ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[cisco]

I'm not saying that the ends justifies the means.
Yes you are. You're saying the end (people believing Zeitgeist) justifies the means (Zeitgeist's lies.)

[GreNME]

Well, there must be about a billion or so Christians out there, the vast majority of whom believe that Jesus existed. In fact, it's exceptionally important to them to believe that Jesus existed. Yet, there's basically bugger all proof of this. For a start, doesn't this just demonstrate how much people actually care about facts?

No, it demonstrates just how little religion has anything to do with science.

Academics don't touch the subject because they're scared to.

No, it really is because it's largely irrelevant. Do you think that there aren't Christians who think that Jesus is largely a myth?

[Kenose]

Except the claims made in Part III of the film are untrue.

Really? All of them?

...


Also, you are going to have to clarify what you mean by "banking families both influencing and at times dictating American policy" in your statement. It would be nice if you could back it up with fact. The use of the term "banking families" alone is dubious in its vagaries as well as its implications, indicative of schools of thought that are based on nothing sound.

When I say banking families I primarily refer to Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild.

I plan on writing a paper on the basic evidence for what I have suggested. It will not be finished for a significant amount time, as I am in the beginnings of the learning process (and proud of it :cool:)

When I am finished would you like me to PM you a link to it?

If you are curious yourself I can recommend the following:

Carrol Quigley - "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time"

Nearly from the horses mouth, and biased - Quigley tells the reader that he has no objection to their actions or intentions aside from the fact that they wish to keep them secret in the first place. Hence the book I suppose?

From Amazon reviews:

------------------------
The archetype of "Tragedy and Hope" is the work of Procopius, a courtier in the time of the Byzantine emperor Justinian, whose official history, the " De Aedificiis," celebrated the accomplishments of his monarch - but who supplemented it with a secret history, the "Anecdota," in which he spilled the dirt on the emperor and his wife Theodora. Much of the interest in Quigley's book centers around his dirt-spilling account of the machinations of international bankers and of the organizations they formed to exert influence behind-the-scenes on political and diplomatic activity, such as the Round Table, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations. While his discussion of these matters occupies a fairly small number of the book's 1300-odd pages, it has drawn the attention of so-called "conspiracy theorists," mostly on the political right (e.g. the John Birch Society) but also some on the left, such as the sociologist G. William Domhoff, who pursue much the same theme - that the domestic and international policy of the United States (and other countries) are manipulated by a "power élite" in a way that makes their supposed democracy largely a sham.
------------------------

------------------------

The late Dr. Carroll Quigley was a professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University. He was, as his book reflects, brilliant, egotistical and opinionated. He also was a confirmed socialist who believed the world could be a better place if the educated elite ruled.

Former President Clinton said in 1992: "...As a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so."

Unfortunately, Dr. Quigley revealed the game plan of the elite when the elite (a shy group by nature and not at all given to republican government) didn't want it publicized. Far from wanting to hide this "network" (as he called it), Quigley was proud of it.

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies...but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
-----------------------

Interesting!

As well as:

Murray Rothbard - "A History of Money and Banking in the United States"

And also the brief "Wall Street Banks and American Foreign Policy" by the same author.

For a very recent work dealing with the topic I recommend Peter Dale Scott's "The Road to 9/11". (Note: Scott does not claim LIHOP or MIHOP. Give it a chance.)

[GreNME]

Really? All of them?

All of them implying a malicious conspiracy, yes.

When I say banking families I primarily refer to Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild.

Oh, so you're using it in the same manner FOX News uses the term "liberal" then-- completely devoid of any contrextual meaning and intentionally pejorative.

I plan on writing a paper on the basic evidence for what I have suggested. It will not be finished for a significant amount time, as I am in the beginnings of the learning process (and proud of it :cool:)

What you are basically saying here is that you've come to a conclusion before you even know what you're talking about. And you're proud of it?

If you are going to honestly search for information, why are you only listing conspiracy theory books in your recommendations here?

[Kenose]

All of them implying a malicious conspiracy, yes.

I think it's likely that you are wrong and hence am in the process of finding out. :)


Oh, so you're using it in the same manner FOX News uses the term "liberal" then-- completely devoid of any contrextual meaning and intentionally pejorative.

I think you should relax a little. If you reread my original post you should be able to sense that it wasn't mean't to be anything other than general. "Banking families" sure is vague, and suited my purposes perfectly! I think you've looked for an excuse to jump down my throat which has already caused you to make at least one silly statement, as we see below:



If you are going to honestly search for information, why are you only listing conspiracy theory books in your recommendations here?

Here you show your colors. Conspiracy theory books? Laughable. I'm not sure you even read what I posted...?

Tragedy and Hope is not a "conspiracy theory book". I have no idea how you could've come to that conclusion. It is a historian's perspective of recent history and it is quite thorough. Within the book Quigley outs a clique of individuals working to influence and manipulate both governments and economies for their own ends, which includes one world government. I'll remind you that Quigley actually agrees with nearly everything they do, aside from the fact that they wish their role in the world to remain secret. As another reviewer said, even this occupies a small number of the book's many pages.

"A History of Money and Banking in the United States" and "Wall Street Banks and American Foreign Policy" are not conspiracy theory books. I feel like I'm stuck between disappointment and laughter here. Murray Rothbard was one of the world's premier economists, and a historian. (He wrote a very well reviewed set of books on Revolution-era America and the country's discovery called "Conceived in Liberty" as well as "A History of Money and...") For you to write any of the three books I've give here off as "conspiracy theory books" and thus, with your implication, not trustworthy, is truly ridiculous. You have taken your premature and generalized image of me and applied it to the literature I recommended. Shame on you.

You've also created a popular paradox, and it's helpful in illustrating the problems with your perspective and many others. If a book describes what can be called a conspiracy, regardless of how reputable the author may be, as you have shown, it is worthless and untrustworthy. We certainly can't use it as a source for explaining current events or the past. And research, also, is worthless and untrustworthy if an individuals' secondary sources of information are books which describe what can be called a conspiracy. No matter how factual. Thus, in your world, the only books that we can gain reputable perspective and understanding from are those which do not describe conspiracy. Hence, in your world, there is no evidence for, nor any existing conspiracy!

Hilarious!


What you are basically saying here is that you've come to a conclusion before you even know what you're talking about. And you're proud of it?

I've come to the conclusion that the extremely wealthy have a significant influence in the politics and foreign policy of the United States. I have not come to a conclusion as to what degree or extent this is the case.

Are you claiming that they do not have this significant influence?

[Stout]

this movie. Personally, I think the attraction, and the desire for change, is more subconscious than conscious, but it's still there.

Nick

Nick...I'm seriously considering agreeing with you on this only there's one big question. Change, to what, exactly ? There's no shortage of people out there fearing a coming dystopia, there is, however, a shortage of people making suggestions as to how they can have a direct affect on averting this dystopia without compromising their lifestyles.

I've come to the conclusion that Z-day might not be as bad, or as big of a deal as we may think. First of all, most of the venues are universities, which means impressionable kids, quite a few of, by their nature, self identify as dissidents, counterculture, enlightened...what have you. So I've got to estimate the number of Z-day attendees who will be getting "new" information as being pretty small.

So far, in real life, Zeitgeist has been an easy movie to "debunk" as most people who've only watched this movie, or others like it, haven't done ANY research on any of the topics covered at all. Here, on the JREF, I may be a debunking rookie, but when it comes to IRL...I'm a pro.

Somewhere, in this thread maybe I mentioned a friend of mine who'd seem part of this movie and was all up in arms about the microchip conspiracy as she'd seen an advert for a credit card with a microchip in it and " connected the dots" Turns out, she knew nothing about the technology in question and all IO had to do was mail her a few links...viola....a "believer" is educated.

Speaking of tracking....why are so many people attracted to using their traceable plastic when making purchases ad leaving a paper trail everywhere they go ? One would think, that is one were seriously "afraid" of being tracked, they'd use good ole anonymous cash instead.

Part 1 is easily dismissed with a "who cares?" attitude. So there's indications that Jesus was based on "other" myths....big whoop..Zeitgeist is only using the Egypt connection so authors who've written books on the subject can get rich at the gullible public's expense....Part 1....crushed.

Part 2 can just be laughed off as being the domain of teenage paranoid nutters. Most people haven't done their research here either and when I ask them, specifically about what part of Part 2 left an impression on them ( usually the answer is CD ) I point out how needless that step would have been. I mean, seriously, did the towers actually collapsing have any real significance when compared to the whole idea that mainland America is actually being attacked ? No......Making the whole idea of CD silly and redundant.

Part 3....I usually ask "what's your problem with fiat monetary systems?" Which usually draws silence born from ignorance.

Then I segueway into a very real threat...global warming...and what are you prepared to do about it outside the typical band-aid on a brain tumor solutions like most people prefer...like posting on the internet about how much they hate SUV's,,,or going to a protest.

By the time I get around to "Would you give up air travel to save the planet and society ? "....Zeitgeist is pretty much forgotten.

[Nick227]

Yes you are. You're saying the end (people believing Zeitgeist) justifies the means (Zeitgeist's lies.)

I don't really see how you can connect the two, but I'm pretty sure this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying people want change. Actually, it's not really even a consciously motivated decision to believe for most.

The rationalist's fear is that people become so deluded they believe in nonsense and the world goes to pot, but actually the conscious process is secondary. The barely conscious desire for change motivates. It's not really so much about facts.

Nick

[Nick227]

No, it demonstrates just how little religion has anything to do with science.

Well, you can read it how you wish. I don't think people really care about science. Religion fills a core need in the ego and while that need is there people will go for. No amount of rationalising will stop most of them, in my experience.

No, it really is because it's largely irrelevant. Do you think that there aren't Christians who think that Jesus is largely a myth?

Come off it, what academic, what university, is going to come out and proclaim that Jesus is a myth? They're scared to. Science can't stand up to the reality of people's feelings. It's too cerebral.

Nick

[Nick227]

Nick...I'm seriously considering agreeing with you on this only there's one big question. Change, to what, exactly ? There's no shortage of people out there fearing a coming dystopia, there is, however, a shortage of people making suggestions as to how they can have a direct affect on averting this dystopia without compromising their lifestyles.

I've come to the conclusion that Z-day might not be as bad, or as big of a deal as we may think. First of all, most of the venues are universities, which means impressionable kids, quite a few of, by their nature, self identify as dissidents, counterculture, enlightened...what have you. So I've got to estimate the number of Z-day attendees who will be getting "new" information as being pretty small.

So far, in real life, Zeitgeist has been an easy movie to "debunk" as most people who've only watched this movie, or others like it, haven't done ANY research on any of the topics covered at all. Here, on the JREF, I may be a debunking rookie, but when it comes to IRL...I'm a pro.

Somewhere, in this thread maybe I mentioned a friend of mine who'd seem part of this movie and was all up in arms about the microchip conspiracy as she'd seen an advert for a credit card with a microchip in it and " connected the dots" Turns out, she knew nothing about the technology in question and all IO had to do was mail her a few links...viola....a "believer" is educated.

Speaking of tracking....why are so many people attracted to using their traceable plastic when making purchases ad leaving a paper trail everywhere they go ? One would think, that is one were seriously "afraid" of being tracked, they'd use good ole anonymous cash instead.

Part 1 is easily dismissed with a "who cares?" attitude. So there's indications that Jesus was based on "other" myths....big whoop..Zeitgeist is only using the Egypt connection so authors who've written books on the subject can get rich at the gullible public's expense....Part 1....crushed.

Part 2 can just be laughed off as being the domain of teenage paranoid nutters. Most people haven't done their research here either and when I ask them, specifically about what part of Part 2 left an impression on them ( usually the answer is CD ) I point out how needless that step would have been. I mean, seriously, did the towers actually collapsing have any real significance when compared to the whole idea that mainland America is actually being attacked ? No......Making the whole idea of CD silly and redundant.

Part 3....I usually ask "what's your problem with fiat monetary systems?" Which usually draws silence born from ignorance.

Then I segueway into a very real threat...global warming...and what are you prepared to do about it outside the typical band-aid on a brain tumor solutions like most people prefer...like posting on the internet about how much they hate SUV's,,,or going to a protest.

By the time I get around to "Would you give up air travel to save the planet and society ? "....Zeitgeist is pretty much forgotten.

Well, let's wait and see what happens.

I mean, finally, no one really knows what the **** is going on. There's always the option to lock yourself up in your head and rationalise your way to convincing yourself you do but, actually, you still don't. Scientific rationalism has brought a lot of seeming stability to the human psyche and human world, but I rather doubt it's sustainable long-term. It's just based on an unexamined concept, for a start. But let's not go there again.

Nick

[cisco]

Come off it, what academic, what university, is going to come out and proclaim that Jesus is a myth? They're scared to. Science can't stand up to the reality of people's feelings. It's too cerebral.

Nick
How 'bout Richard Dawkins, Oxford University. One of the most respected institutions of higher learning in the world, by the way.

[Dave31]

I don't see how folks can discuss Zeitgeist part 1 with out at least mentioning advert

[GreNME]

I think it's likely that you are wrong and hence am in the process of finding out. :)

So, like I said, you are working from a preconceived conclusion.

I think you should relax a little. If you reread my original post you should be able to sense that it wasn't mean't to be anything other than general. "Banking families" sure is vague, and suited my purposes perfectly! I think you've looked for an excuse to jump down my throat which has already caused you to make at least one silly statement, as we see below:

I can understand you feel like I'm jumping down your throat, but I assure you I'm nowhere close to doing any such things. What I'd like, instead, is for you to either clarify any of your insinuations or at least explain which ones you believe are in the film that are worthwhile. Since you have yet to do so, I'm a little dubious as to what you are so sure has merit as opposed to what is not based in fact.

Here you show your colors. Conspiracy theory books? Laughable. I'm not sure you even read what I posted...?

No, I read. Just because they aren't regulars on the Alex Jones circuit doesn't mean their writing doesn't dip into the realm of conspiracy theory. There are even some reputable individuals who have dipped into conspiracy theory hyperbole in their ideas.

Tragedy and Hope is not a "conspiracy theory book". I have no idea how you could've come to that conclusion.

Either you're being intentionally dense or you are defining "conspiracy theory" in a manner completely different than the norm.

It is a historian's perspective of recent history and it is quite thorough. Within the book Quigley outs a clique of individuals working to influence and manipulate both governments and economies for their own ends, which includes one world government. I'll remind you that Quigley actually agrees with nearly everything they do, aside from the fact that they wish their role in the world to remain secret. As another reviewer said, even this occupies a small number of the book's many pages.

Emphasis mine. Just because he agrees with it or thinks it's a good idea makes it no less a conspiracy theory. What I find more telling is that you seem to focus on it when you admit it takes up so little space in the book.

"A History of Money and Banking in the United States" and "Wall Street Banks and American Foreign Policy" are not conspiracy theory books. I feel like I'm stuck between disappointment and laughter here. Murray Rothbard was one of the world's premier economists, and a historian. (He wrote a very well reviewed set of books on Revolution-era America and the country's discovery called "Conceived in Liberty" as well as "A History of Money and...") For you to write any of the three books I've give here off as "conspiracy theory books" and thus, with your implication, not trustworthy, is truly ridiculous. You have taken your premature and generalized image of me and applied it to the literature I recommended. Shame on you.

You should probably calm down. You're right, I should have specified: Quigley's book is popular among the "John Birch" conspiracy theorists, the types who usually fall just shy of being secessionist activists. Rothbard is commonly passed around in anti-Fed, gold standard, Libertarian circles and is a useful trampoline for anti-Fed conspiracy theories. I could provide you with some free online resources to start from with equally pertinent credentials, are you willing to look at more than fringe material to "learn" what you're wanting to study? Start here (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/usbank/bankxx.htm) for one free resource, and to be perfectly honest with you can even glance through history on your very own using the NYT Archive (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/nytarchive.html), which is freely searchable to the public (and it goes back to the 1850's).

You've also created a popular paradox, and it's helpful in illustrating the problems with your perspective and many others. If a book describes what can be called a conspiracy, regardless of how reputable the author may be, as you have shown, it is worthless and untrustworthy.

I never said it's worthless and untrustworthy. What most of what you've listed are, however, are openly biased and fitting to a very narrow worldview. Unless you can learn to look at things from multiple angles, you are going to find your research to be of limited overall value.

We certainly can't use it as a source for explaining current events or the past. And research, also, is worthless and untrustworthy if an individuals' secondary sources of information are books which describe what can be called a conspiracy. No matter how factual. Thus, in your world, the only books that we can gain reputable perspective and understanding from are those which do not describe conspiracy. Hence, in your world, there is no evidence for, nor any existing conspiracy!

That's a nice tautology you've got there, except you're the one who seems focused on a niche of fringe economists and recommending only books that support your pre-conceived ideas. Read through the thread of my posts, you'll find that I not only complimented Nick on mentioning Campbell earlier on, but that I found Campbell's work to be excellent in the realm of examining the foundations of myth and archetypes. Similar to what I believe about others in that line of study, like Frazer, I find the work to provide a very good framework from which to build more in-depth and detailed study, even where the cultural or historical data may or may not be a bit off or lacking some perspective-- some accused those like Frazer to be ethnocentric, but I think that is sometimes a bit harsh. I had an incredibly long argument on another site regarding the works by Budge, where I once again had to point out that while his work is great for those with a superficial interest in Egyptology and Egyptian literature, subsequent translations have corrected a lot of errors that he really couldn't have been aware of initially anyway (since he was working with less discrete contextual data).

And the same applies with the economic studies, my friend. If you are eager to read those books, then by all means do so. Feel free to check out the link I gave as well (or this list (http://ct.grenme.com/index.php/Federal_Reserve#Notes:) of links). However, I'd caution you against taking any one of those sources as gospel and I'd warn against taking any single school of thought as "right" above all others-- that isn't academic, that's the realm of politics.

I've come to the conclusion that the extremely wealthy have a significant influence in the politics and foreign policy of the United States. I have not come to a conclusion as to what degree or extent this is the case.

Are you claiming that they do not have this significant influence?

I am "claiming" nothing of the sort. If that's honestly what you believe, then why isn't Bill Gates dictating more foreign policy than anyone else in the country? Between him and people like Warren Buffet, right there is more money that the GDP of many nations around the world, and yet these two men (regardless of what you feel about their business practices) have taken to philanthropy to promote their personal (not professional) agendas. Why is that? Why is it that whenever these types of discussions come up the very upper levels of affluence are relatively ignored and the people who have more connections with banks or old trusts are the only ones theorized to hold power?

It's not that I totally disagree that money provides more influence, it's that if you think it's the money then you're chasing a wild goose. It's politics, personal networking, and in the end the power of the mob that controls governance and foreign policy, both here and abroad. If you want my opinion, yes I think it's rotten in many ways and that people make use of way too many "fine print" underpinnings of how the world works to grab hold of money or power or both, and that many governments in the world (including the US) should have far more disclosure than they currently have with their people. If you're ticked off about that, that's fine-- I am too. I'm very big on the whole "freedom of information" thing and I rant on about it often. That doesn't lead inexorably to some secret cabal of elite conspirators turning the gears behind some figurative curtain, though. Instead, it's a broad and large case study on how there are plenty of people in the world who decide their own interests are more important than human beings, and that while power may or may not corrupt it certainly tends to attract the corruptable.

But that's a whole different ball of wax than what the movie Zeitgeist covers, and the "facts" it uses to make its case are flawed or poorly constructed. So, if you want to present in this thread some of the facts that it claims are indeed factual, please feel free to list them and we can discuss. However, if you want to keep speaking in broad generalizations and accuse me using weak tautologies, then all you're going to accomplish is convincing yourself that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or complicit, and down that path lies paranoia. If you want to talk or discuss some of the concepts the books you mention cover, there are places for that as well, and some of those concepts can fall under conspiracy theory and others of them will fall under politics or history. That's cool, too-- I'm more than happy to discuss many of them. This thread is talking about the validity of points claimed in the movie Zeitgeist, though, so if you want to start listing a few you think are valid, I think it might be best if we start from there and move forward.

Your call.

[GreNME]

I don't see how folks can discuss Zeitgeist part 1 with out at least mentioning "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html (http://ct.grenme.com/index.php/Zeitgeist_Part_I)

In case you missed it, the companion has been mentioned. It's no surprise Dorothy is trying to cash in on the popularity of the viral video.

The free advertising you've provided does remind me of something (http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=203), though:Before you post a link, please consider whether or not you want to give that site PageRank. PageRank (PR) is one of the major factors Google uses to determine how high a website ranks in the search-engine results pages (SERPs). A site will get lower PR if it has a bunch of links out without reciprocal links in. A site will rank higher if it has many links to it. As far as I know, that includes forums, so please give it some thought. Do we want, for instance, to give PR to "hate sites" or those of people whose thought processes are not something we would support?

If you would like to provide a link to another site, but do not want to hotlink it, please put parentheses around the link, such as:

(http://wikipedia.org)

That way, it will not hotlink and will not drain my PageRank and give it to Wiki, for instance.

It's not a popularity contest or about the money though. Nope. All about the "truth," carefully crafted in a manner to boost page rankings and the chance for more sales. :)

[Dave31]

In case you missed it, the companion has been mentioned. It's no surprise Dorothy is trying to cash in on the popularity of the viral video.

The free advertising you've provided does remind me of something (http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=203), though:

It's not a popularity contest or about the money though. Nope. All about the "truth," carefully crafted in a manner to boost page rankings and the chance for more sales. :)

Actually, there's nothing throught this entire thread sharing a link to her companion guide and part 1 utilizes Acharya as a source many times, So, of course she's going to write something that why she's an AUTHOR. Part 1 is merely a 25 minute basic introduction.

You clearly have an axe to grind with Acharya and her work even though you admit you've never read any of it. That's all that needs to be known from where I stand. You obviously shouldn't be making commentary on her work at all. If you're so brilliant why don't you just write your own scholarly masterpiece? And what are your credentials?

How did you get in "Folsom Prison"? Please explain that one. Was it for STALKING?

[GreNME]

You clearly have an axe to grind with Acharya and her work even though you admit you've never read any of it. That's all that needs to be known from where I stand. You obviously shouldn't be making commentary on her work at all. If you're so brilliant why don't you just write your own scholarly masterpiece? And what are your credentials?

How did you get in "Folsom Prison"? Please explain that one. Was it for STALKING?

Stalking? No, if there's any stalking, it's Acharya's proselytizers seeming to follow me to nearly every place I go on the net. It gets tiresome. Mriana is usually the one who's first to show, followed by freeluvthinka. On at least one site I was on that they were proselytizing, they were banned for using sock puppets.

The good old "you've never read it" BS. Sorry to inform you, but I've since read it and find my previous assessments strengthened by doing so. In fact, I even use a few pages from her books on my page responding to the claims in Zeitgeist Part I. So, if you would like to start a thread discussing the merits of her publications, then I earnestly invite you to create a thread (either here or in R&P) bringing up her finer points (you have read it, right?) and we can commence to discussing the individual validity of her claims. However, if all you're going to do is jump into a thread discussing something and toss in an advertisement, then I do hope you will understand that such an action will be pointed out as such and will be accorded exactly the amount of dialog that it deserves.

Or was there a certain snippet from the e-book you were prepared to cite for us? If so, then by all means do.

[Simplegreentinhouse]

Ohh I watched this about a month ago. i found it highly interesting and it kinda backed some idea's, I had at the time, up. Hmm... Did I write that non academically. I shall say; it in some ways backed up some of my idea's that I had at the time.

I liked the Jesus being the sun bit best, it makes a great deal of sense. My mum thinks Jesus reincarnated several times. She has a point though.

[Dave31]

GreNME, Why are you so obsessed with the Zeitgeist movie and Achayra? You either need a job really bad or you're going mental obsessing about these things.

"On at least one site I was on that they were proselytizing, they were banned for using sock puppets."- It doesn't seem to be true. The only place that shows up is at the RRS where they were simply pointing out how Rook Hawkins had launched a smear campaign on Acharya without ever reading her work or knowing anything about it. They were banned for pointing that out. Disagreeing with RRS will get you banned, posts deleted & your posts edited to suite their views.

http://rationalresponders.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20S

GreNME "However, if all you're going to do is jump into a thread discussing something and toss in an advertisement, then I do hope you will understand that such an action will be pointed out as such and will be accorded exactly the amount of dialog that it deserves."- LOL, now this is funny because you've ADVERTIZED your own fallacious blog and website here throughout this thread and elsewhere many, many times. Would anyone like to count them? It appears extremely hypocritical for you to blast anyone for posting a link for further reading about the very subject of this thread. You fit in perfectly with the RRS crowd. I love how Rook claims to be an "ancient text expert and historian" with only a high school education. What did you say your credentials were?

I think it's perfectly appropriate to post a link for further reading on the very topic of the thread at hand. Or you just don't want anyone to be aware that it exists so you can continue with your straw man fallacies unchallenged.

Do not spam / advertise on the forum

[GreNME]

Do you guys all use the same script or something?

Dave31, could you name a single point in the e-book? If you check over several pages here, I go over pages and pages of information and point to a multitude of sources, often freely available for anyone to look at and verify for themselves. So far all you've done is demand everyone read something that I'm not sure you've read yourself. If you're using it as an argument, then by all means go ahead and paraphrase a point or two in your own words and we can talk about it. Otherwise, so far all you've done is proselytize someone's work for sales.

If you want to think this is a personal thing with Dorothy that's fine: that's how she reacts to any criticism of her work anyway. However, never have I yet encountered a thread on any forum that didn't include three common arguments from her or her proselytizers whenever her work is challenged: "Have you read her books?"
"What do you have against her?"
"You're afraid to admit she's right"

No matter where I look, no matter where I go, if the subject of her arguments comes up people like you pop in and make those same arguments ad infinitum. You never once actually make a real argument from the books, you just chant "read the book, read the book" over and over as if that is somehow going to be effective or change someone's mind. Whether it's you or someone with a different username, whether it's Randi's site or the Rational Response Squad site or Richard Dawkins' site or a number of others, you guys are always making the same arguments almost without change and almost verbatim. All I'm asking for, Dave31, is for you to take one (or some) of the stated claims in either that or any other of her writings, put it into your own words, and post it (or them) here in a manner that can be discussed in a give-take fashion.

Can you do that? Nothing I've put together with my name anywhere else is something I haven't put into words here in this thread and numerous other places. The same can't be said for what you're doing. Now, I've been respectful enough to put my arguments into posts and to provide sources, even to the point where I put together a whole list of available "recommended reading" sites and books that can be checked out to verify the veracity of what I post. Can you do the same, Dave31?

I bet you can't. I'm willing to be shown my first impression was wrong, though. Only you can change that.

[HereticHulk]

Here are some reviews from some people who have read her work. Dorothy gets utterly owned here and she even chimes in a few times through out. She attempts to defend her poor researching skills and scholarship. But, as she refused to cite sources and makes some rather large errors that she refuses to address, its gets rather ugly. She ends up not posting more towards the end of this roasting.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=234405

[GreNME]

HH, I'm pretty sure our new friend here has seen that thread. :)

He seems to not be able to paraphrase her arguments into his own words in that thread, either.

[HereticHulk]

HH, I'm pretty sure our new friend here has seen that thread. :)

He seems to not be able to paraphrase her arguments into his own words in that thread, either.

The link wasn't for Dave31 specifically. I saw him participate in that thread as well. Its funny Acharya has the same debate tactics as Jan. They come out the gate all defensive and accusatory and just kinda peter out once their errors are not addressed or sources cited for the claims being made.

They all say the same things....uncanny.

Why did Dr. Price take down his scathing review from his site. I wonder why his change of heart? Has he since recanted that CC review?

[GreNME]

I believe that Price gave it some thought and concluded that being too scathingly aggressive didn't make him look any better for the exercise. I can understand it, because there's no need for character assassination when the facts do the job by themselves.

As for the posting habits, this is what happens when someone personalizes with their work so deeply that they take criticisms of their work and scholarship as personal attacks instead of the constructive rhetorical criticisms they are. And to be perfectly fair it happens often-- I've even seen discussions with authors in other genres becoming quite belligerent and angry when their work is criticised.

But yes, those constant repeated arguments that aren't actually discussions of the facts being claimed are a common and consistent tactic that seems to follow through pretty much any location where these topics have come up and "defenders" of the books (or the Zeitgeist film) show up. Perhaps I was too hard on Jan when I kept telling him I've heard all the "read my book" statements used as an argument before, as it may not have been fair to him if he was unaware that people have been pulling this game repeatedly for quite some time. Still, the lack of value or contribution to discussion that such arguments convey remains the same, and the Infidels thread you posted (thanks, it's a site I forgot to mention) is another example of that kind of behavior.

[Nick227]

How 'bout Richard Dawkins, Oxford University. One of the most respected institutions of higher learning in the world, by the way.

Thanks. I'd like to check it out. Do you have a link handy?

Nick

[cisco]

Thanks. I'd like to check it out. Do you have a link handy?

Nick

A link for what? Dawkins wrote a little bestseller last year you might've heard of called The God Delusion. Oxford is a school in your country.

[Kenose]

GreNME - Thank you for the thorough explanation, and links.

[Nick227]

A link for what? Dawkins wrote a little bestseller last year you might've heard of called The God Delusion. Oxford is a school in your country.

I heard of the book. I was talking about Jesus not living. I haven't read it, does he write about it?

Nick

[cisco]

I heard of the book. I was talking about Jesus not living. I haven't read it, does he write about it?

Nick

I don't recall specifics but I think Dawkins' stance is that we don't really know for sure and it doesn't really matter - someone please correct me if I am mistaken here. This seems to be an increasingly popular opinion, even among Christians. I feel the same way, in fact I tend to believe the Jesus described in the NT is probably an exagerration of a man or several men, or potentially a whole fabrication. I just disagree with lying to prove it.

You, on the other hand, appear to have no scruples at all. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, and I appreciate the genial way in which you've interacted with me, but your behavior in this thread has been ghastly. I would be ashamed at my failure had I ever attempted to teach you anything of morals or critical thought.

[Lord Emsworth]

The link wasn't for Dave31 specifically. I saw him participate in that thread as well. Its funny Acharya has the same debate tactics as Jan. They come out the gate all defensive and accusatory and just kinda peter out once their errors are not addressed or sources cited for the claims being made.

They all say the same things....uncanny.

Why did Dr. Price take down his scathing review from his site. I wonder why his change of heart? Has he since recanted that CC review?

Here is - another - IIDB thread (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235197) that discusses the very same topic, and especially post #54 (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5114446#post5114446)(straight from the horses mouth so-to-speak) should shed quite some light on this issue.

[GreNME]

Here is - another - IIDB thread (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235197) that discusses the very same topic, and especially post #54 (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5114446#post5114446)(straight from the horses mouth so-to-speak) should shed quite some light on this issue.

Thanks for sending that link. I was kind of thinking that was the case, but didn't feel like I was in a position to make personal assumptions about either of the two because there was already so much speculation.

It sounds like, according to Price, that Dorothy is starting to feel the pressure of making too lofty of claims and is starting to pull back on her arguments to authority and focus on the subject from a more classical comparative standpoint. If so, then bravo and good for her (and Price). I guess I find it odd that there's no mention of going back and revising her prior poor scholarship, but then again there might be more going on than we're hearing about (and, frankly, I don't much care for the personal stuff).

Thing is, it doesn't much change a few things: 1) arguments of Horus influencing the Jesus story are baseless; 2) almost all of the correlative observations between religions-- including the popular "Jesus and everyone else" theories-- are not indicative of causation or inter-relation; 3) the Zeiteist film tells about as much "truth" as a politician testifying in front of a grand jury, and often far less than that.

[Nick227]

I don't recall specifics but I think Dawkins' stance is that we don't really know for sure and it doesn't really matter - someone please correct me if I am mistaken here. This seems to be an increasingly popular opinion, even among Christians. I feel the same way, in fact I tend to believe the Jesus described in the NT is probably an exagerration of a man or several men, or potentially a whole fabrication. I just disagree with lying to prove it.

So do I. Who's lying?

You, on the other hand, appear to have no scruples at all. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, and I appreciate the genial way in which you've interacted with me, but your behavior in this thread has been ghastly. I would be ashamed at my failure had I ever attempted to teach you anything of morals or critical thought.

Can you give me some examples of my failures? I'm happy to learn more.

Nick

[cisco]

Can you give me some examples of my failures? I'm happy to learn more.

No, I'm afraid that's already been done for you enough in this thread. There comes a point when something has been pointed out to you so many times and you still don't get it, you just have to look inwardly and figure it out for yourself.

[Nick227]

No, I'm afraid that's already been done for you enough in this thread. There comes a point when something has been pointed out to you so many times and you still don't get it, you just have to look inwardly and figure it out for yourself.

Not the old "figure it out yourself"-routine, please, Cisco. Personally, if I give negative feedback I do try and make it specific. I think this is only fair, really.

Nick

[Lord Emsworth]

Thanks for sending that link. I was kind of thinking that was the case, but didn't feel like I was in a position to make personal assumptions about either of the two because there was already so much speculation.

It sounds like, according to Price, that Dorothy is starting to feel the pressure of making too lofty of claims and is starting to pull back on her arguments to authority and focus on the subject from a more classical comparative standpoint. If so, then bravo and good for her (and Price). I guess I find it odd that there's no mention of going back and revising her prior poor scholarship, but then again there might be more going on than we're hearing about (and, frankly, I don't much care for the personal stuff).

Thing is, it doesn't much change a few things: 1) arguments of Horus influencing the Jesus story are baseless; 2) almost all of the correlative observations between religions-- including the popular "Jesus and everyone else" theories-- are not indicative of causation or inter-relation; 3) the Zeiteist film tells about as much "truth" as a politician testifying in front of a grand jury, and often far less than that.

You are certainly not going to get an argument from me here.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm#S33
[S33] - Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, Page 135
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_106347c24062c6b8a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11008)

[quixotecoyote]

planning a wedding can cause weekends to disappear unexpectedly.

[GreNME]

You are certainly not going to get an argument from me here.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm#S33

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_106347c24062c6b8a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11008)

Oh my goodness, I forgot about those citations! Yeah, when in doubt, use the nineteenth-century anti-mason writings who blamed everything bad that ever happened, in some form or manner, on a fraternity of men who like to play dress-up and drink beer together (and nowadays have conventions close to red-light districts).

Damn, that's another thing I should include.

Senor Lobo Quixote: Should I format this in a Word doc or a PDF?

[regan69]

Ahh, yes. You're right of course. The Bush administration, along with jref poster regan69 are omniscient. The rest of us poor saps are fallible humans non-party to visions of the future.

Thanks for pointing that out to us, sir.


Do you honestly, honestly, honestly believe that the Bush Administration did all they have done in the name of spreading terror and the war on democracy? Sorry, I meant spreading democracy and the war on terror! Always get those two mixed up! :) Seriously though, with all that has played out and all they have achieved since 9/11 (in the field of resource security and the extension of US military bases to every corner of the globe) do you really belive it is bacause of a war on terror? Cos if you do then fair enough, but if you don't I'd be interested in hearing your reasons...

[GreNME]

Do you honestly, honestly, honestly believe that the Bush Administration did all they have done in the name of spreading terror and the war on democracy? Sorry, I meant spreading democracy and the war on terror! Always get those two mixed up! :) Seriously though, with all that has played out and all they have achieved since 9/11 (in the field of resource security and the extension of US military bases to every corner of the globe) do you really belive it is bacause of a war on terror? Cos if you do then fair enough, but if you don't I'd be interested in hearing your reasons...

But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

[cisco]

Do you honestly, honestly, honestly believe that the Bush Administration did all they have done in the name of spreading terror and the war on democracy? Sorry, I meant spreading democracy and the war on terror! Always get those two mixed up! :) Seriously though, with all that has played out and all they have achieved since 9/11 (in the field of resource security and the extension of US military bases to every corner of the globe) do you really belive it is bacause of a war on terror? Cos if you do then fair enough, but if you don't I'd be interested in hearing your reasons...
What in bloody hell does this have to do with 9/11 being an inside job?

I love how, when I point out exactly how and why troothers' arguments are wrong, they fall back on calling me a Bush lover. Someone called me a "Fox News watcher" the other day while all he knew about me was that I didn't believe in 9/11 Trooth! I haven't watched a total of 1 hour of Fox News in my entire life.

I hate Bush. I just don't believe in lying to support my opinions.

[HereticHulk]

From the Gnostic Media Forums:
(You have to register to see the thread)
I will give $100 to the first person who actually reads and successfully debunks Acharya's Zeitgeist companion. The debunking must be based on having actually read HER Zeitgeist companion and must focus on debunking the specific citations and information that she's used in the ZGC. If you are afraid to spend $7 on this, but you are so certain that she's wrong and has already been debunked, then here is your chance to prove yourself. Here is $100. That means that even after you buy your ZGC, you'll still make $93 - if you win.

What are you guys waiting for? She's wrong, right? You can debunk her in no time flat, right? Now's the time to show your stuff or shut up.

I'm sick and tired of you cowards who comment and lie about this subject but can't bother yourselves to read the latest research.

Enough is enough. Prove yourself!

Oh, and BTW, this challenge is "Acharya approved" (TM)

So after the $7 'donation' to download the ebook, someone could stand to make $93. :rolleyes:

Anyone wanna take a crack at debunking the 49 pages of rolling innuendo?

[CHF]

From the Gnostic Media Forums:
(You have to register to see the thread)

So after the $7 'donation' to download the ebook, someone could stand to make $93. :rolleyes:

Anyone wanna take a crack at debunking the 49 pages of rolling innuendo?

Let me guess....

Whether or not the debunker has succeeded will be judged by....Jan Irvin?

[HereticHulk]

Let me guess....

Whether or not the debunker has succeeded will be judged by....Jan Irvin?

Most likely.
I (and a few others) was just banned from that forum for not agreeing with his or Acharya's claims of jesus mythicism and their grand unification theory of all religions having Egyptian origins.

IMO, the guy is a megalomaniac.:teacher:

[thesyntaxera]

Well...the truth movement has they're own 100 challenge to match jan's 100 dollar challenge now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4488015092758085289&q=4488015092758085289&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Zeitgeist is ***** up their agenda, or something...

[GreNME]

Holy crap what a bunch of children.

[JonathanClement]

It was last May that I escaped from the evil clutches of organized religion. For 3 years, I had been worrying to death about the idea that there was no sex or intimacy in heaven. But then, I saw Yahweh's true character with the passage about the midianites. It was this final straw that broke my chains. For a month, I felt wonderful... I had a few issues with the fear of mortality, but over-all, it was good. Many new prospects. I could join another religion if I wanted. I could be a pagan and worship a female deity. I could be a Buddhist... I felt like I was in heaven. I also had freedom because I now realized that marriage in heaven was no longer an issue because the deity, if it existed, didn't mind sex outside of wedlock. I was free to look at women all I want. I also finally completely dissolved my homophobia. And I watched a new anime. It was a wonderful, but sadly short, period of time.

It was Canada day. I had a wonderful night watching the fireworks, the first half of which I watched with my employers niece who was visiting from China. It was the closest thing I had ever had to a date. For the whole night, all I knew was how wonderful it was to be alive. I had hoped that I would always feel that content and happy. Little did I know, though, the happiness, and my summer would come to an abrupt and agonizing end. I checked my e-mail and I saw that I had a new PM on youtube. I checked it and it was from Underlined Society. "Here is a film I think you'll love!" read the title. In it, it said "Gypsy Witch sent it to me" I clicked the link which was Part 1 of zeitgeist. It didn't include the intro. It was the part about religion. I watched it and loved it. But I realized it was only the first part. I wanted to watch the rest. I had assumed that the rest was about religion as well. I asked the name of the movie. "Zeitgeist" I learned it was called. I eventually found part 2. It started with pictures of the 9/11 attacks. I then assumed "Oh, it must be going to talk about the damage religion causes!" But... I was soon to find out that that wasn't the case. It crept up on me incrementally, and by the end... I was shocked and outraged to see the least. I was mad. I wanted to tell everybody. I wanted to kill them for what they had done. I was fired up, full of passion! "Religion was one thing, but it is... This is unforgivable!!!" I thought it my head. I soon proceeded to watch part 3. "What else are these bastards doing behind our backs?!" thought I. The federal reserve was the next thing to be "exposed"... Or so I naively thought at the time. "Oh my God, they're ripping us off!!!" This too outraged me... And then, it slid into the REALLY scary stuff. The one world government thing... And finally, the bit with the RFID chips... Then, all the hippy stuff... Then it was over... On that day, my life was changed forever... I was scared for life... The fear I felt at that point was the most intense I had ever felt in my whole life... I was so afraid, I thought I was gonna go insane. I bought it on first sight because the part about religion drilled the notion into my head that they had some credibility and that they knew what they were talking about... Before I watched it... Life was wonderful and beautiful... I had found peace... After... It was hell... I exchanged one evil for yet another. Talk about out of the pan and into the fire...

Since then, I have debunked a lot of the claims that zeitgeist has made, but I still have issues with it. I thank whatever deity may exist for this forum, as well as for my friend, Andy, because without him, I might have gone insane. I still have times where I feel very afraid of the NWO and the chips and all these other conspiracies...

So, here is one thing I'm still having issue with... This was the guy who's voice you heard in the interview in zeitgeist.

I can't post URL's yet, so type in "Aaron Russo 9/11 fraud" on youtube and click on the first result.

What do you think of this guy?

I want to do a dissection of this movie later this year, so, if anybody is interested in helping me, please PM me and give me some useful information I can use to debunk it... I hope you will enjoy having me here on the forums...

[GreNME]

It was last May that I escaped from the evil clutches of organized religion.

That phrase always ends in the figurative equivalent to a train wreck. It seems you (in part) described as much on a personal level.

If you want useful information, read the thread. Read a few other threads. Check out the links section. There's a great deal of information, so don't be too overwlemed.

And welcome. Nice to meet you. :)

[JonathanClement]

That phrase always ends in the figurative equivalent to a train wreck. It seems you (in part) described as much on a personal level.

If you want useful information, read the thread. Read a few other threads. Check out the links section. There's a great deal of information, so don't be too overwlemed.

And welcome. Nice to meet you. :)

Likewise...

[cisco]

I can't post URL's yet, so type in "Aaron Russo 9/11 fraud" on youtube and click on the first result.

What do you think of this guy?
Paranoid/delusional. I've been hearing the chip/tattoo/rfid thing is "a couple years away" for 20 years now. Older people have probably been hearing it longer. It ain't gonna happen.

I think it's mostly based on the book of Revelation. At least where I grew up (bible belt), that seemed to be the source of most of it.

It's bunk.

[JonathanClement]

Why do you think it's bunk? Like, give some reasons. I like to have that security, you know?

[regan69]

But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
It has nothing to do with the price of tea, try the price of oil - sitting at $100 a barrell now as we reach "peak oil" and set sky rocket in the coming years as the general public start to realise that the end of cheap oil is upon us and we have nothing better to move on to. Bearing this in mind, and bearing in mind that since 9/11 the US has successfully been able to invade Iraq and Afganistan, topple their leaders (who were admittedly not the nicest people in the world, though it didn't stop USA dealing with them, and, in the case of the Taliban, creating them), and make significant progress in securing the oil reserves and gas pipelines that are going to be paramount to any empire in the future, it makes perfect sense that a administration with an appaling moral compass would sacrafice 3,000 of it's own people to do this. It has been done before, just never on this scale. I don't know the whole story - I'm sure there are only a handful of people who do -but I believe that at the very least the US government was complicit with the events on 9/11

[regan69]

What in bloody hell does this have to do with 9/11 being an inside job?

I love how, when I point out exactly how and why troothers' arguments are wrong, they fall back on calling me a Bush lover. Someone called me a "Fox News watcher" the other day while all he knew about me was that I didn't believe in 9/11 Trooth! I haven't watched a total of 1 hour of Fox News in my entire life.

I hate Bush. I just don't believe in lying to support my opinions.
Please see my reply to GreNME. I hope you didn't think I'd called you a "Bush Lover" at some point though - I would never say such a heinous thing! :P

[Hokulele]

What does any of that have to do with Zeitgeist? If you want to talk about something else, start another thread.

[beachnut]

... and make significant progress in securing the oil reserves and gas pipelines that are going to be paramount to any empire in the future, it makes perfect sense that a administration with an appaling moral compass would sacrafice 3,000 of it's own people to do this. It has been done before, just never on this scale. I don't know the whole story - I'm sure there are only a handful of people who do -but I believe that at the very least the US government was complicit with the events on 9/11
Oh goody, are you the one who has all the evidence 9/11 truth has been alluding to?

[Nick227]

Paranoid/delusional. I've been hearing the chip/tattoo/rfid thing is "a couple years away" for 20 years now. Older people have probably been hearing it longer. It ain't gonna happen.

I think it's mostly based on the book of Revelation. At least where I grew up (bible belt), that seemed to be the source of most of it.

It's bunk.

Why do you think it's bunk? Like, give some reasons. I like to have that security, you know?

Hi JC,

There isn't actually the technology available to do it. RFID only works to a few metres and GPS doesn't work unless you're outside. Most CTists conflate the two technologies in their minds and come up with some wonder-device that sounds pretty scary but isn't actually possible.

Interestingly, in the UK, some journalists and government ministers have been doing this also, apparently believing it is possible to have tracking chip implants. There was an interesting, though scientifically suspect, report in the Independent on Sunday (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prisoners-to-be-chipped-like-dogs-769977.html) (generally a decent paper) quoting UK defence ministers as saying they were going to buy the chips to fit in prisoners!

Several companies, such as Digital Angel, who sell both technologies, appear to do little to deflate the myth also. It seems they even rely on it for publicity.

It's not however impossible that the tech could be developed. I read recently that the Chinese have committed to investing $6bn in RFID to improve their systems management. There could be some scary spin-offs with that level of money being pumped in.

I think it's good to keep tabs on these things. You can go for dismissing ideas out of hand, but I'm personally happy to keep an open mind. I like Zeitgeist too. Maybe you would struggle to substantiate it to a strictly empiric and academic level, but that's not to say it isn't without considerable merit.

Nick

[GreNME]

But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
It has nothing to do with the price of tea, try the price of oil - sitting at $100 a barrell now as we reach "peak oil" and set sky rocket in the coming years as the general public start to realise that the end of cheap oil is upon us and we have nothing better to move on to. Bearing this in mind, and bearing in mind that since 9/11 the US has successfully been able to invade Iraq and Afganistan, topple their leaders (who were admittedly not the nicest people in the world, though it didn't stop USA dealing with them, and, in the case of the Taliban, creating them), and make significant progress in securing the oil reserves and gas pipelines that are going to be paramount to any empire in the future, it makes perfect sense that a administration with an appaling moral compass would sacrafice 3,000 of it's own people to do this. It has been done before, just never on this scale. I don't know the whole story - I'm sure there are only a handful of people who do -but I believe that at the very least the US government was complicit with the events on 9/11


I don't think you really understand the concept of peak oil, hence your misuse of scare quotes when referencing it.
I don't know if you have realised it-- in fact I'm of the opinion that you haven't-- but the US isn't the one that stands to profit big with the Afghan pipeline. Since you haven't yet figured out who it is, I'm going to let you stew over it and suggest you try out this little thing I call Critical Thinking.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the price of oil or any commodity tends to go up, not down. There are brief dips in prices that are mostly due to seasonal factors, but the price curve is always upward. Using the price of oil as "proof" is, at best, not indicative of anything (and, at worst, indicative of a poor understanding of economics).
The US government didn't create the Taliban, and the Taliban is not al Qaeda. The fact that you seem to keep mixing important distinctions like this up gives me the impression that you are more emotionally invested in the line of reasoning you are using than intellectually invested. While I can sympathize with your outrage to a degree, appealing to my emotion is not going to convince me intellectually.
Most importantly, none of what you are talking about has evidentiary bearing on the case of the operation conducted by a group of individuals, who were funded by and trained by al Qaeda, to use airliners as missiles to attack targets in the United States on September 11th of 2001. This isn't to say that some of what you are talking about might have differing degrees of relationship to groups connected with the event, but that "connected to" includes "affected by" or "opposed to" just as much as it means "complicit with."



So, unless you can distinguish what kinds of connections you are attempting to trace I will continue to hold the opinion that you are not aware of the facts and are instead promoting your judgment on the grounds of an emotional appeal. Once again, while I can sympathize with your outrage neither my sympathy nor your emotional appeal is in any way convincing me, nor is it actually drawing any kind of factual complicit connection between the United States government and the al Qaeda attack on 9/11.

Ya dig?

[regan69]

What does any of that have to do with Zeitgeist? If you want to talk about something else, start another thread.
I was asked what the present day activities of the US govt has to do with 9/11...

[regan69]

Oh goody, are you the one who has all the evidence 9/11 truth has been alluding to?
Obviously not. Otherwise George would be impeached and I would be assassinated :)

[cisco]

Obviously not. Otherwise George would be impeached and I would be assassinated :)

Since George is still in officer and no troother has been assassinated, can we conclude that no one has any evidence of a 9/11 inside job?

[regan69]

I don't think you really understand the concept of peak oil, hence your misuse of scare quotes when referencing it.
I don't know if you have realised it-- in fact I'm of the opinion that you haven't-- but the US isn't the one that stands to profit big with the Afghan pipeline. Since you haven't yet figured out who it is, I'm going to let you stew over it and suggest you try out this little thing I call Critical Thinking.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the price of oil or any commodity tends to go up, not down. There are brief dips in prices that are mostly due to seasonal factors, but the price curve is always upward. Using the price of oil as "proof" is, at best, not indicative of anything (and, at worst, indicative of a poor understanding of economics).
The US government didn't create the Taliban, and the Taliban is not al Qaeda. The fact that you seem to keep mixing important distinctions like this up gives me the impression that you are more emotionally invested in the line of reasoning you are using than intellectually invested. While I can sympathize with your outrage to a degree, appealing to my emotion is not going to convince me intellectually.
Most importantly, none of what you are talking about has evidentiary bearing on the case of the operation conducted by a group of individuals, who were funded by and trained by al Qaeda, to use airliners as missiles to attack targets in the United States on September 11th of 2001. This isn't to say that some of what you are talking about might have differing degrees of relationship to groups connected with the event, but that "connected to" includes "affected by" or "opposed to" just as much as it means "complicit with."



So, unless you can distinguish what kinds of connections you are attempting to trace I will continue to hold the opinion that you are not aware of the facts and are instead promoting your judgment on the grounds of an emotional appeal. Once again, while I can sympathize with your outrage neither my sympathy nor your emotional appeal is in any way convincing me, nor is it actually drawing any kind of factual complicit connection between the United States government and the al Qaeda attack on 9/11.

Ya dig?
1) I am fully aware of the implications of "peak oil", which makes the US govts actions all the more easy to understand. I'll spell it out for you; there is a limited number of gas and oil left in this world, our demand is ever increasing and our supply is dwindling to the point where we are peaking. The future of all countries, especially economic empires, will depend on their access to oil and gas. As #1 consumer of oil and gas is the USA, which is why the government is doing everything they can to secure these resources. Peak oil will hit everyone hard and eventually change our world works but in the coming frenzy a desperate grab for resources will occur. It has clearly begun.
2) What are you talking about? If the pipelines go though the Caspian then the west win. If the west wins then the biggest winner in the west is the USA. If they bypass the caspian and go the Russian friendly way then Russia wins (either way Afganistan loses). I can't see how you think the US won't profit big from this and who you think will????
3) Look at the price of oil since it was discovered. In paying particular attention to that last 10 or so years you will see that it was sitting at about $20 (US) a barrell. It is now $100 a barrell. That is an increase of 500%. Please can you name me another commodity that is used as much as oil on the world market that has risen like this? I'd be very interested to know...
4) The US didn't create "the Taliban" or "Al Qaeda", but for many years (before the Soviets invaded) they funded the extrimist Mujaheedin in an effort to knock over the democratically elected secular government of Afganistan in order to replace them with people who they could do business with. They funded billions into the Mujaheedin and from that came the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
5) It all relates, and it's all to do with our dwindling energy supplies and the need to stay dominant.

I know it is easier to think of the Bush administration as a bunch stupid and bumbling warmongers, but in light of all everything that has happended, and is happening, it is naive and foolish to do so.

[regan69]

Since George is still in officer and no troother has been assassinated, can we conclude that no one has any evidence of a 9/11 inside job?
Yes you can conclude that no one has SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. You can also conclude that the world mainstream media is gagged to the point of disbelief and that people like you are frightened to entertain the point and connect the dots for even a minute.

[beachnut]

pdoh would say as much

wrong forum, this is CT, not political rant forum

[beachnut]

3) Look at the price of oil since it was discovered. In paying particular attention to that last 10 or so years you will see that it was sitting at about $20 (US) a barrell. It is now $100 a barrell. That is an increase of 500%. Please can you name me another commodity that is used as much as oil on the world market that has risen like this? I'd be very interested to know...
GE stock from 1989 to late 1990 and later rose 6 times. Vote for Clinton, it will happen again? Buy stock. lol

In 1969 I made 80 cents an hours, gas was as high as 25 to 35 cents a gallon, my car got 15 to 20 mpg. Now if I was 16, I could start making 6 dollars an hour doing the same darn job, but the owner now will not let me eat anything we make at break!!! I now can buy gas at 335 cents a gallon and my car gets 30 to 40 mpg. My cost per mile is now lower! OOPS, what is going on!!!

CT time,,, lol

[Drudgewire]

Yes you can conclude that no one has SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. You can also conclude that the world mainstream media is gagged to the point of disbelief and that people like you are frightened to entertain the point and connect the dots for even a minute.
Sorry, reformed CT'er. I connected the dots for years, then finally realized I was connecting dots that are unconnectable except when I'm buried in paranoia (and taking speed like a dumbass) and making myself look really stupid in the process.

Fear is being afraid to face reality, and manufacturing this fantasy world where shadowy figures have kept you down so you haven't become a multi-zillionaire by the age of 20 like you grew up believing you would. And rather than accept you're not anywhere as special as you always told yourself you are, you blame phantoms... and convince yourself that everyone else are sheep who are under the thumb of these phantoms so they don't fight back.

Being that I was into all that rot before the Internet I have somewhat of an excuse, but looking back I wish every single day someone would have slapped me with a dose of reality and said "stop being so stupid and take a minute to realize how impossible this garbage you're wrapped up in really is."

Please don't rob yourself of the years that I did. Grow up.

[ElMondoHummus]

... (and taking speed like a dumbass)

Is there any other way to take speed?

I'm just sayin'...

;)

[Drudgewire]

Is there any other way to take speed?

I'm just sayin'...

;)
No there isn't. But it's hard to convince yourself it doesn't make you smarter and a better all around person when you're chopping up your second set of lines of the morning. :o

[GreNME]

1) I am fully aware of the implications of "peak oil", which makes the US govts actions all the more easy to understand. I'll spell it out for you; there is a limited number of gas and oil left in this world, our demand is ever increasing and our supply is dwindling to the point where we are peaking. The future of all countries, especially economic empires, will depend on their access to oil and gas. As #1 consumer of oil and gas is the USA, which is why the government is doing everything they can to secure these resources. Peak oil will hit everyone hard and eventually change our world works but in the coming frenzy a desperate grab for resources will occur. It has clearly begun.

If that is your explanation of what you think Peak Oil is, then you're a bit off. That could explain the cascading off-ness of your other theories, though.

2) What are you talking about? If the pipelines go though the Caspian then the west win. If the west wins then the biggest winner in the west is the USA. If they bypass the caspian and go the Russian friendly way then Russia wins (either way Afganistan loses). I can't see how you think the US won't profit big from this and who you think will????

If you're not willing to do the homework yourself and you are so convinced you've done all the learning necessary to understand, then there's not really much that's going to help you. I never said the US wouldn't get a big payout, but the US is not "the west" and you still don't seem to understand the implications behind who stands to make out the best with the Afghani pipeline.

3) Look at the price of oil since it was discovered. In paying particular attention to that last 10 or so years you will see that it was sitting at about $20 (US) a barrell. It is now $100 a barrell. That is an increase of 500%. Please can you name me another commodity that is used as much as oil on the world market that has risen like this? I'd be very interested to know...

Haha. You apprently haven't been keeping up with aluminum in the US. It's been shooting up and down like crazy in the past ten years.

You're heavy on the hyperbole and light on fact. Here, have a look (http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp) at a historical chart of prices for crude, adjusted for inflation going up to 2007. You don't even get the prices right, relying instead on your emotional appeals, which kind of hampers the effectiveness of your argument. The fact that you apparently don't realize how many commodities over the past few decades have seen sharp increases and decreases severely hampers the effectiveness of your argument.

4) The US didn't create "the Taliban" or "Al Qaeda", but for many years (before the Soviets invaded) they funded the extrimist Mujaheedin in an effort to knock over the democratically elected secular government of Afganistan in order to replace them with people who they could do business with. They funded billions into the Mujaheedin and from that came the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Billions, huh? Can you quantify that? Sorry, but you're going to need to give some quantification for a number like that. I am aware, however, that tens of millions were given to some mujahadi groups-- I realize you may not be aware of this, but there wasn't a single monolithic "Mujahadeen" that existed in Afghanistan, and the name "mujahadeen" is more of a title ("freedom fighter" or "fighter for what is right") than it was the name of an organization. Care to share your numbers with us? I know where I got my numbers, but if you have other sources I'd be happy to see them.

5) It all relates, and it's all to do with our dwindling energy supplies and the need to stay dominant.

That's a poor reasoning to come to such a far-fetched conclusion. Once again, I believe this has to do with a very superficial and un-nuanced understanding of what Peak Oil actually is and how long it has actually been an issue. Furthermore, if you really believe that oil and oil prices are at the core of everything then you should by all rights be saying that the OPEC countries are the ones culpable, because it's OPEC that sets the price by controlling the supply in contrast to the amount of demand. Oddly, I see very little damning rhetoric coming from you toward the OPEC cartel.

I know it is easier to think of the Bush administration as a bunch stupid and bumbling warmongers, but in light of all everything that has happended, and is happening, it is naive and foolish to do so.

Why do you keep doing this false dichotomy stuff and shooting yourself in the foot? No one is arguing that the Keystone Cops are running the government. Instead, what is being pointed out is that individuals with piss-poor leadership skills and no real ability to plan past a few years are most likely in office, and that their behavior before, during, and after 9/11 is indicative of such poor leadership skills.

What's confounding is that many of us here don't want the current group in office to have power any more than you might, but you're perfectly willing to lump each and every one of us who don't buy the web of paranoia that you've weaved in with that group anyway. You're not even making a reasonable accusation against anyone, not providing actual cogent and clear descriptions of what you're raging against, but you treat corrections to your factual deficiencies with vitriol and accusations of complicity. All you are accomplishing by doing this is creating a feedback loop where you never have to re-evaluate yourself because you're not under any obligation to examine opposing arguments in the first place.

[cisco]

Yes you can conclude that no one has SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. You can also conclude that the world mainstream media is gagged to the point of disbelief and that people like you are frightened to entertain the point and connect the dots for even a minute.
Isn't that a pretty dire accusation to make without sufficient evidence?

ETA: By the way, I'm far from intellectually frightened by anything. My hate for the Bush administration was so fierce and unbridled at the time I heard the conspiracy theories that I desperately wanted to believe them. They failed to hold up under critical analysis, however - just like my belief in Jesus, out-of-body experiences, and Santa Claus - so I dropped them.

[Slayhamlet]

Wait, which democratically elected government were the Mujahideen trying to overthrow? And how long before the Soviet Invasion was the U.S. funding the Mujahideen? And which lucrative business interests precipitated U.S. involvement, as opposed to, say, Cold War maneuvering?

Yeah, you sound real informed. :rolleyes:

[thesyntaxera]

Wait, which democratically elected government were the Mujahideen trying to overthrow? And how long before the Soviet Invasion was the U.S. funding the Mujahideen? And which lucrative business interests precipitated U.S. involvement, as opposed to, say, Cold War maneuvering?

Yeah, you sound real informed. :rolleyes:

Speaking of mujahadeen...you ever see rambo pt 2?

[NVfrenchy]

I watched the movie. From the very beginning I thought it I had seen/read something just like it before. The movie 1984 and the propaganda film people were forced to watch (I think it was called Two Minutes of Hate or something like that) seemed strikingly similar to this whole film. The quotes, the music, the narration, extremely similar to the the Big Brother and the "Ministry of Truth" in the 1984. I haven't watched or even thought about the book or movie in years but this seemed to bring up that memory. In other words, I thought the film was more interested in promoting itself than proving the ideas contained within. The ideas in the film, whether truthful or not, seem more like propaganda than proof of the ideas presented.

[GreNME]

I watched the movie. From the very beginning I thought it I had seen/read something just like it before. The movie 1984 and the propaganda film people were forced to watch (I think it was called Two Minutes of Hate or something like that) seemed strikingly similar to this whole film. The quotes, the music, the narration, extremely similar to the the Big Brother and the "Ministry of Truth" in the 1984. I haven't watched or even thought about the book or movie in years but this seemed to bring up that memory. In other words, I thought the film was more interested in promoting itself than proving the ideas contained within. The ideas in the film, whether truthful or not, seem more like propaganda than proof of the ideas presented.

That's an interesting (and ironic) observation, and I concur with it. The formatting definitely comes across strong with the propaganda, flashing sequences by with over-dubbed exposition so quickly (as if to keep the viewer from giving any extended scrutiny to the parts).

[Nick227]

That's an interesting (and ironic) observation, and I concur with it. The formatting definitely comes across strong with the propaganda, flashing sequences by with over-dubbed exposition so quickly (as if to keep the viewer from giving any extended scrutiny to the parts).

It's a propaganda movie, no doubt about it to me. A highly effective one too. Peter should get an award for being able to construct such a convincing movie from so little evidence and for so little money. Google video doesn't seem to count views anymore but Zeitgeist must be near 10 million by now. It's quite a phenomenon.

Nick

[cisco]

It's a propaganda movie, no doubt about it to me. A highly effective one too. Peter should get an award for being able to construct such a convincing movie from so little evidence and for so little money. Google video doesn't seem to count views anymore but Zeitgeist must be near 10 million by now. It's quite a phenomenon.

Nick
Nick, this is your response to posts 1280 and 1282. I knew if I waited long enough you'd provide the answer yourself :).

[Nick227]

Nick, this is your response to posts 1280 and 1282. I knew if I waited long enough you'd provide the answer yourself :).

Why did I know you were going to write that! But, if you read more of what I wrote before, I point out that in many of these things we anyway don't know. There's little evidence either way. You think I agree that lying is a good way to change things? I don't. I'm sure Peter Joseph doesn't believe he's lying either.

Like I said, we all argue away about the roots of Christianity, but actually no one knows if Jesus even lived or not! Kind of puts the whole thing into perspective. We don't know. We construct little stories from the fragments of antiquity, and if we keep real hard focused can convince ourselves our story is really the truth. But, actually, just looking at one of the central questions in Western religion brings us back to earth. We actually haven't really got much clue.

We don't know where Christianity really came from. We don't know if it developed from Ancient Egypt or not. A lot of it does symbolically resemble other major mythoi but we don't know if it has a specific ancestry.

Nick

[JonathanClement]

Okay, so, I have this Paul-Tard on my youtube channel and here is some stuff he said... If you would be so kind, please try to debunk it for me.

"It hasn't been successfully refuted at all and if you listen to our university scholars you know many are unable to travel, finding their names on the Terrorist Watch List.

Please read the publications of those who supported 9/11; essays by CFR members and PNAC.

You may also want to research House Resolution 1955 as it will prevent you and I from discussing these matters for much longer.

Benito Musolini invented the term 'Sleeper Cell' and Hitler coined the phrase 'Homeland Terrorism'."

So, that's what he said. How do I debunk it?

[thesyntaxera]

Okay, so, I have this Paul-Tard on my youtube channel and here is some stuff he said... If you would be so kind, please try to debunk it for me.

"It hasn't been successfully refuted at all and if you listen to our university scholars you know many are unable to travel, finding their names on the Terrorist Watch List.

Please read the publications of those who supported 9/11; essays by CFR members and PNAC.

You may also want to research House Resolution 1955 as it will prevent you and I from discussing these matters for much longer.

Benito Musolini invented the term 'Sleeper Cell' and Hitler coined the phrase 'Homeland Terrorism'."

So, that's what he said. How do I debunk it?

Well...common sense is a good place to start. The 9/11 fare has been thoroughly debated and sufficiently debunked for most people in other threads here. I would suggest reading them if you are interested in knowing all those ins and outs. Regarding the first part of ZG which is what this thread covers mostly, the facts we know are plain. As has been pointed out in this thread none of the claims made in the video actually have any source document support. It is all speculation based on outdated information.

Ages ago, it was hypothesized that there was an egyptian link to chrisitianity. After much refining of the research no provable links were found...so the idea remains unfounded speculation. Then contemporary authors latched onto the idea in order to publish some books, and those to the best of my knowledge don't actually prove anything either, they are just poorly researched regurgitations of previous notions with some sprinkles added to make it look appealing.

Now we have the present, and this video. It is a amalgamation of those poorly researched and regurgitated claims into one streamlined 25 minute segment that isn't any more factual than all of the previous incarnations...no matter how much substantiation is provided..it all has fallen short due to an incredible lack of evidence.

[JonathanClement]

So, what is HR1955? And what's that about people finding their names on terrorist watch-lists?

[Blender Head]

So, what is HR1955? And what's that about people finding their names on terrorist watch-lists?

He's probably referencing the "Homegrown Terrorism and Prevention Act". As well as the fact that during a congressional hearing this year regarding HR1955 someone from the Simon Wiesenthal Center had a powerpoint presentation where AE911Truth was featured as a potentional provactuer for violent riots. I could be wrong though.

[GreNME]

"It hasn't been successfully refuted at all and if you listen to our university scholars you know many are unable to travel, finding their names on the Terrorist Watch List.


That's misdirection. "Hasn't been successfully refuted" is baloney, because it hasn't been successfully proven to begin with. It's like trying to disprove someone's religious faith-- can't be done because it deals with intangibles based explicitly on subjective opinion. This is a huge problem with all three parts of the film: the esoteric beginning, the suggestive and mostly disproven middle, and the incredibly erroneous ending that shows just how bad a little bit of knowledge can be when it's not supported with fundementals (of economics). All three are wrapped into this semi-esoteric, mostly conspiracy-theory package and presented in a way meant to overwhelm with excessive errors and move too quickly from one subject to another to be submitted to lengthy scrutiny.

Please read the publications of those who supported 9/11; essays by CFR members and PNAC.

Well, that statement is easy, because ostensibly the only individuals we know who "supported 9/11" would be Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, possibly also the Taliban (though that's mostly speculation as well). Of course, the person making this claim isn't talking about them, this person is talking in a manner that already assumes something is proven before bothering to scrutinize evidence. Tautology 101.

You may also want to research House Resolution 1955 as it will prevent you and I from discussing these matters for much longer.

Read the resolution yourself (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01955:). It hasn't even come up in the Senate status (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955), which means it hasn't yet seen substantial revision at this point (yet). Still, I'm not seeing what the basic claim is supposed to be about it.

Benito Musolini invented the term 'Sleeper Cell' and Hitler coined the phrase 'Homeland Terrorism'."

Right, and Grandpa Simpson invented the question mark. By the way, the claim as I've heard it was that Hitler invented the phrase 'Homeland Security' not terrorism. Still not correct, though.

So, that's what he said. How do I debunk it?

What's to debunk? This is typical fare, a bunch of claims with predetermined assumptions, very few (if any) having any substantial fact-based information from which to work in the first place. He may as well be arguing in some of those talking points that the sky is actually orange and that the Moon is made of Silly Putty.

[Nick227]

Ages ago, it was hypothesized that there was an egyptian link to chrisitianity. After much refining of the research no provable links were found...so the idea remains unfounded speculation. Then contemporary authors latched onto the idea in order to publish some books, and those to the best of my knowledge don't actually prove anything either, they are just poorly researched regurgitations of previous notions with some sprinkles added to make it look appealing.

Now we have the present, and this video. It is a amalgamation of those poorly researched and regurgitated claims into one streamlined 25 minute segment that isn't any more factual than all of the previous incarnations...no matter how much substantiation is provided..it all has fallen short due to an incredible lack of evidence.

At some point you have to also deal with what you believe would constitute a "provable link." This is not hard science. This is trying to link together events from millenia ago about which there is very little record.

One of the main issues to my mind is that normal means of testing fail rather dramatically and can thus be claimed by either side to constitute evidence.

I studied Qabalah for a number of years and imo there is a lot of symbolic depth to much of the Bible. Regardless of whether this points to Egyptian origin, the problem to me is, how do you test symbology? Because to me this is the crux of the deal. Take for example...Anubis (Egyptian) - Hermanubis (Graeco-Egyptian) - John the Baptist (Greek Christian). How do you realistically test if there is a significant degree of symbolic parity?

Nick

[GreNME]

The easy answer, Nick, is that you really can't. After all, we're dealing with at least one dead culture from which we've only been able to learn a few cultural references as of this past century. The same could also apply to the Hellenistic culture, but we have at least some reference to that within the Roman culture that followed and even in part some Greek culture today (not exactly the same, but a traceable path, unlike the Egyptians). It's obvious that in the century or two surrounding the change into the Common Era saw quite a bit of action, only some of which was recorded for posterity and most of what was recorded was significantly important for the world at the time. There were several groups of Christians that came into being during this period, some of which were only superficially connected with what could be considered the "core" as we know today (the direct followers of Paul and Peter), and some of those various groups are usually conflated as being representative of the religion we know today as Christianity, though any significant similarities are practically nil.

[Nick227]

The easy answer, Nick, is that you really can't. After all, we're dealing with at least one dead culture from which we've only been able to learn a few cultural references as of this past century. The same could also apply to the Hellenistic culture, but we have at least some reference to that within the Roman culture that followed and even in part some Greek culture today (not exactly the same, but a traceable path, unlike the Egyptians). It's obvious that in the century or two surrounding the change into the Common Era saw quite a bit of action, only some of which was recorded for posterity and most of what was recorded was significantly important for the world at the time. There were several groups of Christians that came into being during this period, some of which were only superficially connected with what could be considered the "core" as we know today (the direct followers of Paul and Peter), and some of those various groups are usually conflated as being representative of the religion we know today as Christianity, though any significant similarities are practically nil.

On the surface that is true. But at some point it may be possible to measure changes in human response as certain symbols are presented to the viewer, and create useful data. There are, imo, archetypes. We have an unconscious mind. There is a recognition at an unconscious level which could be measured. IMO it's this factor that causes the persistence of certain mythological strands in the human psyche. They represent the fulfilment of unconscious human needs.

Nick

[JonathanClement]

Okay, so now I have a nut telling me about Alex Jones being the one who "Exposed bohemian grove". Does anybody have a rebuttal for this?

[GreNME]

Okay, so now I have a nut telling me about Alex Jones being the one who "Exposed bohemian grove". Does anybody have a rebuttal for this?

That probably deserves its own thread, but the only "exposure" he did was shoot grainy video of a play at night and called it a secret ritual.

[JonathanClement]

Did you actually see it? I know I seem annoying, but I really want to recover from the trauma that I experienced from that horrendous piece of garbage.

[gc051360]

So, what is HR1955? And what's that about people finding their names on terrorist watch-lists?

My dad got stopped on the airport because he was on some list. Sometimes names get confused, things get mixed up etc.

Okay, so now I have a nut telling me about Alex Jones being the one who "Exposed bohemian grove". Does anybody have a rebuttal for this?
You don't need any kind of rebuttal. Ask him to show you proof of this, if what he produces is not sufficient proof, inform him of that.

I sometimes wonder if Alex Jones buys into the things he says....

[GreNME]

Did you actually see it? I know I seem annoying, but I really want to recover from the trauma that I experienced from that horrendous piece of garbage.

I've seen YouTube clips of AJ's version of events, and I've also seen news clips going as far back as the 1980's (also on YouTube) of reporters inquiring about the Grove. From all of the information I've seen on it, the whole "Bohemian Grove" thing sounds a whole lot like an exclusive country club type of situation where the attendees-- usually rich and some politically notable figures-- get to sit around, drink beer, and behave however they want without fear of some whackjob trying to get a soundbyte off them. They also invite Hollywood types with the expectation of "unofficial" and official entertainment (some are booked, some just invited to hang out). It's probably as close to an actual camping trip that many of them will ever probably have, and there's probably a fair amount of them that behave like bumbling idiots while they're there, getting it all out of their system before having to squeeze back into a suit and tie.

I'm suspect of conspiracy theories from people like Jones who try to paint some ridiculous 'satanic' or 'occult' picture, invoking a liberal dose of homophobia, and waving his American flag with a Christian fundementalist one thinly veiled underneath. It just sounds like poorly hidden hate speech to me, mainly because I don't care if they're gay, I don't care if they're not bible-thumping Christian fundementalists, and I honestly don't care if they get together, drink beer, and perform a bukakke ritual on an owl statue (please don't quote me on that CT-ists, it's a joke) while they go hang out in the gated campsite. None of that means anything regarding illegal behavior, corruption, or unethical practices in business or politics, so whatever B-movie scenario Jones is trying to portray with his ranting about the occult, homosexuality, or a stupid play that's videotaped from a distance with crappy video quality and a barely-high-school-graduate trying to make up all sorts of possible explanations for what it might mean doing voice-overs, none of it has any bearing on reality and none of it supports any of the other outrageous claims he makes from the comfort of his own little middle-class home in Austin, Texas, United States of America.

When Alex Jones tries to "expose" political corruption by making trips to Mexico, Guatemala, Niger, Somalia, and similar places and showing us some real atrocities, then maybe I'll be apt to listen. Heck, he could even just visit some of the worse neighborhoods of the bigger cities in the US to find evidences of corruption and how it's hurting people. But he won't, because that's too much work and way too much of a health risk. When he goes to New York, he's attention-whoring in Times Square, not walking around in the middle of Harlem or over in Brooklyn near the waterfront. I don't see him stomping around in east Philly or in downtown Camden (NJ) with his 9/11 crowd. I'm fairly certain the only view he's had of most of Newark, several miles in Detroit, much of Baltimore outside of the Inner Harbor, or any of the low-cost residential areas of DC have been through the safety of an automobile window with the doors locked and the driver only stopping where they have to.

In other words, I'm not sure why you even bother letting it get you so worked up. He only barely hides his racism behind a conspiracy theory veneer, and he's a coward when it comes to doing anything that actually confronts actual realistic and possibly dangerous environments where there are people actually suffering. Most of the crap he shouts out is similar to the Zeitgeist approach: throw as many wild allegations out there as possible and see what sticks; if anything seems to stick, ride that momentum for as long as possible; rinse, repeat.

[thesyntaxera]

At some point you have to also deal with what you believe would constitute a "provable link." This is not hard science. This is trying to link together events from millenia ago about which there is very little record.

Exactly. So, what justification can there be for a person or group of people to pretend that they do in fact know the "facts" of the matter? The whole idea seems a bit dishonest. I can entertain the idea, and to some degree I still do...however, until there is some kind of smoking gun evidence it's just speculation masquerading as fact, and being presented and defended by it's proponents as such. All the speculating and pattern finding in the world isn't going to prove any thing, especially if the adherents of the idea keep maintaining a cult like facade in place of scholarship.

One of the main issues to my mind is that normal means of testing fail rather dramatically and can thus be claimed by either side to constitute evidence.

I don't see how both sides are claiming evidence. On one hand you have a group that points to all of these correlating idea's that aren't linkable with any source documents, and calls them facts. On the other side, you have people that are merely pointing out there is is no evidence to suggest such linkages, and that to do so is not being very honest or accurate.


I studied Qabalah for a number of years and imo there is a lot of symbolic depth to much of the Bible. Regardless of whether this points to Egyptian origin, the problem to me is, how do you test symbology? Because to me this is the crux of the deal. Take for example...Anubis (Egyptian) - Hermanubis (Graeco-Egyptian) - John the Baptist (Greek Christian). How do you realistically test if there is a significant degree of symbolic parity?

I don't think you can. Symbolic correlations in this case seem to be entirely subjective observations, which is yet another point of contention. Sure people see things linking together, but it is a logical leap to say that they are without anything to back up the claim.

[Nick227]

Exactly. So, what justification can there be for a person or group of people to pretend that they do in fact know the "facts" of the matter? The whole idea seems a bit dishonest. I can entertain the idea, and to some degree I still do...however, until there is some kind of smoking gun evidence it's just speculation masquerading as fact, and being presented and defended by it's proponents as such. All the speculating and pattern finding in the world isn't going to prove any thing, especially if the adherents of the idea keep maintaining a cult like facade in place of scholarship.

To me it's that the whole area is so enveloped in relative darkness that, frankly, most objective forms of study are pretty feeble anyway. Why not just start blasting some energy into this whole area the way Peter Joseph & Co are? It's all getting opened up. Those who are locked totally into the objective world of academic research will raise their hands in horror and bleat about this that and the other...but actually who cares? Actually pretty much no one.

I did a lot of work with encounter group therapy and you learn to put your judgments out. In academia it's all very thought out and reasoned and this is fine for some applications, but imo often you just need a forum to put judgments out. It moves stuff and change can happen.



I don't think you can. Symbolic correlations in this case seem to be entirely subjective observations, which is yet another point of contention. Sure people see things linking together, but it is a logical leap to say that they are without anything to back up the claim.

Well, I looked a little at one possibility a post or two later. People anyway react to the subject matter. This is being driven subconsciously anyway. Symbology is powerful.

Nick

[JonathanClement]

Okay, so, now the zeitgeist movie has a Q & A page where they answer rebuttals. Any rebuttals to those? (Go the zeitgeist movie homepage and click on "Q & A" at the bottom...

Debunking, anyone?

[thesyntaxera]

Debunking, anyone?

Already been done, and rather well I might add. There isn't a single thing in that Q&A that actually provides any evidence to support the claims...it just attacks the "debunkers" methodology, and poorly I might add.

[Axiom_Blade]

Okay, so now I have a nut telling me about Alex Jones being the one who "Exposed bohemian grove". Does anybody have a rebuttal for this?

Do a search for "Bohemian Grove". There was a really good thread about that...six months ago or so.

Somebody started talking about Jon Ronson, the British journalist that accompanied Jones into the Grove, and Jon himself showed up and posted some excerpts from his book about the experience. Great book, see if your local library has it. It's called Them: Adventures with Extremists.

[JonathanClement]

Hey, guys, the trailer for my dissection of zeitgeist is up. Watch it and tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAJnHoWo72E

[Jonnyclueless]

Hey, guys, the trailer for my dissection of zeitgeist is up. Watch it and tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAJnHoWo72E

I am not sure how I feel about you plagiarizing my thoughts. Now I have to start rethinking that government mind control or mind reading stuff.

[Darren Pollard]

Just finished watching this and it was quite an interesting film. It's always wise to keep an open mind on things, especially the way the world is changing right now!

Good film!

[Gazpacho]

Just finished watching this and it was quite an interesting film. It's always wise to keep an open mind on things, especially the way the world is changing right now!
Having an open mind comes with the responsibility of keeping it clean of excrement, such as that in the Zeitgeist film.

[JonathanClement]

Okay, I want to talk about the RFID chip now. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and apparently, there's a part about "tracking" products. What exactly is meant by track? Would anyone care to explain it in greater detail? I read the thread and this is going to be the most important detail I cover in my dissection and I want to make sure I get it right and not sound like I'm just tryng to convince everybody.

[GreNME]

Okay, I want to talk about the RFID chip now. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and apparently, there's a part about "tracking" products. What exactly is meant by track? Would anyone care to explain it in greater detail? I read the thread and this is going to be the most important detail I cover in my dissection and I want to make sure I get it right and not sound like I'm just tryng to convince everybody.

I understand that you are trying to do something positive, and that you are genuinely mean well. However, no offense to you specifically, but expecting everyone else to do the research for you and put it into summaries for free is intellectually lazy and quite honestly one of the things I find evident throughout the actual content in the Zeitgeist movie to begin with. In essence, I'm offering a friendly and constructive bit of advice to not make the same mistake the movie (and many of its sources) do.

Start with Google. Search "rfid flaws" and "rfid legislation" and "rfid hack" for a bit of information, and then see which of those refer to some of the more reputable locations or where rfid is mentioned in legislation discussions or on government sites. You could also look at some videos displaying weaknesses of RFID, like this video (http://www.oreillynet.com/etel/blog/2007/07/neat_rfid_cell_phone_hack.html), or you could do some searches for websites that are actually dedicated to disseminating information on the technical aspects (and weaknesses) of RFID-- trust me, they do exist.

After Google, see if you were able to put together a list of books mentioned, and go searching for them. Read them. Twice. Find people you know who might have technical knowledge on the subject. See what information they can give. Hell, write a letter to your state or federal representatives to ask them if they are aware of any legislation involving RFID currently.

Maybe you're not asking us to do your homework for you. However, you do seem to be asking us to provide you with summaries you can then disseminate as your own words, and I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that.

[Perikles]

Hey, I'm new here so, please allow me to introduce myself.
I'm 28 and a historian by formation. Ever since high school where I studied Latin and Greek I have been very interested in rhetorics whether in writing, image or word. I have looked into the science of manipulation as well studying psychology (I'm a teacher so during my teacher training I just read books that went beyond psychology of the adolescent) and business manuals on how to get people on your side. I've really done my best to develop a BS detector and am truly very critical.
On the other hand I also have a firm humanist/christian/social(ist, sorry I'm European it means I'm a democrat but believe in taking care of the weak) moral base that made me look at injustice in history and the world today. I also refuse to just look at websites about it. I have worked with an NGO and intend to do that more too.
Why do I tell you people all this BS about myself? Because I believe that before any statement can be made there should be an authors introduction on his perspective and the sciences it is based upon.
I watched Zeitgeist, have acquired it upon my computer, and intend on having a closer look. I am a historian and I thought the bibliography that rolls across the screen at the end to be a good starting point. I will report on the authors and the scientifical level of those works later on.
Still, right now, I would like to address the rhetorics over content attitude that made reading the posts about Zeitgeist very tedious. I am not impressed at all by slurs, "research" that usually is just clicking through to Wikipedia and comments based upon 6 minute viewings of the movie.
Now, about Zeitgeist, part by part.
I don't have a problem with the theoretical part of the first part. In fact, general studies about religion always unveil a far more symbolical truth behind the fairy tales and moral myths that make up most sacred books. The message of the movie and I find this, considering the times, one to applaud, is that all religions in one way or another worship the same god. That to me is a message that is essentially peaceful. I have looked into many religions, current ones and ancient ones and have found interesting insights in all of them. Ever since my grandfather who fought with the nazi's started preaching about how bad the jews were and how bad gays are and that all of them should die, bla bla bla, I have hated stubborn and prejudicious people who choose to stick to only one ideological perspective instead of looking around at the fantastic philosophical wealth the human race acquired throughout its history. I take empathy and compassion as a guiding principle because if you read well you will find this in all the holy books. I like the film for showing us we all in essence worship the same, I don't like the film for holding religion responsible for great crimes. Religions don't commit crimes, their followers and especially those who claim to represent the voice of God, do.
The second part about 9/11. Well, this to me was quite scary. I have always focussed on the consequences (I'm against war, period) and not on the event itself. I am sceptical about the arguments in the movie. So many false images were perceived to be real in history (Hitlers little playful jump after conquering Paris? Fabricated) and well those have been clearly debunked on this site. I don't think the administration could be responsible for the deaths of their own constituency and more importantly sponsors. Still I was scared because of the completely ludicrous way the 9/11 commission worked and the total disregard for the publics right to information by the Bush administration. Ofcourse there are conspiracy theories if you communicate in such a rediculous way.
Thirdly the whole global conspiracy theory. It is the truth that certain incidents were staged throughout history to rally public support. Hitler burned the Reichstag with this objective and had border incidents executed by his troops on the border with Poland to justify entering. Japan made a train explode to justify entering China. This is a very common thing to do for warhungry governments. But, why only the evil empires that lost the war?
It is generally accepted among historians that the Lusitania was deliberately sent into German waters, without military escort and not in a larger ammunition convoy. It is also very true that not only the US and Australia but also great Brittain knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbour.
The philosophy of FDR and Churchill was that extreme times call for extreme measures. That is also why Churchill deliberately allowed certain German bombardments to happen even though the RAF in equipment and number could've easily prevented for example the bombing of Coventry. Yes, this can be discussed, yes there will be people that disagree, but I believe cruelty in war and manipulation of the population not to be the privilege of the losers of the war.
I have the "testament" of McNamara on dvd (the fog of war 12 lessons from the life of Robert McNamara) and here he clearly states that Tonkin never happened. Something no conspirationalist would accept is that it happened by mistake. I know global politics to be more improvisation and luck than anything else and far less is based upon strategy or plan trhan any conspirationalist would ever believe. The statement that the war was prolonged on purpose, well, I doubt it. The mass bombing strategy states that a war is won by suffering a minimum of damage and dealing a maximum by air bombardment. With total control of the air the US thought it would be sufficient to keep bombing and defend South Vietnam from being invaded. The information the VC and NVA received came from top South Vietnamese officials and other spies. I saw honorary pictures for them in Hanoi a few years ago, you wouldn't need those if you were in direct contact with the US command. Ofcourse there was a prohibition to enter Laos and Cambodia, to enter would be against the agreement the US wanted to force the NV to accept in the first place. Also don't forget the fear of China and the madness of Mao. Laos and Cambodia were bombed but only when the US had given up on the treaty and China had made clear not to intervene.
So historically we're dealing with half truths and ongoing controversies about the moralitity of the decisions made. In favor of the theory of the film is that it is a fact that the US economy hugely benefitted from all three wars, this is undeniably true. Eisenhower warned in his resigning speech for the power of military industrial complex. It is a fact that the US invades countries on a regular basis throughout the post WWII period and that a large portion of the US economy benefitted from it. I believe that research should be done considering the way the transactions between arms industry and government take place. The fact that this is not done creates conspiracy theories.
Phew, I can't help it but I don't like to start in soundbites. There is more to talk about. i'm particularly interested in the side I can't know much about the federal reserve and the tax system. I don't think that the named banker families are protected by an aura of virtue and respect for the fellow man so I wouldn't be surprised if a megalomaniac as Rockefeller actually tried to get a hold on the state. Please, I'm open for correct discussion of this.
Now my conclusion so far about the movie. Truth is a very volatile thing and especially in film it is impossible to be complete, therefor every documentary is thoroughly debunkable. To me, it is a warning for the third part, a yell for a truly independent official investigation of 9/11 for the second part and a very interesting and beautiful theory about world religions for the first part.
Okay, shoot, guys. ;):D

[Dave Rogers]

It is generally accepted among historians that the Lusitania was deliberately sent into German waters, without military escort and not in a larger ammunition convoy. It is also very true that not only the US and Australia but also great Brittain knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbour.
The philosophy of FDR and Churchill was that extreme times call for extreme measures. That is also why Churchill deliberately allowed certain German bombardments to happen even though the RAF in equipment and number could've easily prevented for example the bombing of Coventry. Yes, this can be discussed, yes there will be people that disagree, but I believe cruelty in war and manipulation of the population not to be the privilege of the losers of the war.

I call BS on all of the above. The Lusitania was sunk off the west coast of Ireland, not in German waters, and there is no general acceptance among historians that any deliberate action by the British government was involved in her sinking. There is no clear evidence that the US, Australia or Great Britain knew in advance of the time and location of the planned Japanese attack, even though all three could clearly deduce that an attack was coming at some time. And the RAF was utterly inadequate in equipment and number to prevent the bombing of Coventry, largely due to Dowding's lack of belief in the possibility of effective night fighters. Even late on in the war after the Luftwaffe had invested enormous amounts of time and effort into development of ground- and air-based radar, effective weaponry and suitable tactics for night fighters, the best they could do was to inflict excessive losses on an attacking force; never did they manage to prevent a raid, or even significantly reduce the severity of one.

It seems to me that you're predisposed to accept the conspiracist view of events far too uncritically. If you're the historian you say you are, research these topics with an open mind, and you'll very quickly find out that none of these suppositions have any merit at all. Yes, the winners and the "good" side can be just as ruthless as the losers, but what you're doing here is outright demonisation, and the evidence doesn't support any of it.

Dave

[Nick227]

Okay, I want to talk about the RFID chip now. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and apparently, there's a part about "tracking" products. What exactly is meant by track? Would anyone care to explain it in greater detail? I read the thread and this is going to be the most important detail I cover in my dissection and I want to make sure I get it right and not sound like I'm just tryng to convince everybody.

I put some comments in before here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3492784#post3492784)

Nick

[Perikles]

I call BS on all of the above. The Lusitania was sunk off the west coast of Ireland, not in German waters, and there is no general acceptance among historians that any deliberate action by the British government was involved in her sinking. There is no clear evidence that the US, Australia or Great Britain knew in advance of the time and location of the planned Japanese attack, even though all three could clearly deduce that an attack was coming at some time. And the RAF was utterly inadequate in equipment and number to prevent the bombing of Coventry, largely due to Dowding's lack of belief in the possibility of effective night fighters. Even late on in the war after the Luftwaffe had invested enormous amounts of time and effort into development of ground- and air-based radar, effective weaponry and suitable tactics for night fighters, the best they could do was to inflict excessive losses on an attacking force; never did they manage to prevent a raid, or even significantly reduce the severity of one.

It seems to me that you're predisposed to accept the conspiracist view of events far too uncritically. If you're the historian you say you are, research these topics with an open mind, and you'll very quickly find out that none of these suppositions have any merit at all. Yes, the winners and the "good" side can be just as ruthless as the losers, but what you're doing here is outright demonisation, and the evidence doesn't support any of it.

Dave

Dear Dave,
there are definetely historians supporting your point of view. Still you have to accept that history rewrites itself constantly. Part of this comes from undisclosed archives and late testimonies. I know the points I made there are controversial, but they are not generally regarded as impossible. Furthermore by German waters I meant waters where the U boats were thought to be (excuse my English). Even you can't deny that when the Lusitania set off the governments received several warnings from the German government that they would target civil vessels because they found out about those being used for ammunition transports. The civilians on the Lusitania were put in a very dangerous situation, like I said it could've just been a mistake.
What you say about the RAF I totally don't agree with. If it was that impossible to stop a German air raid why did it take so long for one of the allied bomber squads to complete it's tour of duty? What you're telling me is that the Germans could make B-52's rain from the sky and the allied forces could barely touch the German bombers? Actually you're proving my point too in saying Dowding didn't believe in night fighters, why is that? Because he wanted to protect his country from a severe attack? Dowding throughout the whole war took in my opinion very strange decisions and could because he only had to rapport to Churchill. And how about Enigma? The German code was broken very early on in the war but bombardments took place just to convince the Germans they hadn't cracked the code.
I'm not talking about preventing a raid I'm talking about inflicting excessive damage to the bombing squads. This did not happen in Coventry. Don't put words in my mouth.
Now please check the sources you base your claim on, they all come from the winning side.
Now about your rhetorics, kiddo. It is not because you can easily find a conflicting historical theory based upon the assumption that you have to prove everything and everyone wrong on this side to feel good about yourself (next time you try to criticise someone attack from a psychology point of view, it's highly effective because it can't be proved) that it is the correct one. The explanation you defend is well over fifty years old and does not take in account that the archives of Dowding and Churchill have only been released slowly throughout the seventies.
Second, every historian in making up a theory will make assumptions or select information. To pick two assumptions and claiming everything is wrong because these assumptions aren't generally accepted is dumb. I totally stand with what I wrote on the Vietnam war, but I didn't really hear you talk about that. Ofcourse I can't copy every book with every theory on a war into this post. Sensible debate is adding little by little different points of view and pieces of information based upon sources. Claiming there is proof isn't proving.
I'm not inclined to accept conspiracy theories, why the hell do you think I'm here, dumbass.
Demonisation? Moi? You're the one demonising me. The slur towards me being a bad historian is just a rhetorical trick. I've focussed upon the sources the movie is based upon. I've taken a detached point of view towards both parties: debunkers and conspirationalist views and guess what I found out? You both use exactly the same style of arguments, exactly the same tricks and are both so one minded that both can't accept any other opinion. When I offered the conspirationalists a text saying I didn't believe them containing some points that I knew were controversial in history debates, they did exactly the same. They blurted out their choice of "facts" without any mentioning where they came from. Called it "proof" and drew the ludicrous conclusion that everything I wrote was wrong because two dates were not correct. Ofcourse they demonised me as being a blind misguided government slave just as you demonise me as being a bad historian and a conspirationalist. That actually was my objective. You're like fascists and communists totally opposed in theory exactly equal in dogmatism.
I've been around to long to just accept your attempt at countering the perfectly legit question "why would cruelty in war be the privilege of the losing party only?"

[Dave Rogers]

Let's look at what you said, then at what you subsequently claimed you said.

It is generally accepted among historians that the Lusitania was deliberately sent into German waters, without military escort and not in a larger ammunition convoy.


there are definetely historians supporting your point of view. Still you have to accept that history rewrites itself constantly. Part of this comes from undisclosed archives and late testimonies. I know the points I made there are controversial, but they are not generally regarded as impossible. Furthermore by German waters I meant waters where the U boats were thought to be (excuse my English). Even you can't deny that when the Lusitania set off the governments received several warnings from the German government that they would target civil vessels because they found out about those being used for ammunition transports. The civilians on the Lusitania were put in a very dangerous situation, like I said it could've just been a mistake.

You said it was generally accepted among historians, now you're claiming there are historians supporting my point of view. You said it was deliberate, now you're claiming you said it could have been a mistake. You didn't.

That is also why Churchill deliberately allowed certain German bombardments to happen even though the RAF in equipment and number could've easily prevented for example the bombing of Coventry.

I'm not talking about preventing a raid I'm talking about inflicting excessive damage to the bombing squads. This did not happen in Coventry. Don't put words in my mouth.

As you can see, I didn't put any words in your mouth. Some might call you a liar here.

What you say about the RAF I totally don't agree with. If it was that impossible to stop a German air raid why did it take so long for one of the allied bomber squads to complete it's tour of duty? What you're telling me is that the Germans could make B-52's rain from the sky and the allied forces could barely touch the German bombers?

And you have the audacity to ask me not to put words in your mouth? Apart from your obvious utter ignorance of WW2 history ("make B52's rain from the sky"?!) you've attributed the exact opposite of my point to me; I said that the Germans couldn't prevent a bombing raid, and you're saying I claimed they could. As for the second sentence above, it doesn't even begin to make any sense; what on earth were you trying to say?

Actually you're proving my point too in saying Dowding didn't believe in night fighters, why is that? Because he wanted to protect his country from a severe attack? Dowding throughout the whole war took in my opinion very strange decisions and could because he only had to rapport to Churchill.

One of those very strange decisions "throughout the war" was to retire in 1941. Your utter ignorance of history is showing again.

And how about Enigma? The German code was broken very early on in the war but bombardments took place just to convince the Germans they hadn't cracked the code.

At least now you're citing your conspiracy theories more accurately. Most of the time you can't even get them right.

I'm not inclined to accept conspiracy theories, why the hell do you think I'm here, dumbass.

Let me remind you there's a membership agreement. And whatever you may claim in meta-statements, your post makes it clear that you're not only inclined to accept conspiracy theories, you're also too lazy or ignorant to cite them correctly.

The slur towards me being a bad historian is just a rhetorical trick.

No, it's based on the fact that you are obviously lacking in some very basic knowledge, yet you don't seem to realise this.

I've been around to long to just accept your attempt at countering the perfectly legit question "why would cruelty in war be the privilege of the losing party only?"

And yet the one thing you're complaining most about me countering is the part of your post I agreed with. There are plenty of examples of the winning side in WW2 being ruthless, cruel and unprincipled in specific areas, and probably far more in WW1. The problem is that the ones that you've cited are obviously fallacious.

Dave

[applecorped]

From anotherjackass:
"sorry I'm European it means I'm a democrat"
______________________________________________

All Europeans are democrats?

[applecorped]

anotherjackass:

"I also refuse to just look at websites about it"

"I watched Zeitgeist, have acquired it upon my computer"
__________________________________________________ ________

How exactly did you get the movie on your computer?

[applecorped]

jackass:
"Still you have to accept that history rewrites itself constantly"


No! People with an agenda rewrite history to support their veiw.

[GreNME]

jackass:
"Still you have to accept that history rewrites itself constantly"


No! People with an agenda rewrite history to support their veiw.

This is actually not quote true. Let's take the Lusitania, for instance. The Germans claimed they sunk it because the ship had munitions (and some soldiers in transit, I think) onboard, which the British denied fervently. History marked it down initially as the Germans making things up to support their inhumane actions (killing civilians). Later, the British claim was maintained but the inhuman characterization of Germans softened and the history changed somewhat. Even later, it turned out that the British were in fact lying and that there were munitions being transported on the ship and history was corrected again-- many passenger liners were storing munitions and troop supplies below-deck to provide to the Allied military during this time, and it turned out the Lusitania was no different. I could see how the first version of the story was agenda-based, but the later corrections served to lose face for Britain and unless you are saying it was a German agenda I'm not sure I can agree with you completely.

By the way: When it was sunk, a few people (survivors or relatives of the deceased) claimed that the last-minute addition of the warning attached to the Lusitania about being in a war zone (and it was sunk in a war zone) signified to them that the sinking was deliberate, hence the earliest versions of the conspiracy theory surrounding it. The conspiracy theory originates from some of the survivors and some of the families of the deceased. Almost 100 years from the time of the event, at the very least we can use historical study to trace this conspiracy theory down to its core.

Now, I'm not sure anotherJackass is making arguments supporting conspiracy theories, and in fact is pointing out that while there can tend to be elements of history that can sometimes be viewed through a paranoid lens, the overall rhetorical presentation made by conspiracy theories (more specifically, the Zeitgeist movie) are faulty on multiple levels and are plucking more at the strings of fear and paranoia than appealing with factual or academic consistency. In essence, what anotherJackass seems to be saying is similar to what Nick has said in previous posts about the movie being almost pure propaganda, mostly unconcerned with accuracy in lieu of promoting its message(s). I'm not seeing why you guys are being so hard on anotherJackass for that, since I don't really see much to fault on that mark.

[Dave Rogers]

In essence, what anotherJackass seems to be saying is similar to what Nick has said in previous posts about the movie being almost pure propaganda, mostly unconcerned with accuracy in lieu of promoting its message(s). I'm not seeing why you guys are being so hard on anotherJackass for that, since I don't really see much to fault on that mark.

There's no "you guys" to speak of, just me. And the reason I'm being so hard on anotherJackass is that he is also mostly unconcerned with accuracy. I don't disagree with his conclusions, though he seems to believe I do, but his premises are simply lies.

And yes, there is a great deal of uncertainty about what the Lusitania was carrying, and a great deal of propaganda originated from the incident from both sides that was largely unjustified. Yes, the Lusitania was carrying munitions, and the Allies lied about it, but how exactly did a submerged German submarine verify the presence of minitions in the cargo before firing its torpedos?

What I take exception to is anotherJackass claiming that there is a general consensus among historians that the Lusitania was a deliberate sacrifice, when there is patently no such consensus. It's a lie, and a pointless one because it's so transparently false.

Dave

[applecorped]

There's a big difference between correcting the historical record and rewriting to support a veiw.

[Perikles]

Dave,
stop picking at deliberately wrong facts put there to get you angry (sorry I deserve some fun too) and face the fact that you destroy a perfectly good point just because this or that doesn't check out. Besides history does renew constantly. Derrida, Foucault? knock knock. I too could've taken out my encyclopedia and checked the facts, I didn't do it Dave, because unlike you think in your arrogant Zeus strikes down from his mountain little speech I'm more interested in the greater stories and well sorry Dave but you are just not that important that I'm gonna dedicate time after work on that. I've got other stuff to do. I've made my point it's up to others to decide what's the most important. An endless detail picking discussion (I'll gladly provide more details that aren't correctly, your ego quite clearly needs it) or talking about the fundamental question if your debunking obsession isn't just as extreme as the conspiracy crowd. With you guys it's details your obsessing about and interpreting the slightest mistake as a denouncer of what a person knows, is allowed to say and basically is worth on this world. Gee, Dave, must be great to have a brew with you. I spot an obsessive narcist from miles away. I prefer to get the facts wrong and be happy.
Applecorped, if you want to subtle and funny, be subtle and funny.
Ciao dudes, don't forget to have sex once in while too.

[Perikles]

I find a radical manipulative propaganda movie promoting: religious tolerance, correct public investigation, civil rights, a fair tax system, a better credit system, a critical guarding attitude towards politicians and other persons or institutions of power and simply, ultimately democracy incredibly fascinating.
In class it would spark a great debate and I could learn my students about hictorical critique in using the debunks of this site. The manipulations are actually so over the top in your face that it's very easy to see them.
On a far deeper level than your facts it is a film that deserves more respect than it got here. It also indicates that a certain left in American society threw journalistic accuracy overboard, but hasn't the right done that already a long time ago?
I hoped to get a nice friendly discussion going about these points instead I'm crucified about some incorrect facts. :confused:
Grenme you're alright dude:D

[applecorped]

I find a radical manipulative propaganda movie promoting: religious tolerance, correct public investigation, civil rights, a fair tax system, a better credit system, a critical guarding attitude towards politicians and other persons or institutions of power and simply, ultimately democracy incredibly fascinating.
In class it would spark a great debate and I could learn my students about hictorical critique in using the debunks of this site. The manipulations are actually so over the top in your face that it's very easy to see them.
On a far deeper level than your facts it is a film that deserves more respect than it got here. It also indicates that a certain left in American society threw journalistic accuracy overboard, but hasn't the right done that already a long time ago?
I hoped to get a nice friendly discussion going about these points instead I'm crucified about some incorrect facts. :confused:Grenme you're alright dude:D

Incorrect facts? How are facts incorrect?

[Nick227]

I find a radical manipulative propaganda movie promoting: religious tolerance, correct public investigation, civil rights, a fair tax system, a better credit system, a critical guarding attitude towards politicians and other persons or institutions of power and simply, ultimately democracy incredibly fascinating.

Hi anotherJackass,

I think you still have to deal with the issue of just basic validity. With Zeitgeist, we've looked at Part 1 pretty closely, from both a mystical and an academic angle, and it is pretty weak, to say the least. The other two parts have been pretty much done to death on other threads at JREF. Factually, there's very little in the movie which stands up imo.

OK, so the intention might have been good - positive propaganda - but if you have to BS your way to do it, does this really achieve anything? I think it more puts people off the whole conspiracy scene than anything else. You watch the movie, you think "My God!", you check it out, and you find it's mostly either made up or highly exaggerated.

Does this really achieve anything so positive? Time will tell, I guess. Personally, I do like Zeitgeist. It appeals to me, but, sensibly, there are big questions about the validity of such an approach.

Nick

[Perikles]

Incorrect facts? How are facts incorrect?

Alright, this is a very tough one.

Take for example Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). He lived in a time when everybody believed the sun revolved around the earth. This theory was based by two ancient astronomers Ptolemaeus and Aristoteles. Copernicus (1473-1543) was the first to claim the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. Galilei believed Copernicus’ version and set out to prove it by sensory perception of experiments. He developed an empirical approach to prove his point. “The sun revolves around the earth, because Aristoteles and Ptolemaus tell usso,” said Galilei: “The earth revolves around the sun, because my sensory perception tells me so.”
So he looked through Aristoteles’ writings looking for errors he could prove to be wrong. He looked for incorrect facts. He was one of the only owners of a telescope of his time and thus he looked further than Aristoteles, he mechanically extended his sensory perception and compared his perception with what Aristoteles told him. Aristoteles described planets as huge crystal balls, completely flat and perfectly equal all over the surface. Galilei could prove with his telescope that this wasn’t so. He saw and showed sun stains to people and mountain ranges on the moon. But some saw clouds, others claimed to be scammed and said there were stains on the lens. Everyone saw the same things through the same machine, but derived different facts from it.
Galilei now had to prove two other theories based upon the same empirical approach wrong to convince people. First, to the naked eye it seemed the sun revolved around the earth. The second theory was that the earth didn’t move, because if it moved you would drop a stone from a tower and the stone would land further away, but it landed exactly underneath the dropping point. This also was proven by empirical perception of an experiment so considered proven. He solved this by accepting the perception but providing a completely different interpretation of what you saw and thus changed the facts derived from it. He introduced new terms to describe what was seen: Active movement and not active movement. If everything moves at the same speed everything seems to stand still.
It shows how there is an intimate connection between facts and theory. Facts are in natural scientific terms theory charged or theory dependant. There are always facts in society that are theory charged and thus can change when a new perspective, method, theory or belief changes the meaning of facts and with that the facts.
;)

[Nick227]

Alright, this is a very tough one.

Take for example Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). He lived in a time when everybody believed the sun revolved around the earth. This theory was based by two ancient astronomers Ptolemaeus and Aristoteles. Copernicus (1473-1543) was the first to claim the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around.

Actually not. Aristarchus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos) proposed it around 300 BCE.

Nick

[Dave Rogers]

Dave,
stop picking at deliberately wrong facts put there to get you angry (sorry I deserve some fun too) and face the fact that you destroy a perfectly good point just because this or that doesn't check out. Besides history does renew constantly. Derrida, Foucault? knock knock. I too could've taken out my encyclopedia and checked the facts, I didn't do it Dave, because unlike you think in your arrogant Zeus strikes down from his mountain little speech I'm more interested in the greater stories and well sorry Dave but you are just not that important that I'm gonna dedicate time after work on that. I've got other stuff to do. I've made my point it's up to others to decide what's the most important. An endless detail picking discussion (I'll gladly provide more details that aren't correctly, your ego quite clearly needs it) or talking about the fundamental question if your debunking obsession isn't just as extreme as the conspiracy crowd. With you guys it's details your obsessing about and interpreting the slightest mistake as a denouncer of what a person knows, is allowed to say and basically is worth on this world. Gee, Dave, must be great to have a brew with you. I spot an obsessive narcist from miles away. I prefer to get the facts wrong and be happy.
Applecorped, if you want to subtle and funny, be subtle and funny.
Ciao dudes, don't forget to have sex once in while too.

If you don't want to let facts get in the way of a perfectly good uninformed opinion, far be it from me to try and change your mind. But with that attitude, don't expect to get any respect on a skeptics' discussion board.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Actually not. Aristarchus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos) proposed it around 300 BCE.

You obsesive narcist. If you make anotherJackass get his facts right, he won't be happy!

Dave

[Perikles]

Aw, Dave,
stop sulking. It looks kind of immature. Besides I already said what's the worth of psychological hypothesis, none, I just think it's very funny to use.
Still dude, your ego and your in my opinion very old school positivism/skepticism keep you from missing a lot of good points. The points wasn't that the facts were wrong but that the extreme verbal aggression used and the constant intimidating indicate that it's not about the truth. It's about you feeling smart Dave. Well Dave, stop crying because someone gave you a taste of your own rhetorical medicine, and grow up. I have no problem with correct facts just with that incredible macho arrogant way of writing predominant on this board and it took just one, just one provocative answer to make you blow your lid off and actually denounce my right to expression. If I taught my students to discuss amongst each other the wame way in class I'd have to break up fights constantly. Out here, because anonymous we dare, it's considered the way to write. All you can accuse me off is pointing that out to to you, with blatantly incorrect facts. I hope you will actually get this, I saw fifteen year olds get this message very quickly.
And the correct facts thing, ofcourse it's undeniably true that correct facts are necessary but your reaction to that is somewhat over the top. So stop sulking Dave, it really makes you look very very childish.

[Perikles]

Nick,
you are right, Copernicus wasn't number one. So the book I based the text on "the construction of the past" by Lorenz was wrong pertaining that fact. Now does this make the book which describes a history of the search for truth in history based upon throrough academic research and does that good enough to be obligatory reading for history students in Belgian and Dutch universities and to be translated in different languages with several reprints, wrong? Should I doubt everything on the basis of that incorrect fact?

[Nick227]

Nick,
you are right, Copernicus wasn't number one. So the book I based the text on "the construction of the past" by Lorenz was wrong pertaining that fact. Now does this make the book which describes a history of the search for truth in history based upon throrough academic research and does that good enough to be obligatory reading for history students in Belgian and Dutch universities and to be translated in different languages with several reprints, wrong? Should I doubt everything on the basis of that incorrect fact?

Hi anotherJackass,

Why are you asking me these questions? Are you trying to get me to take responsibility for your mental faculties? I just pointed out an incorrect statement, actually because I only learned it myself last year and thought it was quite interesting.

Why not get back to discussing Zeitgeist?

Nick

[Stout]

Hi anotherJackass....

You do know that Dave was being sarcastic in his last post don't you ?

Anyways, in your opinion, what was the "point" of Zeitgeist ?

[jhunter1163]

The point of Zeitgeist was to make money off uninformed and gullible people.

Next question.

[Stout]

Well, yes, of course it is but I was hoping for a subjective world changing insight that transcends the obvious. I figure it was also one long anti-American rant seeing as how it was produced in Australia. After all, why would your average Aussie give a rip about American tax law ?

[Perikles]

Hehe,
'kay no more discussing a clearly proven faulty method to debunking.
I think Zeitgeist is a warning on different levels:
it warns us we shouldn't accept religious tales or doctrines without questioning.
It warns us about not closely watching your government.
It warns us about manipulation of facts and images.
It warns us about the dangers of bad education.
You can go on and on.
You can derive a lot from it, depending on what you want to see.
Curious what you guys will do with this. Will you actually look beyond the factual? Will you ignore everything that can't be used to make me look like a conspiracy theory adept, again? Will Dave get the point? Will someone actually make a point that isn't an insult in disguise?
To be continued, for eternity I guess.

[Perikles]

The predominant conspiracy theory on this site seems to me to be that anyone disagreeing is dumb/ignorant/gullible and part of the conspiracy of the conspirationalists.

[Stout]

Hehe,
I think Zeitgeist is a warning on different levels:
it warns us we shouldn't accept religious tales or doctrines without questioning.
It warns us about not closely watching your government.
It warns us about manipulation of facts and images.
It warns us about the dangers of bad education.
You can go on and on.


I can't argue with any of that except to say that, in my experience, that's not what people are getting out of the movie. Most people I've talked to are taking Zeitgeist at face value and treating it as a documentary.

As a for instance. I'm sitting around the pub a couple of months ago and a friend brings up the subject of micro chipping and delivers "the information" straight out of the movie. When I asked her where she got this info, she replied "some youtube video that someone had emailed her"

As it turns out, the video she'd watched was Zeitgeist part 8


She's seen an advertisement for a credit card with a microchip in it and made the "natural" connection that we were on the road to ruin. My attempts to 'educate" about RFID technology were an abysmal failure with her saying, "well, that's your opinion" and the like. In short, she'd become a believer. The subject was dropped

Eventually she emailed me the link to the video and I responded with several links explaining RFID and pretty much harassed her into actually reading them. I'd estimate the total amount of time I spent on her and this issue in the neighbourhood of 4 hours......4 hours to "debunk" one 10 minute video.

She's worried about "being tracked" but continues to use credit cards for almost every purchase...go figure.

So yes, I agree Zeitgeist gets people to think, but not in the way us open minded types would like.

[jhunter1163]

The predominant conspiracy theory on this site seems to me to be that anyone disagreeing is dumb/ignorant/gullible and part of the conspiracy of the conspirationalists.

I disagree. I've had a number of friendly and lively discussions on a variety of topics.

That being said, the posters here are (correctly, in my opinion) very hard on people who peddle demonstrably wrong information and speculation dressed up as "facts", which is pretty much what ZG is.

If you go against the conventional wisdom in any field, your road will be hard enough. If you twist interpretations and make stuff up and present your made-up evidence as "factual", the experts in your field will not only destroy your theory, but your credibility in the process.

What would happen if Murdock did now make an important discovery? Would she get a fair hearing or would she be dismissed out of hand because of the fantasy she promoted in ZG?

[GreNME]

Well, anotherJackass, I can see why you're feeling a bit overly-criticized here, but I do feel it fair to let you know that it could very well be a difference in communication between you and the few people who are challenging you. I understand what you're saying, and with regard to the messages that you think the movie conveys (not accepting tales on their own, not keeping aware of government action, avoiding manipulation and rejecting bad education) I can actually agree with that list. However, you need to realize that statements like asking people to look beyond the factual, along with your slight defensive nature after a few incredulous replies to your posts, are putting forth a characterization that maybe you don't actually mean to convey.

I don't think you're some kind of weird conspiracy theorist or anything. Instead you seem to be coming across to me as someone for whom the annals of history aren't as clear-cut or black-and-white in an academic stance. In theory I agree to a great degree, and in fact it's precisely that idea itself that keeps me skeptical of the messages being conveyed in the Zeitgeist film. Naturally, this outlook also keeps me critical of the more conventional views throughout history as well, and as it turns out many of those views have tended to change over time as more and more clarification (or ability to clarify) comes about. Once again, that strengthens my skepticism about the Zeitgeist movie, though, because the film seems to muddy the waters of discourse on the three parts of subject matter covered.

Part I: Seems to me to try to create a theosophy argument for religious conspiracy.

Part II: Feeds on the theosophical argument before it and argues that governments are orchestrating huge crises (with 9/11 as the example).

Part III: Sums up by using the previous two for tying up the conspiracies into a tight knot by implying that this theosophical, government-based conspiracy is controlling people through money and similar eschatological machinery-- which I find ironic (I can explain later)-- in order to bring about some malicious will to power that only the outsider-heroes who believe in the film can change.

I think Nick's statements about it being a propaganda extravaganza are dead-on. What seems to be the purpose of the film is not to necessarily convince someone (though it puts the propaganda in a very convincing context), but to strengthen and bring solidarity to a number of conspiracy movements. Why do that? I'm not exactly sure, but it could be any motive from marketing to honestly thinking they are going to change the world to a combination of those and other motives (anti-Fed arguments often contain throwbacks to old antisemitic literature). I wouldn't say I know the mind of the producer(s) of the film as far as goals, but I can say when and where I find the claims within the film to be based on fantasy or comprised or deliberate misunderstanding or lack of understanding of nuance and context.

I don't think what you're saying is very different from what I'm saying, anotherJackass, but the way you're saying it appears to be sufficiently different that it's being taken in ways you don't intend and it might be (or might soon begin to be) frustrating you.

[Perikles]

I agree with the replies to my last posts.
Yes I provoked my own spanking in trying to make the point that in my opinion to quickly people are intimidated into withdrawing their point of view and bullied into humiliation. I agree that it destroyed my credibility here, but imagine me treating my students the same for making that mistake. In the end, this way of judging alienates people from the debate and than all you need is a friendly conspirationalist to be emotionally inclined to accept the other point of view.
The misinterpretation of the movie even when confronted with debunks indicates to me that something is very wrong with American society. If ZG becomes plausible to people it means American democracy is currently functioning in such a way you rather believe Bush is like Hitler than a democrat (not a reference to the party) trying to protect his country from a threat in what he thinks is the best way. I think people in America doubt their country's system and leadership. The conspirationalists accept that doubt and use it to their advantage. Out here, having that doubt seems the best guarantee to be considered a retarded nut, while the doubt is based upon hard arguments to counter.

[Nick227]

She's seen an advertisement for a credit card with a microchip in it and made the "natural" connection that we were on the road to ruin. My attempts to 'educate" about RFID technology were an abysmal failure with her saying, "well, that's your opinion" and the like. In short, she'd become a believer. The subject was dropped

Eventually she emailed me the link to the video and I responded with several links explaining RFID and pretty much harassed her into actually reading them. I'd estimate the total amount of time I spent on her and this issue in the neighbourhood of 4 hours......4 hours to "debunk" one 10 minute video.

She's worried about "being tracked" but continues to use credit cards for almost every purchase...go figure.

So yes, I agree Zeitgeist gets people to think, but not in the way us open minded types would like.

I appreciate that it was no doubt a drag to have to spend time doing this, but personally I think there is some validity in being concerned about these things.

In my opinion, a lot of things are apparently organised in our world outside of the public gaze. Globalisation is an excellent example of this, imo. It is natural that people are somewhere concerned about what is actually going on. Fears arise. Can we really really trust the politicians? Do we really know where it's all leading? I don't want it that a few generations down the line we are looking at a microchipped future. I know the technology isn't available yet, and may never be, but I am ok with people being concerned about this stuff now because I think this is at least some level of insurance for the future.

Nick

[thesyntaxera]

In my opinion, a lot of things are apparently organised in our world outside of the public gaze. Globalisation is an excellent example of this, imo. It is natural that people are somewhere concerned about what is actually going on. Fears arise. Can we really really trust the politicians? Do we really know where it's all leading? I don't want it that a few generations down the line we are looking at a microchipped future. I know the technology isn't available yet, and may never be, but I am ok with people being concerned about this stuff now because I think this is at least some level of insurance for the future.

Hmm....

The thing is though, a lot of that technology does exist in some form now. We can be tracked, and we can be spied upon if the powers that be so choose. However, what makers of material such as this film and others(AJ comes to mind) fail to remember is the near impossibility of such things actually transpiring. The sheer levels of bureaucracy and oversight in between are a staggering hindrance to any plans of global conquest at a covert level.

You mention globalization, and it surprises me that people like AJ don't look at that topic closer. There is certainly enough fiscal impropriety going on there to make any reasonable person disgusted, and yet it is ignored. There are literally thousands of cases of human rights abuses that are regarded as collateral damage to seemingly sensible business practice....the point I am trying to convey is that there are REAL things to be pissed off about...why make stuff up?

Films like this, and the many others out there are made to capitalize on the our secret fears...mainly so some guy or gal can take the credit for "blowing the whistle" and make a name for themselves, thus becoming a hero to a small, and apparently gullible few who refuse to leave the reality tunnel of their choosing. Then rolls in the prima donna complex once hundred or thousands of people start writing them praise for "opening their eyes"....

I don't think there is any reason to debate any potential merits of these films, or the subtext that some people here have claimed to see in them because the subtext that I see is that some people got bored and wanted attention...not anticipating the zeitgeist it would become on the internet.

[Perikles]

[QUOTE=thesyntaxera;3616190]Hmm....

The thing is though, a lot of that technology does exist in some form now. We can be tracked, and we can be spied upon if the powers that be so choose. However, what makers of material such as this film and others(AJ comes to mind) fail to remember is the near impossibility of such things actually transpiring. The sheer levels of bureaucracy and oversight in between are a staggering hindrance to any plans of global conquest at a covert level.
True, in this day and age covert operation is almost impossible, especially when it comes to global conquest. It's why I don't believe in conspiracies. I remember a peace rally where a philosophy professor jumped on stage and yelled out the war on Iraq was part of a conspiracy. As proof he waved the Project for A New American Century around. A document anyone can download freely from the internet. Still what was in the document was disconcerting.

You mention globalization, and it surprises me that people like AJ don't look at that topic closer. There is certainly enough fiscal impropriety going on there to make any reasonable person disgusted, and yet it is ignored. There are literally thousands of cases of human rights abuses that are regarded as collateral damage to seemingly sensible business practice....the point I am trying to convey is that there are REAL things to be pissed off about...why make stuff up?
That's why I worked with the NGO Los Cachorros as a voluntary teacher. That's why I visit rallies. That's why I donate to good causes. That's why I try to make a difference. Fact is you won't make that difference on the internet.

Films like this, and the many others out there are made to capitalize on the our secret fears...mainly so some guy or gal can take the credit for "blowing the whistle" and make a name for themselves, thus becoming a hero to a small, and apparently gullible few who refuse to leave the reality tunnel of their choosing. Then rolls in the prima donna complex once hundred or thousands of people start writing them praise for "opening their eyes"....
I think that is how heroes are made, it depends from the success of the party they belong to whether they are heroes or criminals.

I don't think there is any reason to debate any potential merits of these films, or the subtext that some people here have claimed to see in them because the subtext that I see is that some people got bored and wanted attention...not anticipating the zeitgeist it would become on the internet

I think there is a very strong reason to do so. Pedagogically it could be a very interesting tool, that goes for all forms of propaganda. Also for your own convictions and cognitive methods it's interesting what a completely different approach comes up with. There is the Socratic cognitive method, but there is also the Aristotelian one (thesis juxtaposed with an antithesis to come to a synthesis), but ofcourse this requires instead of specialising in seeing the bad in others to look critically at oneself. To achieve this is hard and painfull but it always leads to knowledge.

[GreNME]

Pedagogically it could be a very interesting tool, that goes for all forms of propaganda.

Pedagogically it's no different than having students engage in socratic debate over issues they are not initially familiar with. I don't see why using a film like Zeitgeist is somehow more useful at that methodology than something based more firmly in the world of real relevance.

[Dave Rogers]

And the correct facts thing, ofcourse it's undeniably true that correct facts are necessary but your reaction to that is somewhat over the top. So stop sulking Dave, it really makes you look very very childish.

If correct facts are necessary, can I suggest you learn a few?

Any perception of anger or sulking you may have is pure projection. I have no interest in anything other than pointing out that when you make up "facts" to support your opinion, you are simply lying. I've pointed out your lies, you've tried to evade admitting to them, and in the process - as you admit - you've destroyed your own credibility. Thanks for that, because now I don't need to.

Enjoy typing your next angry rant in response. I won't be reading it.

Dave

[thesyntaxera]

Pedagogically it's no different than having students engage in socratic debate over issues they are not initially familiar with. I don't see why using a film like Zeitgeist is somehow more useful at that methodology than something based more firmly in the world of real relevance.


I going to have to agree. If I am understanding AJass correctly, we should examine it and debate it because not doing so is lazy, and does not help one(or a collective of people) to come to a better understanding of the subject?

Since this film and the discussions around it have essentially provided a clear picture of it as a fraudulent portrayal of history I see little merit in trying to derive some new angle on reality from it. If anything it is a rehash of idea's that are no longer considered to be(or never were) representative of the reality of the situation, and it is that at it's worst....the second part especially.

[quixotecoyote]

I feel a bit embarrassed. I completely let my opposition to this slide.

Bad skeptic! Ouch!

[GreNME]

I going to have to agree. If I am understanding AJass correctly, we should examine it and debate it because not doing so is lazy, and does not help one(or a collective of people) to come to a better understanding of the subject?

Since this film and the discussions around it have essentially provided a clear picture of it as a fraudulent portrayal of history I see little merit in trying to derive some new angle on reality from it. If anything it is a rehash of idea's that are no longer considered to be(or never were) representative of the reality of the situation, and it is that at it's worst....the second part especially.

Right. A better pedagogical tool for debate is using a subject more nuanced and not dealing with intellectual dishonesty on one side. Various economic models, private versus socialized medicine, coke versus pepsi-- all of those are valid topics for edifying socratic learning. Zeitgeist-- not so much.

[Perikles]

Well,
I have to include nazi propaganda in classes about WWII. I use interviews between Palestines and Israelians to expose the propaganda between the two. Why not ZG? It would at least get them interested and it offers a nice overview of what can be done nowadays in the field of manipulation.
Especially now there's a counterversion it becomes extremely interesting. My government imposed objective is to teach them democratic values, a critical attitude and research skills.
To me it can be used for that, I'll send them to the websites of both parties and have them do a rhetorical analysis bases upon a check list. It would be a great exercise and very involving for my students.
I had to read 1984 in school, it was a very clear warning about power, I think this movie can do the same.
But yeah I have no credibility here, poor old me, boohoo.

[Nick227]

Well,
I have to include nazi propaganda in classes about WWII. I use interviews between Palestines and Israelians to expose the propaganda between the two. Why not ZG? It would at least get them interested and it offers a nice overview of what can be done nowadays in the field of manipulation.
Especially now there's a counterversion it becomes extremely interesting. My government imposed objective is to teach them democratic values, a critical attitude and research skills.
To me it can be used for that, I'll send them to the websites of both parties and have them do a rhetorical analysis bases upon a check list. It would be a great exercise and very involving for my students.
I had to read 1984 in school, it was a very clear warning about power, I think this movie can do the same.
But yeah I have no credibility here, poor old me, boohoo.

ZG is certainly an excellent example of how to take a remarkably small amount of fact and blow it up to create a worldview that so opposes our typical historical viewpoint. It's a propaganda masterpiece that Goebbels or the Saatchis would have been proud of.

One thing I think Part 1 does highlight, is just how reticent the orthodox Christian church has been about revealing their true beginnings. Because of this, movies like ZG can assert all sorts of nonsense and it gets believed.

Nick

[GreNME]

Well,
I have to include nazi propaganda in classes about WWII. I use interviews between Palestines and Israelians to expose the propaganda between the two. Why not ZG?
It would at least get them interested and it offers a nice overview of what can be done nowadays in the field of manipulation.
Especially now there's a counterversion it becomes extremely interesting. My government imposed objective is to teach them democratic values, a critical attitude and research skills.
To me it can be used for that, I'll send them to the websites of both parties and have them do a rhetorical analysis bases upon a check list. It would be a great exercise and very involving for my students.
I had to read 1984 in school, it was a very clear warning about power, I think this movie can do the same.
But yeah I have no credibility here, poor old me, boohoo.

There's no need to play the victim before anyone even responds.

I would ask what your class is in the first place, because the subject matter isn't necessarily suited for most science and only a few humanities anyway. However, if your class is more one of rhetoric and debate logic, then the Zeitgeist film is a good a topical structure as asking the kids to debate the veracity of Birth of a Nation or, in some ways, to argue that the Earth is flat or any number of conspiracy theories.

The problem is that you're going to find yourself set against a great deal of difficulty from the start having a debate where the two sides aren't simply talking past each other in the first place. Even here, though a few of us (Nick, thesyntaxera, myself) might hold the same or similar conclusions about the subject matter we still came to these conclusions in somewhat different ways. Before we found ourselves a verbal platform where we could agree on definitions-- and you'll find yourself spending more time on that than anything else if you really wanted to follow through with it in a classroom-- we were talking past each other a good deal. This is actually why I mentioned the socratic method specifically, because one of the first steps with it is establishing an agreed-upon set of definitions.

So yes, technically you could bring in the Zeitgeist film or Loose Change or practically any conspiracy theory film or literature for a claassroom exercise in rhetoric, but like I said before I don't see the usefulness of doing so or how it could be any more helpful than other subjects for which there are already more generally-accepted definitions set up for at least some dialogue. What I'm saying is that I can only see doing such a thing making the process harder on the students, and not in a way that challenges them-- more in a way that poisons the well before the debate even begins.

So, unless I'm missing something here and the advantages of using it have already been mentioned that aren't more accessible using other subject matter, I fail to see the benefit to using conspiracy theories in a classroom setting.

[Nick227]

Well,
I have to include nazi propaganda in classes about WWII. I use interviews between Palestines and Israelians to expose the propaganda between the two. Why not ZG? It would at least get them interested and it offers a nice overview of what can be done nowadays in the field of manipulation.
Especially now there's a counterversion it becomes extremely interesting. My government imposed objective is to teach them democratic values, a critical attitude and research skills.
To me it can be used for that, I'll send them to the websites of both parties and have them do a rhetorical analysis bases upon a check list. It would be a great exercise and very involving for my students.
I had to read 1984 in school, it was a very clear warning about power, I think this movie can do the same.
But yeah I have no credibility here, poor old me, boohoo.

I think you have to also be responsible with it. I was big into CTs for many years, and am still very sympathetic to some of the notions. But what keeps me more away these days is that I find so many of the CTists very much locked up in an early childhood drama to do with authority.

For me, if you're going to start leading kids into CT material you need to get clear with yourself where you're coming from, that you are not simply acting out your own subconscious.

This done, it could be a very interesting exercise.

Nick

[applecorped]

I think you have to also be responsible with it. I was big into CTs for many years, and am still very sympathetic to some of the notions. But what keeps me more away these days is that I find so many of the CTists very much locked up in an early childhood drama to do with authority.

For me, if you're going to start leading kids into CT material you need to get clear with yourself where you're coming from, that you are not simply acting out your own subconscious.

This done, it could be a very interesting exercise.

Nick

Which notions are you still sympathetic to?

[Keerax]

I just wanted to say thanks for being here for me guys. My campus just started its first Freethinkers Group and the second meeting was last night. We watched only the first third of the Zeitgeist movie and, I will admit, being ignorant of most of the facts presented, I accepted them as fact. I did get the feeling that I was watching some kind of conspiracy theory woo film from how it was presented, but never did I think that the rest of the film was just bat-s*** crazy. Luckily based on the overall feeling I got from the film (of what I did see) and my girlfriend's passing interest in Egyptian mythology to compare to what I was describing from the film, I decided to research the movie.

I went to Google (like you do) and did a search on the film and guess who popped up close to the top of the list?

You guys.

Thanks again for helping me realign my baloney detector! It doesn't get a randi.org tune up often enough apparently.

[Nick227]

Which notions are you still sympathetic to?

The US government may be a front for a globalising conspiracy. If it exists this front may have a negative intent. I find it's hard to prove but the possibility still concerns me. I'm also sympathetic to the notion that orthodox Christianity needs thorough repackaging.

Nick

[thesyntaxera]

The US government may be a front for a globalising conspiracy. If it exists this front may have a negative intent. I find it's hard to prove but the possibility still concerns me. I'm also sympathetic to the notion that orthodox Christianity needs thorough repackaging.

Nick

I would say the case for private business men/women working together to gain profit is more likely than a US based globalist agenda. The only thing negative about it is the general disregard for the well being of those effected by their well laid plans.

I think it is safe to say that business plays an influential role in american politics, but that role varies tremendously depending on who is in office.

Personally I think the mixing of politics and business is too compartmentalized to ever be any sinister NWO like entity.

[GreNME]

I tend to get from Nick the impression that he feels similarly, but only tentatively and because there's no overwhelming reason to behave otherwise at this point.

I can understand Nick's sympathies and while I don't share them exactly I do think that there's a lot of 'good old boys club' that goes on in many businesses today, and they like to spread their social network to politics whenever they can. I just don't see them doing it for control as much as I do money or business, which I personally don't find to be ethically better anyway. I still have quite a bit of the older rebel deep down inside that I don't let color my everyday expectations or observations (too much), so I know the feeling of tentative acceptance of the way things are until shown otherwise.

Heck, it's that part of me that initially drew me into investigating some of the 9/11 conspiracies, and my habits toward critical thinking that led me to conclude its conclusions weak and its premises flawed. The Zeitgeist stuff lost me from the first part because of my affinity toward Mid-Eastern history. I don't find Part II convincing at all and Part III just seems too jumbled and ironic in its eschatological take on things (ironic considering Part I).

[Nick227]

I tend to get from Nick the impression that he feels similarly, but only tentatively and because there's no overwhelming reason to behave otherwise at this point.

Yes, though I'm still more concerned about Bretton Woods than the "old school tie" really.

But generally I look at the world and consider that if there was a vast evil conspiracy out there then we would probably be in a far worse straits than we are. The planet just looks a bit of a mess to me, really. And prisons are rarely messy.

Nick

[Perikles]

I'm a history teacher by training but have taught English for an NGO in Peru and have decided to continue doing this. It offers me a chance to see the world, working and living all over which always leads to interesting insights and experiences. I studied and read a lot at the university, but looking back the things that taught me the most were experiences from traveling. If you see the downside of Western wealth, the cost a small Quechua farmer has to pay for the profit of a huge Western food concern, I'm just not too sure anymore about all that bla bla I hear in Belgium/Europe/the US. If you see hundreds of kids working in the streets of Peru and need to be to eat/sleep underneath a roof/go to school, a member of the UN and UNICEF, I'm not so sure about the use of those institutions anymore.
If the farmers of Ayacucho one month ago took to the streets of Ayacucho for making 5 eurocents per kilo of potatoes, the police shot three of them and the president came on the telly saying that the dead had it comming. If the farmers switch to coca production which makes them a fantastic 500$ a month, that's five to tenfold what they make with any other crop, the government destroys the fields with poisonous insecticide to safeguard their credit with the US, after all of that I don't believe in the big plans, ideals and wars anymore. Real politics are in my opinion to often perceived as conspiracies, while anyone, even those of us that fumble the facts, who has taken a good look at history, will know that every regime always is more preoccupied with their self interest. Democracy made our self interest as a nation their self interest as a politician, but that stops at the borders. The self interest of businessmen is not bound by any supervision, their companies have reached far beyond the grasp of any government or institution. Companies are so vital for the well being of states and their citizens they simply face no other competition than that of other companies. Do they conspire? No, they fight for their own survival and the most important thing companies exist for, profit. To a certain number of people this goes above human rights, to others not and so they try to balance both profit and morality. In the same way some governments don't care about human rights at all and just go for political and economical profit. Others look for a balance between the national or personal self interest and morality,the most common one human rights. Ususally those that do try to balance are forced to do so by the people they govern, usually by democracy.
The essence I think is democratic control. Face it, if there is no stimulation to act not only in "your" self interest, you will act only in your self interest. Besides, it's an economical world. Three bullets are a lot cheaper and less dangerous to campaign funding than forcing global concerns into paying fair prices. Declaring millennium goals by 2015 without creating any form of control on you trying to achieve them is simply easier than actually developping a new approach like you know full debt relief, a different price system (by definition against the interest of the people voting for you) an UN with the actual authority to make people stick to the treaties they sign....
Self interest is not a conspiracy, it is essentially human to prioritise that, but it creates huge problems and in very extreme cases wars, genocides and attacks on the rights generations fought and died for. I think based upon my experiences (but who says they are universally applicable) that the predominance of self interest without peer pressure to force altruism into the equation is a fundamental problem.

[Nick227]

Self interest is not a conspiracy, it is essentially human to prioritise that, but it creates huge problems and in very extreme cases wars, genocides and attacks on the rights generations fought and died for. I think based upon my experiences (but who says they are universally applicable) that the predominance of self interest without peer pressure to force altruism into the equation is a fundamental problem.

Well, personally, I figure the world is in a state of acute change, and there are hands behind the scenes.

In the mid 1940s the IMF and World Bank were set up at Bretton Woods. Over the course of the next half century they proceeded to set up the infrastructure, all across the poorer nations of the world, for global consumerism. The offered loans to a myriad African and Latin American countries, and to get the money the nation had to accept structural adjustments, the nature of which streamlined them for the global marketplace. A host of minor nations found themselves inextricably a part of the emergent consumer superstate.

This happened. It wasn't voted for by anyone visibly, but it was undertaken. So to me personally this indicates a clear degree of aforethought and covert control when one considers the phenomenom of globalisation. It didn't just spontaneously manifest.

What I'm not yet sure of is whether it will turn out good or bad. A lot of poor nations got deeply ********** up in the short term. But in the mid and longer term for some things got a lot better. It's hard to call, and I still have the feeling that a lot is decided behind the scenes.

Nick

[Perikles]

Hey Nick,
I suggest you read White man's burden by William Easterly. He's an economist teaching at NYU and has worked for the world bank for sixteen years on several development projects. He explains why so many money, projects and plans failed.
About decisions behind the scenes, that is how it works, I trust in the participants to tell the public if there is a truly shocking plan or project.
It's better to look at the present and to act to improve it, than to doubt and criticise the past.
You're right to be critical of our development system, this is essential to come to improvements.
You should really read the book, it's critical but also constructive, angry but hopeful. Also don't forget that the collective consumer behavior of the Western countries and their consumer demands are far more destructive for the poorer continents and countries than some old treaties. Politicians in Europe try to cater to their voters, when it's not possible in action they do it in words. But the wish of the voter always comes first.

[Perikles]

I did some quick research on Bretton Woods. I checked Wikipedia in Ducth and English, One world Divisible a global history since 1945 by David Reynolds and my economic history of the newest times course by Erik Vanhaute.
Bretton Woods is responsible for providing monetary stability in the post world war II age. There is a strong correlation with the Marshall plan and one of the co writers was John Maynard Keynes, who however his ideas are considered to be flawed and irrealistic now was the ideologist behind our conceptions of the welfare state and social civil rights. It stabilised exchange rates in the non communistic world which was ofcourse a great help for a destroyed Europe that needed foreign investment.
It was in fact when Nixon in 1971 suspended Bretton Woods that a great crisis emerged (ofcourse the oil crisis didn't help too). Bretton Woods is not solely responsible for the economic miracles that occurred in Europe post 1945, but it definetely contributed.
The problems started when the miracle method applied in Europe was applied in other continents, disregarding more agricultural economies, less democratic regimes and different cultural principles. The intention was good, but like a Belgian proverb says: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Egg]

It's an interesting thought to me, this idea of in what ways Zeitgeist might actually be good. For me, personally, it ended up leading me to become a whole lot more skeptical of the 911 inside job and international bankers conspiracy theories. Before this, I was under the impression that there were many unanswered questions and the possibility of a conspiracy was something I'd still entertain. I suppose I've not entirely dismissed the possibility of certain people in positions of power being aware of the attacks before hand and doing nothing to stop it, but that's about as far as I'd go now.

So, for me, it was the first part of Zeitgeist that alerted me to see the rest as likely being bunk, because I had enough knowledge to see some pretty suspect information being presented and some dodgy etymology.

It was the way that some people were posting this movie around the internet as some big truth that they had discovered and anyone disagreeing or even questioning such things were clearly blind sheeple, that made me follow up some of the information presented, and to try to find out if there was anything in any of the claims presented.

I guess that's the danger of the film maker trying to put all three conspiracies together. It relies on the viewer being ignorant in all areas or they will suspect the other parts.

I think good can come out of bad things. The idea that this movie can be used to demonstrate propaganda and to teach people to be more skeptical of such things has some merit. Overall, I'd still say Zeitgeist probably does a lot more harm than good. It's not just the bad information, but it spreads a kind of hopeless depression because if true, there's nothing that individuals can do about it. It makes the world a scary, oppressive place and the slight smugness of having knowledge that the mainstream seems unaware of isn't enough to balance out that darkness. There are things that governments are doing that are worth fighting and if anything it can send those who might become activists or even just write a letter or two to the right people, underground and scared of speaking out and becoming enemies of the terrifying state.

[Perikles]

Oh yeah before another fact f***er comes up with another death sentence: I'm perfectly aware that the oil crisis happened in 1973.

[Perikles]

Oh yeah before another fact f***er comes up with another death sentence: I'm perfectly aware that the oil crisis happened in 1973.

[Yeah_Right]

This may or may not be a candidate for the Wall of Harm, but I met a woman who told me about the Zeitgeist movie, and she appeared to be convinced of the nonsense contained in the film. It made her so paranoid that she took all her money out of the bank, so it wouldn't get in the wrong hands. I did give the movie a look, but it was so badly done I couldn't stomach the silly thing. She wants me to tell me what I thought of it, and all I can think of telling her is that it all a mess of nonsensical crap. Which nicely sums it up I believe.

[fullflavormenthol]

This may or may not be a candidate for the Wall of Harm, but I met a woman who told me about the Zeitgeist movie, and she appeared to be convinced of the nonsense contained in the film. It made her so paranoid that she took all her money out of the bank, so it wouldn't get in the wrong hands. I did give the movie a look, but it was so badly done I couldn't stomach the silly thing. She wants me to tell me what I thought of it, and all I can think of telling her is that it all a mess of nonsensical crap. Which nicely sums it up I believe.
Yeah, it is a big steaming load of crazy awful; there is no denying that. Part 1 starts up the crazy with information most people are not really familiar with, and then goes completely ape with the vast 9-11/Zionist banking conspiracy. Many a truther has been snapped out of it by watching Zeitgeist though. So in that sense it is good.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Yeah, it is a big steaming load of crazy awful; there is no denying that. Part 1 starts up the crazy with information most people are not really familiar with, and then goes completely ape with the vast 9-11/Zionist banking conspiracy. Many a truther has been snapped out of it by watching Zeitgeist though. So in that sense it is good.

I used to listen to Covino and Rich on Sirius 108 for some fun light hearted guy humor and other stuff. Then a week or two ago they saw this crap movie, and can't shut up about it. I won't listen to them anymore. They've been replays lately though! ha! NWO got to them

1-888-99-MAXIM 3PM to 7PM Monday through Friday

[Nick227]

I've stuck a list of my issues with Zeitgeist Pt 1 up at www.nick2211.yage.net/Zeitgeist.htm

Nick

[lippard]

After hearing this movie promoted at an atheist meetup group earlier this month, I finally got around to writing up a lengthy blog post that addresses a selection of howlers from each part of the movie. I can't link to it here as I haven't reached my 15-post minimum at the JREF Forums yet, but there's a link to my blog in my profile.

[Slayhamlet]

After hearing this movie promoted at an atheist meetup group earlier this month, I finally got around to writing up a lengthy blog post that addresses a selection of howlers from each part of the movie. I can't link to it here as I haven't reached my 15-post minimum at the JREF Forums yet, but there's a link to my blog in my profile.

Here's the link: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/06/zeitgeist-movie.html

If you wish to link something before your 15th post you can just put a space in the url and another poster will fix the link for you, like so:

http:// lippard.blogspot.com/2008/06/zeitgeist-movie.html

[lippard]

Slayhamlet: Thank you, both for the link and the suggestion.

[druids brew]

good morning...it being that here in the uk...somewhat new to this so have patience with me...zeitgeist is just scratching the surface...one might suggest a few too many topics being tackled at the same time....however it does have every body talking about it and that cant be a bad thing.....as for the de-bunkers...not even going there...i do feel however that our friend missed the fact that the ancient philosophers were well aware that the entire physical universe is just distraction from the search for the meta-physical state .... hermeticism has the answers......everything else is of no real consequence

[beachnut]

good morning...it being that here in the uk...somewhat new to this so have patience with me...zeitgeist is just scratching the surface...one might suggest a few too many topics being tackled at the same time....however it does have every body talking about it and that cant be a bad thing.....as for the de-bunkers...not even going there...i do feel however that our friend missed the fact that the ancient philosophers were well aware that the entire physical universe is just distraction from the search for the meta-physical state .... hermeticism has the answers......everything else is of no real consequence
It is pure bs and that is just scratching the surface.

Welcome, to JREF

[druids brew]

well hate to differ but i really quite enjoyed it...apart from the obvious hype but you get that in any movie.... its not a documentary actually and despite the ambiguity of the sources he is quoting the overall point is blatantly obvious.... its really not about the facts more about the idea and the mere fact that so many people are talking about it gives it some cred' in this age...salmon rushdii springs to mind....its entertainment ffs not a lesson in life.....i cant believe how fragile the faith is of those who feel so threatened....just cos the guy believes it dont make it so....the fact that he is quite close to the real story is really quite interesting....far easier to sit on the bench punching holes.....

[druids brew]

yeah yeah yeah...whole hearted from me my friend....well said

[CurtC]

i cant believe how fragile the faith is of those who feel so threatened...

I assume you're referring to the segment of Zeitgeist that deals with the Jesus myth. You're new here so you may not be aware, but the large majority of regulars at this forum are atheists, so we have no religious faith to be threatened. We just don't like lies, and Zeitgeist was full of lies.

[druids brew]

hi curt..no offence intended .and being new it will take me a while to suss out who's who in here.....just spent an inordinate ammount of time reading through the various comments....couldnt believe how many were posted by folks who hadn't even seen the movie...i mean where's the logic?...thought we were all thinkers in here
and yet there seems to be more mud slinging than actual constructive criticism..

[dudalb]

There is a wonderful new invention called " Capital Letters". I suggest you use them.

[beachnut]

well hate to differ but i really quite enjoyed it...apart from the obvious hype but you get that in any movie.... its not a documentary actually and despite the ambiguity of the sources he is quoting the overall point is blatantly obvious.... its really not about the facts more about the idea and the mere fact that so many people are talking about it gives it some cred' in this age...salmon rushdii springs to mind....its entertainment ffs not a lesson in life.....i cant believe how fragile the faith is of those who feel so threatened....just cos the guy believes it dont make it so....the fact that he is quite close to the real story is really quite interesting....far easier to sit on the bench punching holes.....
No matter how much you like the movie it is still bs. It messes up all topics with ease. It take knowledge to see the bs.

Oops, you think people are threatened by this bs? funny stuff

I am not threatened, I cringe there are people dumb enough to fall for this junk.

Wait, you said it is not about the facts, just what people want to make up or some rationalization; proving it is pure bs! Thank you.

[thesyntaxera]

This web page is an incredible resource for this video:
http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

With all due respect to GreNME's effort on the CT wiki, this page covers every single claim made and explains the falsehoods presented well. Definitely a must read if you are on the fence about this film, or are interested in the counter arguments to the films claims.

[druids brew]

Hi beachnut.I dont actually remember raving about the movie merely that i quite enjoyed it.I quite enjoyed the De Vinci code as well but that doesn't mean I believe the content to be true, I just find it quite refreshing in these days of yet another Batman movie that there are film makers who are willing to make thought provoking films as opposed to endless action and sensationalism.Nowhere in the film as I recall is there any declaration that the contents are factual.The director obviously is all fired up on a few issues and has attempted to combine them in a single statement; ambitious to say the least but that doesn't actually negate its entertainment value.What was the last film you saw that sparked as much debate? It's all entertainment and food for thought at the end of the day and whether it provokes one to search out a little more thoroughly the information suggested or not is really neither here nor there.Hope the capitals are making your day dudalb.

[beachnut]

Hi beachnut.I dont actually remember raving about the movie merely that i quite enjoyed it.I quite enjoyed the De Vinci code as well but that doesn't mean I believe the content to be true, I just find it quite refreshing in these days of yet another Batman movie that there are film makers who are willing to make thought provoking films as opposed to endless action and sensationalism.Nowhere in the film as I recall is there any declaration that the contents are factual.The director obviously is all fired up on a few issues and has attempted to combine them in a single statement; ambitious to say the least but that doesn't actually negate its entertainment value.What was the last film you saw that sparked as much debate? It's all entertainment and food for thought at the end of the day and whether it provokes one to search out a little more thoroughly the information suggested or not is really neither here nor there.Hope the capitals are making your day dudalb.
I like fantasy movies too. The Code was fictional, but it is neat to see bs in movies and relax.

The Z movie is bs; it is an anti-intellectual, sort of like fraud, presented as fact, but just dumb tripe to fool people who fail to check the facts.

I love fantasy, it needs to be labeled as such. Alas, buyer beware, it is fraud, or some dumb guys who can't do any better. Reminds me of NAZI propaganda.

Some of my favorite movies are based on pure fantasy. Is the Z movie labeled fiction? It should be labeled fraud.
This web page is an incredible resource for this video:
http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/ (http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/)

With all due respect to GreNME's effort on the CT wiki, this page covers every single claim made and explains the falsehoods presented well. Definitely a must read if you are on the fence about this film, or are interested in the counter arguments to the films claims.
This looks like a good place to understand some of the Z claims.

[Nick227]

Hi beachnut.I dont actually remember raving about the movie merely that i quite enjoyed it.I quite enjoyed the De Vinci code as well but that doesn't mean I believe the content to be true, I just find it quite refreshing in these days of yet another Batman movie that there are film makers who are willing to make thought provoking films as opposed to endless action and sensationalism.Nowhere in the film as I recall is there any declaration that the contents are factual.The director obviously is all fired up on a few issues and has attempted to combine them in a single statement; ambitious to say the least but that doesn't actually negate its entertainment value.What was the last film you saw that sparked as much debate? It's all entertainment and food for thought at the end of the day and whether it provokes one to search out a little more thoroughly the information suggested or not is really neither here nor there.Hope the capitals are making your day dudalb.

I also enjoyed Zeitgeist and the Da Vinci Code, though I thought the movie of the latter was crap. However, in terms of factual information, both are pretty limited. The writer of Zeitgeist strung together a heap of older conspiracy theories into a web of idiocy. It's just a propaganda movie, if you ask me.

Nick

[Stout]

Thanks for the link thesyntaxera.

Cheers

[lippard]

He's probably referencing the "Homegrown Terrorism and Prevention Act". As well as the fact that during a congressional hearing this year regarding HR1955 someone from the Simon Wiesenthal Center had a powerpoint presentation where AE911Truth was featured as a potentional provactuer for violent riots. I could be wrong though.

FYI on HR1955:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/12/dan-smiths-critique-of-rep-jane-harmans.html

[joemailman]

The nonsense of atheists is expressed here in this forum with their outright rejection of the Zeitgeist Movement and the possibility that they have been fooled just as the religious have have been for all of their lives. I would suppose that the great majority of atheists here are actually doing nothing to change the future nor are they even interested. They are probably just resigned to accepting the inequities of the world they live in while giving lip service to their intellect or the potential that their intellect affords them. There are even many, many suggestions as to the accuracy of the Jesus character as well as the accuracy and historicity of of the other gods and devils mentioned in these films. ( there are two films ). It is no wonder to me that there is so little questioning or even interest as to the possibility that their acceptance of conventional explanations of everything major is so apparent absent. Conspiracies do happen and where billion perhaps trillions of dollars in any currency are at stake it becomes far more probable.

Social change has always happened when either the "belly button touches the backbone" or through the buffoonery and incompetence of of those in control that forces the hand of the majority as was the case in the last election. And I even doubt the intelligence of the majority of Americans in the latter case. Social change through a reasoned, progressive movement does and will have the hardest time getting any kind of demonstration produced.

[Edx]

The nonsense of atheists is expressed here in this forum with their outright rejection of the Zeitgeist Movement and the possibility that they have been fooled just as the religious have have been for all of their lives. I would suppose that the great majority of atheists here are actually doing nothing to change the future nor are they even interested. They are probably just resigned to accepting the inequities of the world they live in while giving lip service to their intellect or the potential that their intellect affords them. There are even many, many suggestions as to the accuracy of the Jesus character as well as the accuracy and historicity of of the other gods and devils mentioned in these films. ( there are two films ). It is no wonder to me that there is so little questioning or even interest as to the possibility that their acceptance of conventional explanations of everything major is so apparent absent. Conspiracies do happen and where billion perhaps trillions of dollars in any currency are at stake it becomes far more probable.

Social change has always happened when either the "belly button touches the backbone" or through the buffoonery and incompetence of of those in control that forces the hand of the majority as was the case in the last election. And I even doubt the intelligence of the majority of Americans in the latter case. Social change through a reasoned, progressive movement does and will have the hardest time getting any kind of demonstration produced.

I was apart of the movement, but the first film is a piece of crap. Peter still supports all the same ******** he always did. I like how he didnt even touch 911 in his recent broadcast defending it. Maybe he will do it later, or maybe he knows how much of an idiot he will appear if he tries to.

I said I WAS apart of this movement because I like Jacque Frescos ideas even if its a bit idealistic. I also really liked Peters London presentation which I actually attended. But theres so much conspiracy crap attracting the most irrational fake skeptics I've ever seen. What a shame that Fresco had to be associated with it.

I will continue to look on as an observer, but no longer can I call myself apart a "movement" that is as intellectually backrupt as this one.

[Longfellow]

...(snip) There are even many, many suggestions as to the accuracy of the Jesus character as well as the accuracy and historicity of of the other gods and devils...(snip)

Now let me get this straight. You want us to believe, not only in the mythical Jesus Christ, but all other "gods and devils" as well?

Really?

I hate to be the one to break this to you but the Dark Ages ended a long time ago. I wonder if you might consider buying a program? That way you can keep up? Just a thought.

[fullflavormenthol]

No I think he is upset because we don't buy into the astrotheology nonsense in Zeitgeist. No true Scotsman. He is basically saying one is not an atheist if they disagree with the ideas in Zeitgeist.

Oh and I love his passive aggressive correction that there are 2 movies in thread that was created, lived, and died before Addendum came out.

[thesyntaxera]

The nonsense of atheists is expressed here in this forum with their outright rejection of the Zeitgeist Movement and the possibility that they have been fooled just as the religious have have been for all of their lives.

How have "they" been fooled?

I would suppose that the great majority of atheists here are actually doing nothing to change the future nor are they even interested. They are probably just resigned to accepting the inequities of the world they live in while giving lip service to their intellect or the potential that their intellect affords them.

Inequality is a fact of life. As individuals we can work daily to create a better society by doing right by our neighbor and raising children who are motivated to continue on the process of building and bettering society. Think global, act local.

No one needs a "Movement" to do any of that. Whenever people start going on about any movement I either think of Rain Man, or cults. Cults annoy me, almost as much as people who encourage others to participate in them.

There are even many, many suggestions as to the accuracy of the Jesus character as well as the accuracy and historicity of of the other gods and devils mentioned in these films. ( there are two films ).

Too bad they don't rely on actual history. Trust me, I looked into it.

Conspiracies do happen and where billion perhaps trillions of dollars in any currency are at stake it becomes far more probable.

The Zeitgeist conspiracy theory of everything is true because there is a lot of money in circulation and other conspiracies have occured?

Social change has always happened when either the "belly button touches the backbone" or through the buffoonery and incompetence of of those in control that forces the hand of the majority as was the case in the last election. And I even doubt the intelligence of the majority of Americans in the latter case. Social change through a reasoned, progressive movement does and will have the hardest time getting any kind of demonstration produced.

Are you just bummed because Ron Paul didn't get elected?

[lightfire22000]

The only part of this movie that was possibly vaguely accurate and original was the part declaring that Horus was the root for horizon. Looking them both up on Webster.com, I found that they both derive from the Greek horos, though one had an accent and the other did not. Horos supposedly means boundary in Greek. I don't know Greek so I apologize if I'm wrong.

[Edx]

Actually it was right about a few more things in the religion section, but left a lot of very real comparisions to old religions out or only touched on them. Shame really, could have pretty much made the same point without all the fringe claims.

[Slayhamlet]

The only part of this movie that was possibly vaguely accurate and original was the part declaring that Horus was the root for horizon. Looking them both up on Webster.com, I found that they both derive from the Greek horos, though one had an accent and the other did not. Horos supposedly means boundary in Greek. I don't know Greek so I apologize if I'm wrong.

No, they're not related. The English word 'horizon' comes directly from the Greek ὁρίζων (horízōn), which is the present active participle of the verb ὁρίζειν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Do (ri%2Fzw) (horízein) 'to delimit, bound'. Thus it roughly means "that which delimits/bounds", i.e. the earth from the sky. The verb itself is derived from the noun ὅρος (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3Do (%2Fros) (hóros), which just means "boundary".

The name of the Egyptian God, on the other hand, was borrowed into Greek as Ὧρος (Hôros, note the long 'o') from Egyptian ḥr.w (probably pronounced something like Ḥāru). Since Egyptian is an Afro-Asiatic language, not Indo-European like Greek, there is little chance that the Egyptian name shares a root with Greek ὅρος. They're superficially similar, but that's it.

What Zeitgeist is taking part in is called folk-etymology. This is hardly surprising, considering Zeitgeist is anti-intellectual claptrap from start to finish. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a single fact in the whole movie.

[Slayhamlet]

Actually it was right about a few more things in the religion section, but left a lot of very real comparisions to old religions out or only touched on them. Shame really, could have pretty much made the same point without all the fringe claims.

Like what?

[Mangoose]

The only part of this movie that was possibly vaguely accurate and original was the part declaring that Horus was the root for horizon. Looking them both up on Webster.com, I found that they both derive from the Greek horos, though one had an accent and the other did not. Horos supposedly means boundary in Greek. I don't know Greek so I apologize if I'm wrong.


The name Horus does not derive from Greek. It was later transliterated into Greek, but it is a native Egyptian name.

Horus is recorded in Egyptian hieroglyphs as ḥr.w and is reconstructed to have been pronounced *Ḥāru, meaning "Falcon".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

[Edx]

Like what?

Off the top of my head it talks briefly about the Epic of Gilgamesh and the resemblance to the Genesis creation myth, which is true. The Old Testaement is not original at all. Also Jesus does have quite a few similiarities between other religious concepts and legends, the only debate is really just how many attributes are shared.

I also have a good story about the Lucifer myth and how it never meant the devil even at the time, but they didnt talk about that either

[Slayhamlet]

Off the top of my head it talks briefly about the Epic of Gilgamesh and the resemblance to the Genesis creation myth, which is true. The Old Testaement is not original at all. Also Jesus does have quite a few similiarities between other religious concepts and legends, the only debate is really just how many attributes are shared.

I also have a good story about the Lucifer myth and how it never meant the devil even at the time, but they didnt talk about that either

I'm not aware of any remarkable similarities that the Epic of Gilgamesh has with the Creation myth of the OT. Perhaps you're thinking of the flood myth? Yes, that much true. The stories of Noah and Utnapishtim obviously have a common source, but if I remember correctly Zeitgeist makes a bunch of dumb claims about the Hebrews "stealing" the myth and there being some sort of conspiracy to cover up the appropriation, even though that's exactly how myths have been passed down from century to century and across cultures for most of mankind's history. There's a kernel of truth there, but Zeitgeist completely misrepresents it in order to sell some stupid Dan Brown-esque conspiracy nonsense.

As for the Jesus/Mithras myth hypothesis that Zeitgeist pushes, I believe that has been mostly discredited. There was a long thread about it in the religion forum, if you want to have a look. Lucifer is simply the Latin name of the morning star. The Bible compares a number of different people to it, including Jesus himself. It's really nothing more than a metaphor.

[Edx]

I'm not aware of any remarkable similarities that the Epic of Gilgamesh has with the Creation myth of the OT. Perhaps you're thinking of the flood myth? Yes, that much true. The stories of Noah and Utnapishtim obviously have a common source, but if I remember correctly Zeitgeist makes a bunch of dumb claims about the Hebrews "stealing" the myth

Well its not so much they stole the myth its just where they myths originated, which probably came from the Sumarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_creation_myth) originally which was probably based on a real local flood. The Hebrews were a nomadic tribe that would have taken on a lot of cultural and so religious notions of their neighbours, no need to call it stealing. But the point that theres very little originality in the Bible is still correct.

even though that's exactly how myths have been passed down from century to century and across cultures for most of mankind's history. There's a kernel of truth there, but Zeitgeist completely misrepresents it in order to sell some stupid Dan Brown-esque conspiracy nonsense.

And there lies its problem :)

As for the Jesus/Mithras myth hypothesis that Zeitgeist pushes, I believe that has been mostly discredited. There was a long thread about it in the religion forum, if you want to have a look.

Thats okay, its not just mithra. Theres a guy youtube called AronRa (http://www.youtube.com/user/aronra?blend=1&ob=4) on youtube that knows a lot about this kind of stuff and Ive seen him discuss it many times on internet forums. While Zeitgeist is an exaggeration, there lies I think more truth in it than many skeptics have assumed, even though you do have to dig deeply. He is a good person to ask if you want to know about that stuff.

A silly connection I noticed Zeitgeist tries to make is with the other Moses type figures and how it claims they all have similar names with a wink and a nudge.

Now I havent checked on the ones they do talk about and how closely their stories resemble that Biblical Moses, however it completely ignores the fact that there is another Moses figure that doesnt sound like that name at all. Which is obviously whats known as "Hammurabi's code" which is very similar. Zeitgeist acts like the Bible just stole this kind of legend but the opinion of scholars seems to be not that they stole it, not even Hammurabi's code, but that this legend itself was so common throughout that area that you cant pin in down to one particular source.

Lucifer is simply the Latin name of the morning star. The Bible compares a number of different people to it, including Jesus himself. It's really nothing more than a metaphor.

I know, but it is relevant in this case.

The Bible doesnt speak of Lucifer, thats the Latin translation. The Hebrew words used are "Helel ben Shahar". In Canaanite mythology "Shahar" was the god of the Dawn and "Shalim" the god of the dusk. Helel ben Shahar is the quite literally "Helel, son of the morning". Helel is probably a name or title, I forget which.

Most places that talk about this only mention that Lucifer is Venus but this myth in Isaiah while not present in Canaanite mythology that we know about, is still reasonably refering to a legend based on their mythology. The legend being that Helel, son of the morning (ie. venus) tried to usurp his fathers thrown, the godhead El (ie. venus cant cant reach high enough up in the sky).

edit: I forgot to mention that in the New Testament it all got confused and they believed of course that Isaiah was refering to the devil personified. The Old Testament religion has no concept of a personified "devil". Satan was merely "the opposer", so anyone could be Satan. But this concept changed with the New Testament. It also speaks of Baalzeebub, saying that is Satan as well. But thats just a bastardisation of the name "Baal" one of the Canaanite gods that the Old Testament god has to deal with.

So in reality Baalzeebub, the devil and Lucifer are all different names for different characters not different names for the same character. I find this a very interesting story, but of course it wasnt in Zeitgeist they'd rather rely on fringe claims from Acharya S.

[fullflavormenthol]

If I am not mistaken. The Hebrews branched off from the Mesopotamian culture, which is why there exists linguistic similarities between the two groups. So the flood that took place between the Tigris and Euphrates is something that they would have also mentioned in their own cultural history, because it was something that took place in their cultural history. The real issue is the difference in the interpretation of the event, which is of course something Zeitgeist glances over because the point is the prove the thesis of D.M. Murdock.

It isn't an issue of "originality" as much as a cultural history that encompasses numerous distinct groups from a common source.

[thesyntaxera]

It isn't an issue of "originality" as much as a cultural history that encompasses numerous distinct groups from a common source.

Not to mention the impossibility of knowing the precise "who, what, when and where" of all othe overlapping, borrowed, or stolen concepts and cultural artifacts.

One can come up with all kinds of theories based in the available evidence, but will never really know for sure unless of course they invent a time machine.

[Edx]

If I am not mistaken. The Hebrews branched off from the Mesopotamian culture, which is why there exists linguistic similarities between the two groups. So the flood that took place between the Tigris and Euphrates is something that they would have also mentioned in their own cultural history, because it was something that took place in their cultural history. The real issue is the difference in the interpretation of the event, which is of course something Zeitgeist glances over because the point is the prove the thesis of D.M. Murdock.

It isn't an issue of "originality" as much as a cultural history that encompasses numerous distinct groups from a common source.

Thats really the point, you can prove essentially the same conclusion as Part 1 of Zeitgeist without having to use fringe opinions from D.M. Murdock.

A legitimate documentary talking about this indepth would still be very interesting.

[fullflavormenthol]

Thats really the point, you can prove essentially the same conclusion as Part 1 of Zeitgeist without having to use fringe opinions from D.M. Murdock.

A legitimate documentary talking about this indepth would still be very interesting.
I wouldn't go that far. The connections invented in Zeitgeist aren't found when studying the history and mythology of the times. Too much of part 1 is astrotheology and connections that don't exist.

So I wouldn't go so far as to say anything about being able to prove essentially the same thing.

[Travis]

You know what's funny? I own a copy of The Christ Conspiracies but never connected it with this movie.

[Edx]

I wouldn't go that far. The connections invented in Zeitgeist aren't found when studying the history and mythology of the times. Too much of part 1 is astrotheology and connections that don't exist.

So I wouldn't go so far as to say anything about being able to prove essentially the same thing.

It depends what you mean by essentially.

When I say it I mean the point about the Bible not being all that original and not really being any different from other myths and legends.

[fullflavormenthol]

Again couldn't go that far because the idea that all religions are not really different from each other is not something I could not back up. It is essentially the same as saying that all cultures are not really different.

[Edx]

It is essentially the same as saying that all cultures are not really different.

Most aren't.

:)

[fullflavormenthol]

Most aren't.

:)
Don't get out much do we?

:D

[Edx]

Don't get out much do we?

:D


No seriously though, there isnt much thats fundamentaly different. There also isnt anything fundamentally different about the different races either, its all basically superficial.

The reason why I think its a valid comparision is that fundamentalist Christians believe their Bible, their legends, their stories, their sacred texts are somehow more special and unique than other religions so as to give their beliefs more legitimacy.

But in the end there really is no real difference at all. It has all the same hallmarks of a man made religon as any other.

[fullflavormenthol]

No seriously though, there isnt much thats fundamentaly different. There also isnt anything fundamentally different about the different races either, its all basically superficial.

The reason why I think its a valid comparision is that fundamentalist Christians believe their Bible, their legends, their stories, their sacret texts are somehow more special and unique than other religions so as to give their beliefs more legitimacy.

But in the end there really is no real difference at all. It has all the same hallmarks of a man made religon as any other.
There are differences though, and while I agree that no religion is more special than any other; I am not going to pretend that all religions are just so similar that they are identical. Sticking it to the Christians is no excuse for ignoring the difference between cultures and religions. Or pretending that there is really something to that Zeitgeist movie.

There are major differences between Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism and these are all related religious systems. To ignore that is merely intellectual evasion.

[Edx]

There are differences though, and while I agree that no religion is more special than any other; I am not going to pretend that all religions are just so similar that they are identical. Sticking it to the Christians is no excuse for ignoring the difference between cultures and religions. Or pretending that there is really something to that Zeitgeist movie.

There are major differences between Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism and these are all related religious systems. To ignore that is merely intellectual evasion.

Theres major differences between humans and frogs but that doesnt mean we dont share a common ancester and that humans were specially created by nothing but magic words.

See my point?

[fullflavormenthol]

Theres major differences between humans and frogs but that doesnt mean we dont share a common ancester and that humans were specially created by nothing but magic words.

See my point?
I can see that you have created a bad analogy, but nothing pertaining to Zeitgeist part 1 being essentially true.

Unless your argument is that religion is a manifestation of society, and that society is a manifestation of humanity, and as such all religions are the same in that they are human creations. Of course that isn't what Zeitgeist is about.

[Edx]

I can see that you have created a bad analogy, but nothing pertaining to Zeitgeist part 1 being essentially true.

:) Well therein may lie the problem.

I never said it was essentially true. I said the conclusion was essentially true, thats very different. In case there was any confusion I then qualified what I meant when I said "essentially true":

It depends what you mean by essentially.

When I say it I mean the point about the Bible not being all that original and not really being any different from other myths and legends. - me a few posts ago

And then later still I go on to say further what I meant by that...

The reason why I think its a valid comparision is that fundamentalist Christians believe their Bible, their legends, their stories, their sacred texts are somehow more special and unique than other religions so as to give their beliefs more legitimacy.

But in the end there really is no real difference at all. It has all the same hallmarks of a man made religon as any other.

Unless your argument is that religion is a manifestation of society, and that society is a manifestation of humanity, and as such all religions are the same in that they are human creations. Of course that isn't what Zeitgeist is about.
See above.

But one could argue that Zeitgeist doesnt only have a political message, but one that is even more broad than that. The main conclusion being one that can be summed up in a sort of vague way in the swirly graphic/large eye/nice story end to Part 3 and to not trust everything you hear (irony). So in the sense that the subjects and "facts" *cough* in Zeitgeist are just trying to work up to this opinion and world philosophy Peter Joseph had that he felt demonstrated this well.

[fullflavormenthol]

But you must understand why I feel the need to clarify what is being discussed here, because there is a world of difference between saying for example, societies that are being oppressed have a tendency towards suffering servant motifs or liberation philosophies ending in a messianic faith, and the notion portrayed in Zeitgeist that there was a conspiracy to steal ideas from the Egyptians and cover it up. One notion is the common sense ideal that comes from an honest study of society and religion while the other is complete woo.

I think you would agree with saying there is a large difference between saying that all ocean themed deities share common characteristics because they are gods of the ocean, and saying that every sea god is really a copy of an earlier sea god.

[Edx]

But you must understand why I feel the need to clarify what is being discussed here, because there is a world of difference between saying for example, societies that are being oppressed have a tendency towards suffering servant motifs or liberation philosophies ending in a messianic faith, and the notion portrayed in Zeitgeist that there was a conspiracy to steal ideas from the Egyptians and cover it up. One notion is the common sense ideal that comes from an honest study of society and religion while the other is complete woo.

Oh yes a world of difference, Zeitgeist is an exaggeration for sure and in my opinion a needless one at that.

I think you would agree with saying there is a large difference between saying that all ocean themed deities share common characteristics because they are gods of the ocean, and saying that every sea god is really a copy of an earlier sea god.

Sure, its like when I gave the example of the Code of Hammurabi. Its not that the Biblical people who had the Moses myths stole all the laws from the legend of Hammurabi, its that the similar legends were so abundant in cultures of that area that you can't pin it down to one source. To be fair to the Bible it did do a few things differently (especially if you read some of the books the church arbitrarily left out) in the same way Egyptions did things differently based on whatever that religion emerged from. Its clear there is a lot of stories and myths that are clearly influenced by other religions just not to the extent that Zeitgeist claims and I touched on a few earlier.

[fullflavormenthol]

Oh yes a world of difference, Zeitgeist is an exaggeration for sure and in my opinion a needless one at that.



Sure, its like when I gave the example of the Code of Hammurabi. Its not that the Biblical people who had the Moses myths stole all the laws from the legend of Hammurabi, its that the similar legends were so abundant in cultures of that area that you can't pin it down to one source. To be fair to the Bible it did do a few things differently (especially if you read some of the books the church arbitrarily left out) in the same way Egyptions did things differently based on whatever that religion emerged from. Its clear there is a lot of stories and myths that are clearly influenced by other religions just not to the extent that Zeitgeist claims and I touched on a few earlier.
There is a wealth of information about the parallels in the ancient near east, and in fact I once took a class in Old Testament studies that focused on these occurrences.

So we are in agreement that Zeitgeist, or to be more specific Acharya S/D.M. Murdock gets it wrong in that they are trying to create this concrete conspiracy when in reality it is more a rich tapestry of interacting cultures splitting off from other cultures and constantly reinterpreting their existing legends.

And like I wrote in the first paragraph there are numerous sources for this information, but my problem with movies like Zeitgeist is that they try to make everything more deliberate and more sexy.

[Hokulele]

Most aren't.

:)


Careful, you are on the edge of indulging in the fallacy of translation.

[Edx]

There is a wealth of information about the parallels in the ancient near east, and in fact I once took a class in Old Testament studies that focused on these occurrences.

So we are in agreement that Zeitgeist, or to be more specific Acharya S/D.M. Murdock gets it wrong in that they are trying to create this concrete conspiracy when in reality it is more a rich tapestry of interacting cultures splitting off from other cultures and constantly reinterpreting their existing legends.

And like I wrote in the first paragraph there are numerous sources for this information, but my problem with movies like Zeitgeist is that they try to make everything more deliberate and more sexy.

Then let it be written! We are agreed! :D

[Edx]

Careful, you are on the edge of indulging in the fallacy of translation.

eh?

[Hokulele]

eh?


Many of the people who make the claim that all cultures or all religions are basically the same usually base that conclusion on what is known as the fallacy of translation. This is the fallacy that because certain words from different languages are translated to the same word in yet another language, they must have the same meaning. For example, the Japanese word kami used in the Shinto religion and the Hawai'ian word akua used in their native religion both translate to the English word god. The fallacy would lie in assuming that a kami must have the same properties and characteristics as an akua, and both behave just like the god of the Old Testament.

[carlitos]

That's a fair point. I get that when I try to translate obscenities from Spanish to English for people.

A cabrón does not have the same properties as a *****. etc.

[Edx]

Many of the people who make the claim that all cultures or all religions are basically the same usually base that conclusion on what is known as the fallacy of translation. This is the fallacy that because certain words from different languages are translated to the same word in yet another language, they must have the same meaning. For example, the Japanese word kami used in the Shinto religion and the Hawai'ian word akua used in their native religion both translate to the English word god. The fallacy would lie in assuming that a kami must have the same properties and characteristics as an akua, and both behave just like the god of the Old Testament.

Then the fallacy here is rather your assumption that my reasoning behind saying that was based on language :)

[Hokulele]

Then the fallacy here is rather your assumption that my reasoning behind saying that was based on language :)


Which is why I stated that you were on the edge of that fallacy, rather than actually using it. :cool:

[Edx]

Which is why I stated that you were on the edge of that fallacy, rather than actually using it. :cool:

Ah but only on the edge in your mind, since I was never going to use that argument! :cool:

[Edx]

Theres a guy youtube called AronRa (http://www.youtube.com/user/aronra?blend=1&ob=4) on youtube that knows a lot about this kind of stuff and Ive seen him discuss it many times on internet forums. While Zeitgeist is an exaggeration, there lies I think more truth in it than many skeptics have assumed, even though you do have to dig deeply. He is a good person to ask if you want to know about that stuff.


See this video for example, then also at around 5 mins sort of talks about it a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o#t=3m44s

[Edx]

Not directly related but it is quite a good parody... :)

1PTIumhG9Lk

[thesyntaxera]

Just sayin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#See_also

Not sure if this was mentioned in the main thread about the Gifford shooting, but I thought I would add it here.

[Scott Jurgenson]

Just sayin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#See_also

Not sure if this was mentioned in the main thread about the Gifford shooting, but I thought I would add it here.

lol:)