ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[Dave31]

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

Edited by tim: 

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 for one free resource, and to be perfectly honest with you can even glance through history on your very own using the NYT Archive, 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 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

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, 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, 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

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[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:

1. "Have you read her books?"
2. "What do you have against her?"
3. "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 that discusses the very same topic, and especially post #54 (straight from the horses mouth so-to-speak) should shed quite some light on this issue.

 

[GreNME]

Here is - another - IIDB thread that discusses the very same topic, and especially post #54 (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