reply to post by Amenti
Thank you, Amenti. This is important. It doesn't particularly clarify what is really going on, but it's important.
I have watched all 3 Zeitgeist videos. The first impression of them came to me when I first heard of them: Why are they using a German word for this
All this business about Christianity is at the beginning of the first video in the series. It left a bad taste in my mouth. I am no Christian, but I
know better that to believe that Jesus, Krisha, and Horus are all the same myth, since I have been well-convinced that none of them are myths!
The second part of the first video is about 911. Boy does that pull you in! For all I know, this section is more accurate. But it only goes over what
many others have already stated.
The last major section of the first video is about the economic system. It advocates a moneyless, egalitarian system which sounds kind of cool at
first glance. But it totally refutes the idea that the current system was put in place by a cabal of criminal humans. The video portrays it as just
sort of magically appearing somehow.
Other threads on this subject have links to Alex Jones' take on this stuff. The video somehow daintily sidesteps the whole issue of criminal abuse of
power and property rights. You get a sort of "the devil made me do it" feeling about the whole thing.
What is this video trying to set us up for? Is it really just trying to cause dissent within the anti-NWO community? Its hard for me to tell.
Then, in the second video (Addendum) they go for the jugular on the subject of money. Question: will the abolition of money also abolish all property
rights? If I want to own a radio, even though I only use it once every other Saturday, can I do that? Or do I have to take it back to the "radio
library" every week so others can also use it? Will I still be held responsible for contributing something to society? Will a criminal be held
responsible if he kills someone or destroys my property? These are big unanswered questions.
But near the middle of the video, it gets worse: A symbol of my church (I'm a Scientologist) flashes on the screen as the narrator mentions the words
"irrelevant superstitions." So now they've bashed my church too! This video goes on to show Jacque Fresco explaining his theories in more detail.
This guy is a "social engineer." Well, he's obviously studied engineering. But what does he know about societies? He hasn't explained how his new
cities are going to me managed, apart from the fact that they will use a lot of computers. Well, who writes the programs? We start to get sort of a
Matrix feel to the whole thing.
The third and most recent video is very touching. It explores the problem of human violence. But concludes that the cause of violence is "systemic"
whatever that's supposed to mean. It then reviews the data on the economy and on Fresco's idea for a new technocracy. It even has a little segment
on spiritual love featuring George Carlin. Then it ends with a fictional scene in which a huge crowd comes in peaceful protest to dump all their money
in front of a central bank. The black-clad guards are ready to defend the building with their weapons, but they get a cell phone call from their
corporate boss who tells them to stand down. The demonstration continues peacefully, and references are made to the young people in the various Arab
countries that have been protesting. It made me cry.
What a crazy mixed message. Are they trying to tell me that if I want a sustainable future I will have to pay for it by abandoning my religious
beliefs and practices, which help me to define some sort of spiritual reality in a very material world? Will I have to agree that any action that can
be defended as "rational" will have to be seen as non-criminal, no matter how upsetting or destructive it is? Will I have to agree that the desire
for profit is what causes all crime rather than what seems more reasonable to me: That a criminal will cause harm to others regardless of what
economic system happens to be operating?
My opinion of these videos has been plummeting the more I think and read about them. I think that if they have a purpose besides the purpose that they
state, then it would be to equate in the viewer's mind several ideas that are in fact in no way equal to each other: atheism, conspiracy theories,
the technocratic utopia, and egalitarian idealism.
In other words, they end up just increasing the confusion level. I wish we could know for sure who wanted to see these videos made and become so
freely available and widely viewed.