Zeitgeist Commentary

Part 1

This is all very interesting, what else can I say? The implication of course is that the story of Jesus was given legitimacy by connecting it with then accepted paragons of power. So what we have seen is that many of our world's religions are governed by archetypes. The focus on christianity I suppose was intended to make the most popular religion in the world seem less significant. Quite honestly though, in so far all I can say is:

Thats Neat.

About the jesus fish, I was under the impression that it had something to do with the ceremonial greeting symbol drawn in the sand at the meeting of repressed christians in Rome. Not that this bothers me, but thats just the story I've heard.

Still, it is neat. I'm not a christian, however, so this is just interesting rather than insulting. I really feel like the intended audience of zeitgeist are people who are particularly charged about christianity. Either christians, or anti-christians, those are the groups I think would be either offended or emboldened by this video. I am not a christian, but have made my peace with christianity (I don't hate it... as much... anymore). It is still just neat.

I get it... so what?

Am I supposed to be polarized by this? It would work if I did not see the need for religion. I think that christianity is an ass-backwards way to go about it, it just happens to be the most common one.

Ah, finally I see a convincing statement. Deist religions separating us from the world. That is the crux of the problem isn't it? The good of it is of course omitted, but they have correctly identified the wrong.

I just don't care all that much atm, there is something deeper about this topic that is completely omitted.

Part 3

I'm just going to have to go ahead and say: this is the world in which we live, it isn't going to change. In order for this system to change, everything has to change: all at once.

In other words, I already know about this. Even if I don't know all the facts, I feel it always. The reason, once again, that I'm not impressed is that I don't feel this movie was made for me. This movie demonstrates the problem. I'm past that, I want to know what I can do about it.

Interesting thing though: knowing that part II speaks of 9/11 having been an intentionally staged action, why is it placed serially before the section on the federal reserve? I really think that part III would be a fantastic preface for Part II.