-day eh? lol..;)
 

doughboy

TRIBE Member
Yeah... it's funny you say it that way == "converted"

I actually have the same sentiment because it's the kind of film I feel compelled to share with others as a means of spreading the knowledge and information.

Now that I've got it on DVD, I plan to watch Part 1 as many times as needed to be able to cite it verbatim and use as ammo in the next discussion I have with anyone who dares talk about religion with me (my recently converted cousin being the first of such targets).

There are quite a number of Z-Day events listed for the 15th of March so the message should spread even further == the site itself gets over 100,000 visitors per month.

Although knowledge is definitely the first step, the real key here is going to be action because without it the future depicted in the film will likely come to pass.



Jason
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Look I mean no disrespect but the religious side of things is pretty flawed. There's been a host of discussions on this online and if you do end up engaging on the theological debates regarding Zeitgeist I suggest you familiarize yourself with some of the weaknesses identified in the film on that score.

Give this a start.

To be honest this part of the film is the least interesting to me so I haven't done all my homework on this score... I'm more interested in the 9/11 section (whose controversies I am immersed in these days) and the Federal Reserve section (for the historical links the perspective in the film shares with the Tax Protest Movement, and centuries old conspiracies regarding Masons and "bankers" whether English Bankers, Jewish Bankers or other forces engineering the economy to their interest at the expense of the "common man).
 

doughboy

TRIBE Member
Hey... no disrespect taken.

Thanks for the link.

Being a former Economics and Finance major I'm also very intrigued by Part 3 as the entire economic system being man-made has always fascinated me.


Jason
 
Last edited:
Top