• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ZEITGEIST, The Movie

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
 
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 :).
 
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
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
"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. It hasn't even come up in the Senate status, 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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

JonathanClement said:
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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 

Back
Top Bottom