Zeitgeist The Movie: Not Another Conspiracy Theory Film

Just three hours ago a friend asked me to visit a movie's website and review it for myself (you can do that here, its free but two hours long if you can spare that), hoping, of course, to get some gripping back-and-forth over the state of America, religion, etc.

If it would elicit a discussion on the doom and gloom of modern American foreign policy, and if it was found on the internet and had a mysterious name like "Zeitgeist", and if it jolted this friend to hastily phone me and demand two hours of my precious time (not really)--with a lump in my throat as I imagined it then--it surely involved me watching yet another conspiracy theory video involving 9/11.

And sure enough.

However, this particular film is somewhat unique. First of all the scope is much broader. The producers of the film intend to wake us up from a government-induced state of ineptitude and submission, since the main thesis, which I agree with largely, is that government betrays us, lies to us, deceives us, controls us, punishes us. It begins with an attack on Christianity, concluding that religion is myth and a clever trick government uses to pacify and enslave us. Next is the usual 9/11 conspiracy theory that "proves" how 9/11 was an inside job, the work of the United States government, a false-flag. Here there are interesting and true points, though already made popular by Michael Moore who himself learned it from Greg Palast, an excellent journalist, by the way; but these truths are mixed in with many false assumptions, which we can get into later. The final part of the movie is my favorite part because here powerful and honest observations overwhelm the otherwise deceitful propaganda that nearly ruins the film.

The usual conspiracy theory flick found on the world wide web?? No, not really. Its quite fascinating, if only partly accurate.

The introduction tells us that religion is the "psychological basis" for the grand trickery from which government subdues the great masses. Christianity, we are told, is also a plagiarization of other, older pagan religions. Jesus Christ, for instance, has many important parallels to Horus, an Egyptian god that predated Jesus by 3000 years. The Bible, moreover, is based on pagan astrological mythology. So by now I am sure I have upset half of Gather, and as a Christian, but one who is capable of listening to others talk about Christianity regardless of their beliefs, or, in this case, their disbelief, I found this part intriguing but not convincing. I would really much rather have others tell me what they think about the notion that Christianity has plagiarized older religions for its doctrine and stories. 

Here, and throughout the film really, I recalled Aristotle's statement that "the mark of an educated mind is to entertain an idea without accepting it."

But the larger point of the first section is that religion is a controlling device, a thought first brought to our attention by Karl Marx, who noted that religion is the "opium of the masses" because it places supernatural concerns before real and immediate and otherwise unbearable social conditions. And this point is correct. Religion does pacify. Even when poverty looms, war terrorizes, and government prevents our freedom, well, more importantly, there is always God and Heaven, which is all that really matters in the end. It makes genocide, mass starvation, and environmental degradation acceptable because such horrors "are predicted by the Bible". And government is all too quick to exploit our spiritualism. I can write all of this as a Christian.

So now comes the 9/11 conspiracy which intends to show to us the lengths a government would go to ensure a monster is invoked and a profitable war is sustained. Here again, I agree with the broader premise. But Washington did not commit the terrorist attacks of 9/11, even if our leaders do hold responsibility for tension with the Middle East (we can go into a long list of terrible American crimes towards the people of the Middle East elsewhere). A 45 minute segment on a video is not enough to convince me that I know enough about the science behind the destruction of remarkable buildings in New York. Sure Washington benefited from this despicable act, but so did every other country in the world that plans to hide its corrupt and oppressive policies in other lands under the benign fog of "fighting terrorism".

Here is George Monbiot on this issue:

"To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile, while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the Twin Towers with explosives without attracting attention, and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly-timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes, and induce them all to kept their mouths shut, for ever."

(Read the rest of the article here...)

Annoyed by the subject and the "9/11 Truth" folks, Monbiot continues his hysterical but accurate rant, noting that: "You must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible." What if anything went wrong, as it obviously did over Pennsylvania? What would happen to the Republican party? It would be collectively abolished by an outraged American public, naturally. And imagine how many souls would have to keep that secret. Recently in the NBA a referee was busted for cheating on games and working with the mob. That was a tight circle of corrupt and crafty individuals and it eventually got out. It is quite implausible that so many actors and elements could be behind such a major government-orchestrated assault without anyone coming forward.

The final piece, here again, is the most important part of the film because it draws on legitimate analysis of political phenomenon. Leaders start wars, companies and elites profit, and our youth and the many victims abroad pay the price. Governments are willing to prolong wars to keep instability and suffering over there and therefore sustain their corrupt neoliberal policies.  Its neocolonialism and a New World Order. Here the film cites an incident where two undercover British SAS operatives dressed as Arabs and set off to bomb innocent people in Basra (find the articles here). During the real first Gulf War, the Iraq-Iran war, there is evidence that Washington supported Iraq directly but Iran indirectly, through Israel. Why? Because war is a profitable venture for some; instability benefits the neocons and their grand strategy though of course not the inhabitants of those countries. The film twists its way into some other far-reaching premises, and speaks briefly on the North American Union. Too few Americans know about that. Shocking, of course.

This leads me to my biggest problem with the film: Had it stayed away from its own mythical fantasies on government and concentrated on the real issues behind the great enslavement of the "sleeping masses" it might have come across as genuine, and not simply another conspiracy theory film. Instead it squanders all the essential truths and broader assumptions hidden in between allegations towards Christianity and the absurd notion that George W. Bush brought down the Twin Towers.

Albert Camus would remind us that finding the truth is more important than anything else, especially our own political ideology or emotional biases towards President Bush, even if he can be objectively qualified as the worst American president ever. He still didn't organize 9/11. We need real proof for that.

In the end I judge Zeitgeist as I judge Ann Coulter: the film, like Coulter, is controversial for the sake of being controversial. If you want to raise unfounded conspiracy theories, albeit sprinkled with truth, than don't cry when nobody takes you seriously--even if your broader premise is desperately missing from our discussion today. And that's tragic.