Zeitgeist Refuted Final Cut (full movie)

This excellent film is finally available in one continuous video.

Good video. S&F. Well worth the 2 hours to watch.

reply to post by Amenti


Is this the 2010 update Zeitgeist or a complety differant one ?

reply to post by Thetawave


Different, give it go. Just might surprise you, if you have an open mind.

reply to post by Amenti


Does it get better than the first minute?!(dumb question I know...) but I am sick of terrible 'debunking' documentaries. I watched one 2 hr one about David Icke, and in the end it was all just bible thumping Jesus talk and it made me like Icke even more.

Jesus is God's son(forget that it sounds like 'sun', which could or could not be a coincidence) who goes around doing fishy things(pun intended) through the symbols of the zodiac.

Jesus is an allegory of the SUN. Marduk is an allegory of the SUN.

Pagan cults worshipped the SUN.

Lucifer(satan) is the planet Venus(the light bringer).

Most major religions(particularly the abrahamic) are just arguing over astronomical symbolism. If that is tough for you to accept, then go read a book about mythology or religion with that idea in the back of your mind... you will find out soon enough.

I will watch more... but already I am turned off...


ETA: So, I thought it was well accepted that many of the specifics in Zeitgeist regarding other similar stories to the biblical Jesus mythology - that is, when ZG lines them all up with the similarities - I thought it was generally recognized that there was plenty of errors there. That, however, does not mean they are wrong in their thesis. It only means there is some small particulars which do not fit the general trend. However, if you plotted them all on a graph, there would CLEARLY be a best-fit line or archetype to which mythology generally adheres to. This is why Freud, and Jung in particular, came up with psychic archetypes - because there is a clearly discernible structure throughout time and place in human thought. Much of that shared structure, comes from allegorical symbolism linking the heavens above, with man(and his mind) below.

reply to post by beebs


Son sounds like Sun ... yeah .... but i want to bust your chops and tell you that NOT EVERYONE TALKS ENGLISH ON THIS EARTH!!!

For example in Romanian its 'fiu', in German its Bruder... so yeah ... Son sounds like Sun ... but only in one language ...

EDIT: past the 5 minutes mark ... and the video stinks ... you just can't compare anything to the bible ... its like comparing an acount of world war 2 with lord of the rings ... fact vs fiction ...

reply to post by AlexIR


Yeah I know, and that is clearly a coincidence used by Jordan Maxwell in particular for shock value and to keep peoples attention. He likes to use wordplay to make people aware of the words they use.

For instance, Horus being the etymological root of horizon among other examples.

But yes, this documentary is going nowhere fast.

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 idea?

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.