Zeitgeist: The Movie, Myths, and Motivations

The Internet movie Zeitgeist uses flagrant dishonesty to make an ideological point that could have easily been made ethically.

Filed under Conspiracies, Religion

Skeptoid #196
March 09, 2010
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
Bookmark and Share

Today we're going to point the skeptical eye at one of the most popular Internet phenomena from the last couple of years: Zeitgeist, a freely downloadable documentary movie. It purports to critically examine Christianity, the cause of 9/11, and the world economy. Instead, it paints them all with a single wide stroke of the conspiracy paintbrush. "Zeitgeist" is a German word meaning the spirit of the times, thus Zeitgeist the movie purports to pull aside the curtain and reveal the true nature of the world in which we live. The problem with the film, as has been roundly pointed out by academics worldwide, is that many of the conspiratorial claims and historical references are outright fictional inventions. Zeitgeist does have a message that's not necessarily invalid, but it's lost underneath the unequivocal dishonesty.

For a long time, people have been asking me to do a Skeptoid episode about Zeitgeist. I've resisted, mainly because it's so poorly researched that I didn't feel it deserved any response from legitimate science journalism. But people have kept asking. And, obviously, a lot of viewers have been swayed by it. I've even had people who innocently bought into it write me and quote Zeitgeist as an authority, suggesting I do some episode promoting one of its claims. Zeitgeist, and the 9/11 conspiracy movie Loose Change, are largely what motivated me to produce Here Be Dragons, my free 40-minute video giving a general introduction to applied critical thinking, which I felt was a more appropriate response than publicly acknowledging either film. But I spent some time learning more about Zeitgeist, its sequels and related events, and its creator, and concluded that the mainstream criticism of the film doesn't tell the whole story, and its worldwide impact does make it deserving of a more critical examination.

Understanding Zeitgeist means understanding its creator, Peter Joseph Merola, a young musician, artist, and freelance film editor living in New York City, at last account. I've found no reference to any educational or professional experience pertaining to any of the subjects covered in the movie. He moved to New York in order to attend art school. That appears to be the extent of his qualifications to teach history and political science, but of course it doesn't make him wrong. It may, however, explain why many of his factual claims contradict what anyone can learn from any textbook on religious history or political science.

Merola made a second film, Zeitgeist: Addendum which offers much better insight into the man and his motivations for creating Zeitgeist. He's basically a postmodern utopian, who spends most of his effort speaking out against money-based economics. He advocates the rejection of government, profit, banking, and civil infrastructure: basically, the "establishment". Once you understand where he's coming from, it makes it a lot easier to understand why he made Zeitgeist and tried so hard to point out the corruption and evils of the establishment. The problem is that he simply made up a bunch of crap to drive his point, and that's where he crossed the line between philosophical advocacy and unethical propaganda.

Much of what makes Zeitgeist popular is that the sustainable utopia he describes is very compelling. It's probably not very realistic, but it's alluring at an organic level. Mistrust of the establishment has been a popular theme ever since a caveman first raised a club, so the two combine to make the message of Zeitgeist appealing, at some level, to nearly everyone. For example, in his sequel, Merola profiles futurist Jacque Fresco who envisions what he calls a "resource-based economy", a world without money where the Earth's natural resources are freely available to all and responsibly managed through public virtue and high technology. This is a fine idea, and while its practicality and workability can certainly be debated, it's perfectly valid as a philosophy. And so, it was from this utopian perspective that the young idealist Peter Joseph Merola set out to first convince us that our current system is fundamentally broken.

He began in the first of Zeitgeist's three chapters with an assault on Christianity. The film draws many parallels between the Nativity story and pagan sun worship and astrology, suggesting that their origins are all the same. This is followed by an impressive set of similarities between the life of Jesus and the life of Horus, the Egyptian god — similarities far too extensive to be simple coincidences. And then, taking key points from the life of Jesus (the virgin birth, December 25th, a resurrection after three days, and so on), we find that the same elements are found in the stories of many other gods from diverse cultures, namely the Phrygian Attis, the Indian Krishna, the Greek Dionysus, and the Persian Mithra. Merola's presentation is compelling, and constitutes a convincing argument that Christianity is just one of many branches of mythology stemming from the same ancient stories going all the way back to prehistoric sun worship.

Where this compelling presentation breaks down is, well, almost everywhere. The majority of Merola's assertions are flagrantly wrong, as if he had begun with a conclusion, and worked backwards making up facts that would get him there. He gave no sources, but it turns out that most of these same claims about other gods having the same details as the Jesus stories come from a 1999 book called The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. Christian scholars in particular have been highly critical of Merola's unresearched and wrong assertions, which is understandable given that they are probably the best authorities on religious histories.

Part II of the movie depicts the 9/11 attacks as having been perpetrated by the American government, essentially repeating the same basic charges found throughout the 9/11 "truth" community. These charges fall into two basic categories: innuendo and misinformation. Innuendo like the Bushes knew the bin Ladens, the alleged hijackers have since been found to be alive and well, the inexperienced pilot couldn't have hit the building; and misinformation like straw man arguments mischaracterizing what we all watched that day. These, and many other tactics claimed by the "truthers" to be evidence that the attack was an inside job, have been thoroughly addressed elsewhere and I'm not going to go into them here. In short, searching for alternative possible motivations, and finding and making extraneous connections between various people and events, does not prove or serve as evidence of anything. Raising the specter of doubts or alternate possibilities is very effective in distracting people away from the facts, as we saw so dramatically in O. J. Simpson's murder acquittal, and as we see throughout the 9/11 "truth" movement.

According to a New York Times interview with Peter Joseph Merola in which he was asked about the 9/11 conspiracy claims made in Zeitgeist, he says he has since "moved away from" these beliefs. While it's great that he was willing to come out publicly and say that he's abandoned one line of irrational thinking, to me it says more that he leaves it in the movie anyway (Zeitgeist has gone through a number of revisions, and he's had ample opportunity to edit out sections he no longer believes). This is only speculation on my part, of course, but I'd guess he leaves it in because it so dramatically illustrates the evils of the establishment, which is a pillar of his philosophy. If true, it would show that the content of Merola's films are driven more by ideology than by fact.

$2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

That this is Merola's ideology is most impactfully illustrated in part III of Zeitgeist. This asserts the existence of what Merola believes is a worldwide conspiracy of international bankers, who are directly responsible for causing all wars in the past century as a way to earn profits. From his student art studio, Merola purports to have uncovered plans, known only to a select few of these hypothesized bankers, to combine the currencies of Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a single denomination called the Amero, as a next step toward an eventual one world government. In fact, the Amero was proposed in a couple of books: in 1999 by Canadian economist Herb Grubel in The Case for the Amero, and in 2001 by political science professor Robert Pastor in Toward a North American Community. The number of economists not proposing an Amero is much larger. This chapter of Zeitgeist goes into great detail, most annoyingly in the way it quote-mines everyone from Thomas Jefferson to Carl Sagan (from letters both real and counterfeit) to suggest that leaders in government and science have always known about this. People knowledgeable in this subject have gone through Zeitgeist point-by-point and refuted each and every one of its dishonest claims, none more effectively than Edward Winston on his Conspiracy Science web site, which I highly recommend if you want to discuss any of the nitty gritty details in any section of Zeitgeist.

I can empathize with Peter Joseph Merola on one level. When I first started the Skeptoid podcast, I didn't really yet know what it was going to be about or where it was going to lead. I didn't keep references either. Having done it a few years, I now have my focus dialed in much better. I can see the same evolution from the conspiracy theories in the original Zeitgeist film to the utopian and philosophical topics Merola now talks about. He described Zeitgeist's inception as a personal project and a "public awareness expression", a context in which it was unnecessary to keep references or even to be historically accurate. I suspect that if he'd known where he was going to be today, he wouldn't have made Zeitgeist, and would have instead gone straight to the sequel which almost completely omits the conspiracy theories and untrue history.

If he had, the Zeitgeist franchise would probably not be nearly so successful. Nothing commands attention and feeds our native desire for power like a good conspiracy theory. If you know about the conspiracy, you're in on the secret information, and you are more powerful than the conspirators. For better or for worse, we all have a deep craving to have the upper hand. This is perhaps the main reason for the unending popularity of Zeitgeist, Loose Change, Alex Jones, Richard Hoagland, and other conspiracy theory machines. It also explains the passion shown by those who defend them: All that matters is "being the one who knows more than you," and the facts are a distant second.

Follow me on Twitter @BrianDunning.

Brian Dunning

© 2010 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Callahan, T. "The Greatest Story Ever Garbled." Skeptic. The Skeptics Society, 25 Feb. 2009. Web. 2 Mar. 2010. <http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25>

Dunbar, D., Reagan, B. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. New York: Hearst Books, 2006.

Feuer, A. "They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present." New York Times. 16 Mar. 2009, N/A: A24.

Lippard, J. "Zeitgeist: The Movie." The Lippard Blog. Jim Lippard, 11 Jun. 2008. Web. 2 Mar. 2010. <http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/06/zeitgeist-movie.html>

Meigs, J. "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report." Popular Mechanics, March 2005 Issue. 1 Mar. 2005, Year 103, Number 3.

Pastor, Robert A. Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New. Washington: Institute for International Economics, 2001. 111-115.

Siegel, Jon. "Income Tax: Voluntary or Mandatory?" Jon Siegel's Income Tax Protestors Page. Jon Siegel, 31 Jan. 2007. Web. 3 Mar. 2010. <http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm>

Winston, E. "Zeitgeist, the Movie Debunked." Conspiracy Science. Edward L Winston, 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 2 Mar. 2010. <http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/>

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "Zeitgeist: The Movie, Myths, and Motivations." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 9 Mar 2010. Web. 23 Apr 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4196>

Discuss!

10 most recent comments | Show all 246 comments

I haven't seen "Zeitgeist" and have little doubt it is one more example of conspiracy nonsense.
However,Brian is quite wrong when he says that the Christian story as told in the bible is not based on older religions.Just about every single one of the great bible stories-the Garden of Eden-the great flood-the exile saga-the virgin birth-the three wise men etc etc are almost exact repetitions of incidents from numerous earlier religious myths.
I always enjoy Brian's concise and precise pieces,but if he can get this so wrong,I am starting to doubt his other pieces.

nick cox, singapore
January 07, 2014 11:15pm

Nick - If you'll look at the transcript, you'll see that I said no such thing. Where did you get that?

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel
January 08, 2014 12:03am

" Its amazing to me that the NSA can track the cell phone use of millions of americans yet we still don't have footage from a single security camera of a plane hitting the pentagon"

Or the two were a decade apart in completely different worlds?

How come no one live tweeted the planes hitting the WTC from their iphones????

Another Nick, Alexandria VA
January 08, 2014 7:46am

As for the Bible in all its myriad forms, myth, PBS, creation tales,Twitter, NSA cameras, and all that floods the internet, I must say: telling the truth doesn't make you right.

Kudos to you Brian for asking if this (anything 'this' refers to) is a concrete, documented fact from an objective source on any given subject.

Dr. Who said: answers are easy. It's asking the right question which is hard." (Face of Evil, Tom Baker to Louise Jameson, 1977 I believe.)

Swampwitch, Gainesville Fl
January 08, 2014 10:10am

So what is the motivation behind it all? To discount our form of government, religion etc. I mean at least the financial part of it makes sense. The money is slavery thing. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, I hate government as much as the next guy. I'm really searching for the truth. I know governments lie, everyone should know that. So why wouldn't they lie about this? This is a way to control us is it not?

Patrick, Virginia Beach, VA
January 13, 2014 5:31pm

So your assertions that he is wrong about astro-theological origins in regards to main stream religions is that the most out spoken historians who controvert his work are Christian Historians? That doesn't seem very unbiased does it? This is a propaganda puff piece meant to support the controlled oppositional dialectic that Zeitgeist represents, so by that observation it may be you who could be asked, what is your motivation for writing this piece in reality.

Craig, Concord NH
January 19, 2014 5:56am

Brian, I believe there is some relevancy to many of Peter Joseph's claims upon detailed research, but still appreciate your review as I also take a skeptical approach to this material. I would like to point out that no one will gain the upper hand in this debate with academic rhetoric, as debating conspiracies commonly becomes vague, muddled and emotional. If you would like a prime example, please watch the recent debate between Peter Joseph and Stephan Molyneux. In my opinion this is a sad display of two intelligent men who are too entrenched in their own ideologies. My point: the only truth a human being can find exists inside themselves. You can spend your whole life searching for facts to validate your own truths to people outside yourself but why expend that energy? I certainly have done it, and to no benefit for myself.

Brian, I have just watched "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" on youtube (its a long one). I was wondering if you would take a crack at this documentary as it goes into much further detail on possible lies and misdirection of the attacks. This is the most compelling documentary on the subject I have seen.

Stephen, Jacksonville, FL
February 04, 2014 8:07am

I think you should believe whatever resonates right with your soul and higher self. I always go by if it gives me goosebumps when someone says it or I hear it, then it almost always has to be true. It hasn't failed me so far.

Ashley, Cincinnati
February 18, 2014 11:37pm

This article fails to refute the main argument of the movie. Contradicting a few facts doesn't make the whole idea false, just perhaps a bit amateur, but nobody claimed it was the most professional film created.
The fact that its creator supports a utopian society and is against profit based economies doesn't do the job either, if the facts presented before us are not even close to give a different explanation.
Just a few example:
1. I know the Gilgamash story personally, and it is known worldwide. I've learned about a lot of similarities between the bible and external stories. The Horus story wasn't addressed properly.
2. 9/11 conspiracy - you didn't address the story of building 7, the proximity of the commission to the government, the connection of security contractors, lack of pentagon footage and evidence, the collapse etc.
3. Bankers - you didn't address quotations made by JFK (and I didn't see you try to undermine its legitimacy), Thomas Jefferson and others, and if you claim it's bogus you need to provide adequate sources supporting such opinions (the burden of proof is on you). You didn't talk about the fact that the whole system of a private bank controlling the US and loaning the money to the government is corrupt, and that the founding fathers tried to prevent this from happening etc. Instead, you tried to contradict a few sideline facts, and even there you didn't do a very good job, so I don't see how is this supposed to make me skeptic.

Gale Khan, Israel
February 24, 2014 1:16am

Gale, re-read the sections where Brian discusses the 9/11 and banking theories. Brian notes that other people have thoroughly addressed the points you raise in #2 and #3, and he provides links to those sources.

Dave, Philadelphia
March 26, 2014 12:43am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:

Your Name:
City/Location:
Comment:
characters left. Discuss the issues - personal attacks against other commenters, posts containing advertisements or links to commercial services, nonsense, and other useless posts will be deleted.
Answer 1 + 4 =

You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
 
Skeptoid host, Brian Dunning
Skeptoid is hosted
and produced by
Brian Dunning


Newest
Your Body's Energy Fields
Skeptoid #411, Apr 22 2014
Read | Listen (12:50)
 
The Black Eyed Kids
Skeptoid #410, Apr 15 2014
Read | Listen (11:18)
 
Oil Pulling
Skeptoid #409, Apr 8 2014
Read | Listen (12:24)
 
Skeptoid Media is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity
Apr 4 2014
Listen (1:13)
 
15 Phreaky Phobias
Skeptoid #408, Apr 1 2014
Read | Listen (12:44)
 
Newest
#1 -
Listener Feedback: Alternative Medicine
Read | Listen
#2 -
The JFK Assassination
Read | Listen
#3 -
Asking the Socratic Questions
Read | Listen
#4 -
5 False Arguments for Raw Milk
Read | Listen
#5 -
The Vanishing Village of Angikuni Lake
Read | Listen
#6 -
The Riddle of the L-8 Blimp
Read | Listen
#7 -
The Secrets of MKULTRA
Read | Listen
#8 -
Who Discovered the New World?
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal

 
 


"Plastic Water Bottles"
inFact with Brian Dunning


Support Skeptoid