ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[allibearbear]

Hi Syntaxera,

I can assure you I'm no scholar and am really largely uninterested in the whole historical perspective of these things. I flatter myself that I can think of better things to do with my time than become educated. Though my girlfriend figures that writing these mails half the evening is wasting it also.

Scholars are dull, and no one wants to be dull, at the end of the day. Most importantly, the Hero is not a scholar. The hero fights dragons, gets off with sexy women, and saves the world. Everybody wants to be the hero, and no one wants to be the scholar.

This is why the liklihood of anyone ever "proving" beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was a fiction, and one copied from pre-history, is grossly unlikely. The vast majority of humans can't be bothered researching these things and those that can are jealous of heroes anyway.

Finally, proof doesn't really matter. The dumbing down of humanity, something long overdue in many ways, is now being so effectively undertaken that people will believe simply what feels right.

Objectivity loses its respect. Proof loses its potency. What seems right will supercede it. This is no bad thing, if you ask me. You don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was a myth. You don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. At a certain point thse things will simply feel right and change will occur. Watch!

Nick

Booyah, grinning from ear to ear

Caveat: I love heroes and nerds, alike, each in their own respect;the dynamic you described is undeniable, though.

 

[GreNME]

I have a sneaking suspicion we're arguing about different things here or something. Maybe I've made a wrong turn or been reading too fast, a common prob. Ah, having just lost this post somehow once, and now re-writing it out quickly, I think I see where things have got confused.

You quoted the study at www.zompist.com/chance.htm as demonstrating that languages with similar words and meanings aren't necessarily related. And that this can thus be applied to other cultural contexts. The data contained therein is your "strong case." OK, I understand now. Because the study seemed to be a repudiation of an earlier study, I somewhere picked up the impression that you were saying that this act of repudiation, of itself, would be statistically significant when considering other cultural contexts. Which of course it wouldn't be. I apologise, reading too fast.

Now...ok, the study itself. Let's ask this Mark Rosenfelder guy who seems to have written the paper.

"Dear Mark, many thanks for a fascinating study at www.zompist.com/chance.htm. I've been debating the liklihood of Joseph Campbell's "monomyth" concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth having validity and wonder if you feel the techniques applied in your piece could be applied to comparative mythology. What do you think?"

Wonder if he replies.

Nick

I gave you two other links saying the same thing. Are you going to write those individuals as well? Let's go for as wide a verification as we can, at least to cover all of the examples I gave and not just ones picked via the possibility of bias or arbitrary selection.

It would seem to me that one would need do demonstrate on variability. One would have to consider how many realistic possibilities there were within cultural mythology and whether the apparent parity that Campbell suggests is statistically significant. Seems to me that there must be a relative multitude of things that the characters in significant mythoi could do, yet they do seem to do a relatively small number of them. What do you think?

I think you are applying meaning to a phenomenon without supporting material. The human mouth has a staggering number of possible sounds it can create, and yet many different languages seem to make use of a statistically small number of them. That does not change the fact that many of these languages experienced what is called "parallell evolution" in their development, something that has been mentioned from before Darwin (though he used it as well) all the way up to Dr. Blevins, who I mentioned earlier. Further, nothing I've read of Campbell's states that there's some shallow pool interrelating all religions, which is what you seem to have implied. The archetypes he and others describe for the reader have been, in my experience, describing similarities with no other conclusion than stating that there are similarities. You seem to be taking his and others' work a step further, and I am asking for some evidence of substance to support your claim because similarities are insufficient to establish a relationship. You keep referring back to the similarities, some minor quibble takes place, and the cycle begins anew.

Just a question: where do you think (or where do you think Campbell thinks) this monomyth came from?

And before I forget:

Scholars are dull, and no one wants to be dull, at the end of the day. Most importantly, the Hero is not a scholar. The hero fights dragons, gets off with sexy women, and saves the world. Everybody wants to be the hero, and no one wants to be the scholar.

Kind of ironic that all of the world's greatest (and most infamous) conquerers throughout history were all scholars and warriors, then.

This is why the liklihood of anyone ever "proving" beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was a fiction, and one copied from pre-history, is grossly unlikely. The vast majority of humans can't be bothered researching these things and those that can are jealous of heroes anyway.

A hefty claim. Many of the most famous historical heroes, the ones who last longer than even civilizations, were also scholars as well: Gilgamesh (great builder [architect], judge [law], and king); Achilles (scholar of warfare, no one could match his prowess); Hector ('tamer of horses', meaning skilled [read: studied] equstrian of incredible skill); Odysseus (his cunning mind is his myth); Heracles (read of the twelve labors, four of which he used his guile to achieve); Yoshitsune (studied and learned all of the martial arts to avenge his father); Zarathustra (a priest [learned class] and a king). The whole idea of a 'hero' is someone that isn't just stronger, sexier, or lucker than the average person. Epic heroes are also smarter, wiser, more just, and most of all exude their nearly limitless determination in the face of adversity. That is why their stories last throughout ages: they inspire people to want to be better.

Finally, proof doesn't really matter. The dumbing down of humanity, something long overdue in many ways, is now being so effectively undertaken that people will believe simply what feels right.

Objectivity loses its respect. Proof loses its potency. What seems right will supercede it. This is no bad thing, if you ask me. You don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was a myth. You don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. At a certain point thse things will simply feel right and change will occur. Watch!

Every day I believe I should have a million dollars, and having a million dollars definitely feels about right to me. I have yet to have this elusive million dollars appear in my bank accounts, so I continue to go to work.

One of the most disappointing things I see within the general attitude of today's Western society is an underlying feeling of entitlement, that all we need to do is want something enough and it can be ours.

 

[allibearbear]

It gets old seeing the same bad data repeated as if the repetition might someday make it fact, and it is downright dangerous to see so many similar arguments to old white power and anti-semite talking points being used in the justifications. That is why speaking out against such productions is done. It is exactly the opposite of constructive or critical thinking, and is in many cases destructive. It doesn't make me angry, it makes me worry and it causes me to be a little bit scared that such ideas take hold in the minds of people who are generally decent folk. It's at least as disheartening as listening to folks who think Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are at least partially 'right' when they pontificate and spew their hatred.

This helps to lay some foundational context for the basis of these conspiracies. It seems to be that the Christianity::Egypt comparisons are coming from a heavy anti-Mason and / or anti-Mormon basis. The anti-Fed/international financing/fiat money system movement has a very heavy basis in early-20th-century xenophobic literature (which, in turn, has some other cultural/religious history-- see Constantine's Sword by James Carroll for some separate but appropriate information on that). The 9/11 conspiracy stuff seems to be a hybrid of the previous two mixed with a strong anti-federalism. Certainly helpful in establishing where the accusations are actually heading, in my opinion, and a good explanation of why the movements come not only from a very extreme right-wing ideology (not synonymous with the Republican Party or any other political organization, just an ideological origin) with some heavy fundementalist Christian biases, depending on the conspiracy in question and the focuses of the theory itself (the anti-Masons and "Bohemian Grove" ones in particular).

I can't even begin to diplomatically ask the questions I'd like to ask, GreNME. Are you of Jewish descent? I hope that's not out of line, as Nick disclosed he was of partial Iranian(?) descent. Could you elaborate on your above post?

Two things come to my mind. First, Da Ali G Show. He had a skit which I'll label, "Throw the Jews in the well", a song he performed in a Texas honky-tonk bar. Yeah, it was weird. Second, Bill Maher's interview with former CIA head of Bin Laden unit saying, "Jerusalem is not worth an American dollar or life"(loose recollection, not a direct quote).

I've only ever discussed Da Ali G skit with a close friend that was a drug-addled, wealthy person of Jewish descent. He introduced the topic, not I. My friend's rant/response was that the world blamed the Jewish community for going against the law of the Bible and lending money to unwealthy pp, putting them in debt and enriching the Jewish community. Honestly, sounds like Capitalism to me.

Bill Maher's interview ties into Ahmadnejad's speech at Columbia. Denying the Holocaust is bizarre, but seems fueled by an intense desire to justify wanting Jewish pp out of Israel. Personally, as an outsider looking in, I really don't understand why it is America's right or responsibility to place or protect Jewish pp in a land that had not been their's for how long(?).

My intention was not to offend

 

[GreNME]

I'm absolutely not offended. I am not Jewish. All in all, I'm not even particularly a big fan of the Israeli government, but that has to do with the government's behavior and not their heritage. Overall I feel that there is plenty of justification for Jews to share land with the Palestinians, but as is typical of we human beings politics, greed, corruption, and backdoor deals (google "Balfour declaration" for some starting material) got in the way and the whole list of good intentions eventually escalated into a blood-for-blood war that has persisted for nearly 60 years.

Two things come to my mind. First, Da Ali G Show. He had a skit which I'll label, "Throw the Jews in the well", a song he performed in a Texas honky-tonk bar. Yeah, it was weird. Second, Bill Maher's interview with former CIA head of Bin Laden unit saying, "Jerusalem is not worth an American dollar or life"(loose recollection, not a direct quote).

I've only ever discussed Da Ali G skit with a close friend that was a drug-addled, wealthy person of Jewish descent. He introduced the topic, not I. My friend's rant/response was that the world blamed the Jewish community for going against the law of the Bible and lending money to unwealthy pp, putting them in debt and enriching the Jewish community. Honestly, sounds like Capitalism to me.

What your friend is talking about is the practice if usury. In Jewish orthodoxy, it is not permitted to lend money to another Jewish person under an agreement of usury (which means expecting interest on the loan). It is either offered and returned or the lender must either take the issue up with the keepers of law (judges) or forgive the debt. However, this practice does not extend to Gentiles (everyone who is not Jewish). While I'm sure that there are plenty of people who might claim this or use it as an excuse, there is a much more innocuous reason that has permeated some of the worst treatment of Jews in history: the crucifixion of Jesus.

For over 1500 years, the Jews had been considered the ones responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Up until a Vatican Council in the 20th century, there was even the phrase "pernicious Jews" in the liturgy for Easter. One of the hotly-debated issues that many people have with a lot of Passion plays has to do with the characterization of the Jews as the ones who convinced Pilate to put Jesus to death, and it was Jews who mocked and spit on him during his march to be hung on the cross. This is objected to by Jews because of the obvious: it pretty much characterizes most Jews and Jewish the religious leadership (at the time, the Sanheidrin) as attempted God-killers. This is objected to by many historians because it is completely out of character for how Pontius Pilate is remembered: he was a ruthless governor who hated being in the region, he supposedly crucified many people (one account has him nearly surrounding Jerusalem with crucified corpses), and he was a pious Roman citizen-- meaning he looked down on conquered lands like Judea as populated by lesser beings, so he more likely would have had the heads of the Sanheidrin on pikes if they tried to pull what is documented in the bible.

I mention the book Constantine's Sword as a worthwhile read because it goes into this in far more detail (with thousands of citations, each equally worthwhile) and better wording than I can put here. The idea behind the concept of deicide is, as explained by Carroll in the book, a product of Roman conversion and subsequent control of the destiny of the faith. The title, "Constantine's Sword", is a metaphor for the sign of the cross that the emperor Constantine claimed to have seen in a dream, which is the 'lowercase-T' sign of the cross as we know it today. It was under Constantine that the Nicene Council took place, ostensibly under the direction of Constantine himself, and this was the beginning of what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church. During this time the systematic destruction of any "apostate" Christian sects (those who didn't join the Council) began. Many of the apocrypha-- 'books' accepted as biblical by churches who were not in line with the established canon of the Council or Nicene Creed-- and other similar works from churches that were equally as old as (or older than) the four Gospels we know of today, were destroyed. At times throughout history, Jews were treated as a sub-class of humans, and there were times when they were forced to either convert or be destroyed. At the risk of invoking Godwin, many Jews even escaped concentration camps by producing fake baptismal documents from sympathetic priests during the Second World War. Even in protestant doctrine in recent centuries, Jews were always described as having betrayed and forsaken Jesus. Judas became the archetype for the Jews, his story ending with his innards being spilt on rocks in an act of suicide as an ancient affront to Jewish burial practices.

The xenophobic literature I spoke of was partially literature by groups like the Klu Klux Klan, but were not isolated to just them. Many of the robber-barons of old and union movement leaders of the time were accused of being in league with "Jewish international bankers" to take money from honest, hard-working American Protestants. In the first Red Scare after the end of the Great War (WWI), Russian Jews were often ostracized and the target of heavy bigotry (which was made worse by Stalin's massacre of Jews that exceeded that of the Nazis). Even following WWII, Christian burial markers were placed in sites of concentration camps, an act which has drawn objections even up to recent years (the last time I read about it was in 2004).

To sum it up, the Jews have had a bad rap for a long, long time.

Bill Maher's interview ties into Ahmadnejad's speech at Columbia. Denying the Holocaust is bizarre, but seems fueled by an intense desire to justify wanting Jewish pp out of Israel. Personally, as an outsider looking in, I really don't understand why it is America's right or responsibility to place or protect Jewish pp in a land that had not been their's for how long(?).

The reason people get antsy at the slightest sign of anti-semitism nowadays is because WWII showed most of the world just how monstrous we (human beings) can be to other groups of human beings for practically arbitrary reasons. Even though I don't like much of the Israeli government and blame the Jewish settlers for many of the root problems in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (though Britain and France had a documented part in setting the tone of betrayal to the Palestinian and other Arab people), I still am very wary of and conscious to identify any roots of antisemitism that can threaten to take hold.

Ahmadenijad most likely does not actually believe his claims regarding the Holocaust (called the shoah in Hebrew, becaus the Greek for 'holocaust' means "burnt offering"). Instead, I tend to think he is intentionally playing favor for the Palestinian people in a pretty poor fashion. He's playing to the Palestinians to gain favor with the Arab states, as well as with the Arab population within his own country (who make up a large percentage). He's being as ham-handed and hyperbolic as he is because his country has been hamstrung for the last twenty-two years, and he wants a piece of the attention pie for his country with the ruckus in the Middle East. Regardless of his rhetoric, he is mostly a castrated dictator who is forced to defer to the wishes of the Ayatollah in the end, but he has a long leash. He seems to fully intend to dance as far as his leash will allow him to prod Western powers, especially the United States, because he seems pretty sure that America wouldn't dare attack (and for good reasons). The problem with his madman behavior is that it is likely going to prove too effective, because he's gone way past the point of being able to establish any credibility in the event the US government does decide to try and attack the country.

But I digress. Whole books have been written on these subjects and whole threads (and forums) could be dedicated to talking about just those things.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Booyah, grinning from ear to ear

Caveat: I love heroes and nerds, alike, each in their own respect;the dynamic you described is undeniable, though.

What the hell have the damned intelligentsia ever done for us proles, eh?

Hip hip hooray for anti-intellectualism!

 

[Nick227]

I gave you two other links saying the same thing. Are you going to write those individuals as well? Let's go for as wide a verification as we can, at least to cover all of the examples I gave and not just ones picked via the possibility of bias or arbitrary selection.

I will have another look at those and check through the material. It's interesting. Thanks for forwarding them.

Might take a few days as I'm going to have to cut back on my discussion group time, I think. Too much other stuff I'm supposed to be doing. I find I get attracted in and then this kind of backlog builds up in my in-tray and I feel like I have to furtively sneak in time during work, despite being the manager!

I think you are applying meaning to a phenomenon without supporting material. The human mouth has a staggering number of possible sounds it can create, and yet many different languages seem to make use of a statistically small number of them. That does not change the fact that many of these languages experienced what is called "parallell evolution" in their development, something that has been mentioned from before Darwin (though he used it as well) all the way up to Dr. Blevins, who I mentioned earlier.

That's interesting. This is an intriguing field. Speech, naming things, and mythos are all associated with the causal plane of existence in Qabalah. In Gen 1:1, be rashith berah Alhim, vath ha-shamaim, ath ha-aretz
ha-shamaim, the heavens, is the causal plane, if I recall. I remember reading that it's a plant as one would expect shamaim to mean "names," in Hebrew. The word indicates the importance given to naming in Kaballah.

The archetypes he and others describe for the reader have been, in my experience, describing similarities with no other conclusion than stating that there are similarities. You seem to be taking his and others' work a step further, and I am asking for some evidence of substance to support your claim because similarities are insufficient to establish a relationship. You keep referring back to the similarities, some minor quibble takes place, and the cycle begins anew.

Perhaps we're embarking on some minor epic of our own! For evidence you're going to have to go into esoteric source material. It will be a tough journey, and you may have to rely on all sorts of seemingly untrustworthy fellows. There will be many challenges along the way. Depends on your motivation, I guess. Are you seeking some proof you can announce to the world, or do you actually want to see what all the fuss is about? What is the root of your motivation?

Kind of ironic that all of the world's greatest (and most infamous) conquerers throughout history were all scholars and warriors, then.

A hefty claim. Many of the most famous historical heroes, the ones who last longer than even civilizations, were also scholars as well: Gilgamesh (great builder [architect], judge [law], and king); Achilles (scholar of warfare, no one could match his prowess); Hector ('tamer of horses', meaning skilled [read: studied] equstrian of incredible skill); Odysseus (his cunning mind is his myth); Heracles (read of the twelve labors, four of which he used his guile to achieve); Yoshitsune (studied and learned all of the martial arts to avenge his father); Zarathustra (a priest [learned class] and a king). The whole idea of a 'hero' is someone that isn't just stronger, sexier, or lucker than the average person. Epic heroes are also smarter, wiser, more just, and most of all exude their nearly limitless determination in the face of adversity. That is why their stories last throughout ages: they inspire people to want to be better.

Yes, this is true. Apologies for dumbing down the role of the hero.

Every day I believe I should have a million dollars, and having a million dollars definitely feels about right to me. I have yet to have this elusive million dollars appear in my bank accounts, so I continue to go to work.

Then you have to seek inside yourself for the answer. Perhaps on a superficial level you believe you should have the money, but deeper down there is concern or doubt. I can only assure you that if you believed, from the depth of your being, that you should have $1,000,000, you would have it.

Nick

 

[GreNME]

I will have another look at those and check through the material. It's interesting. Thanks for forwarding them.

Might take a few days as I'm going to have to cut back on my discussion group time, I think. Too much other stuff I'm supposed to be doing. I find I get attracted in and then this kind of backlog builds up in my in-tray and I feel like I have to furtively sneak in time during work, despite being the manager!

I know what you mean.

Honestly, I have a lot of this information saved in both memory and stored links (I have over 2000), and that isn't geting into my library that can't be linked online (but I've offered some titles when I thought them appropriate). You are the first person in years to have engaged me in discussion on these topics, so kudos to you and take your time checking them out.

That's interesting. This is an intriguing field. Speech, naming things, and mythos are all associated with the causal plane of existence in Qabalah. In Gen 1:1, be rashith berah Alhim, vath ha-shamaim, ath ha-aretz
ha-shamaim, the heavens, is the causal plane, if I recall. I remember reading that it's a plant as one would expect shamaim to mean "names," in Hebrew. The word indicates the importance given to naming in Kaballah.

And importance in Hebrew. Remember that the Hebrew language was, for many years, an almost exclusively oral language. Even when writing developed for the language, writing was most often used for only important things and not dabbled with lightly, specifically because of the oral traditions and the significance of word-use. The story of the golem-- I assume you know of the tale-- is a perfect example of the Jewish importance of words displayed in a mystic tale.

Perhaps we're embarking on some minor epic of our own! For evidence you're going to have to go into esoteric source material. It will be a tough journey, and you may have to rely on all sorts of seemingly untrustworthy fellows. There will be many challenges along the way. Depends on your motivation, I guess. Are you seeking some proof you can announce to the world, or do you actually want to see what all the fuss is about? What is the root of your motivation?

It depends on the situation.

Yes, this is true. Apologies for dumbing down the role of the hero.

I don't think you dumbed it down, you just missed some stuff. They do all the other cool stuff, too.

Every day I believe I should have a million dollars, and having a million dollars definitely feels about right to me. I have yet to have this elusive million dollars appear in my bank accounts, so I continue to go to work.

Then you have to seek inside yourself for the answer. Perhaps on a superficial level you believe you should have the money, but deeper down there is concern or doubt. I can only assure you that if you believed, from the depth of your being, that you should have $1,000,000, you would have it.

Nick

You missed your calling as a preacher, sir.

No, I'm pretty sure I deserve it. I even have it worked out how I can live comfortably, do the things I want to liesurely, and still engage in a reasonable amount of philanthropy, all from a starting sum of of one million dollars US. So, I'm on a path to get there. I even know the steps I have to take to get there, and am even allowing for changes in jobs, career, location, and so on. It's all achievable for me, and it will happen. However, it isn't going to happen just sitting at my desk wishing for it.

Besides, don't you know that people who gain money through luck or windfall, going from relatively low wealth to great wealth, tend to lose that money in quick succession? Happens all the time here in the States. I prefer to wade my way into it gradually, so I learn how to spend appropriately.

You can bet your pulpit on that.

 

[allibearbear]

What your friend is talking about is the practice if usury. In Jewish orthodoxy, it is not permitted to lend money to another Jewish person under an agreement of usury (which means expecting interest on the loan). It is either offered and returned or the lender must either take the issue up with the keepers of law (judges) or forgive the debt. However, this practice does not extend to Gentiles (everyone who is not Jewish). While I'm sure that there are plenty of people who might claim this or use it as an excuse, there is a much more innocuous reason that has permeated some of the worst treatment of Jews in history: the crucifixion of Jesus.

Is it ridiculous to wonder if indebted Jews would fabricate the story of Jesus' crucifixion by "other" Jews to defame their creditors? I realize that would be tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your own face, but we've got that saying for a reason. Is there research/evidence of the origin/source for blaming the Jews for "killing God"?

I've not researched the Rockefeller's and the few other "international bankers" mentioned in Zeitgeist, but were any of them Jewish?

 

[gumboot]

What are you people talking about?

-Gumboot

 

[Hokulele]

What are you people talking about?

-Gumboot

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2994732#post2994732

 

[Stout]

Gumboot, that would be the historical accuracy of the first part of Zeitgeist.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Is it ridiculous to wonder if indebted Jews would fabricate the story of Jesus' crucifixion by "other" Jews to defame their creditors? I realize that would be tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your own face, but we've got that saying for a reason. Is there research/evidence of the origin/source for blaming the Jews for "killing God"?

I've not researched the Rockefeller's and the few other "international bankers" mentioned in Zeitgeist, but were any of them Jewish?

WTF?

 

[StephenJWilson]

Very evolved

Hello,

I just wanted to point out how DRAMATICALLY the conversation has changed from the beginning of this thread.

It seems many people have stopped bashing the movie and calling people names.

The psychology surrounding the 9/11 truth movement is the most interesting part of the time we are living in.

Whether you are part of the 9/11 truth movement or are a skeptic of the movement... I think we all have to agree that what is going on right now in history is a unique phenomenon.

Keep an open mind, an open heart, and never stop searching for the truth!

Peace,
Stephen

 

[GreNME]

Is it ridiculous to wonder if indebted Jews would fabricate the story of Jesus' crucifixion by "other" Jews to defame their creditors? I realize that would be tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your own face, but we've got that saying for a reason.

That has got to be the absolute most amazingly wierd and somewhat horrifying theory I have ever heard.

So yeah, I'd probably file that one under "ridiculous."

Is there research/evidence of the origin/source for blaming the Jews for "killing God"?

Loads. Please find and read Constantine's Sword by James Carroll-- there are gobs of research in the book, all heavily cited to source material (check them out as well). Then Google search "Elaine Pagels" after that. There are several other authors I can list for you, but those are a good starting point.

I've not researched the Rockefeller's and the few other "international bankers" mentioned in Zeitgeist, but were any of them Jewish?

What does it matter? I don't think the Rockefellers are, but many other wealthy family targets of anti-Fed ire are, and the loudest anti-Fed CTs tend to focus more on them than the Rockefellers or Carnegie and the like.

----

Hello,

I just wanted to point out how DRAMATICALLY the conversation has changed from the beginning of this thread.

It seems many people have stopped bashing the movie and calling people names.

The psychology surrounding the 9/11 truth movement is the most interesting part of the time we are living in.

Whether you are part of the 9/11 truth movement or are a skeptic of the movement... I think we all have to agree that what is going on right now in history is a unique phenomenon.

Keep an open mind, an open heart, and never stop searching for the truth!

Peace,
Stephen

Hi Stephen. I would counter by warning you to question and be wary of anyone who is trying to convince you of any "truth" out there. Very often the purveyors of "truth" carry with them a desire for personal gain using other people's desire for "truth." Some of them are even convinced that their "truth" is so real that it supercedes everyone else's and should be held above it.

 

[allibearbear]

What does it matter? I don't think the Rockefellers are, but many other wealthy family targets of anti-Fed ire are, and the loudest anti-Fed CTs tend to focus more on them than the Rockefellers or Carnegie and the like.

----

I gotta tell ya, for someone demanding proof of every wipe of a Jewish banking ass, I do believe it's important for you to back your claim that Zeitgeist is anti-semetic.

 

[Nick227]

Whether you are part of the 9/11 truth movement or are a skeptic of the movement... I think we all have to agree that what is going on right now in history is a unique phenomenon.

Very much so, and taking place before our eyes. Here in the UK, for the last few months the media have been in a full-on frenzy over the case of Madeleine McCann, the small British child who went missing whilst on holiday with her parents in Portugal.

Front page news all over the country, week after week, posters everywhere, literally everywhere. The message is....your kids are not safe, and it's being bashed into everyone's heads repeatedly. There's nothing to suggest child abductions are any more common now than ever before but suddenly the media are going crazy over them. And, every now and again, a scientist or worker from a child aid agency pops his head up to say "well, you know, the only way to make your kids safe is to have a tracking chip implanted in them." It's happening.

Nick

 

[GreNME]

I gotta tell ya, for someone demanding proof of every wipe of a Jewish banking ass, I do believe it's important for you to back your claim that Zeitgeist is anti-semetic.

You really need to check yourself, dude. Let me lay it out for you as simple as possible:

1. I don't know what the hell your "proof of every wipe of a Jewish banking ass" crap is supposed to mean, but the only ones claiming "proof" of anything involving "international bankers" are the anti-Fed conspiracy theories, in which "international bankers" is a good-old-fashioned ex-Nazi and ex-white-power term that hadn't been used for over a century by anyone but nazis, neo-nazis, and various white power groups.
   .
2. I didn't call the whole film anti-semitic, I called most anti-Fed conspiracies out there who trumpet the "international bankers" lines based on anti-semitic literature. I could also point out the ever-abundant motif of conspiracy theories focusing in Israel and "Zionists" (without ever understanding what the word means), as well.
   .
3. For someone who previosly claimed they weren't intending to offend, you are sure as hell coming off pretty offensive now, intentionally or not. I have no idea what has you so possibly touchy about subjects involving Jewish people, but whatever problem you think you're seeing regarding me isn't there.

Did something I say strike a chord, allibearbear? If so, let me know what it was and we can discuss it. I think I've displayed plenty of patience and willingness to discuss opposing points of view to a fairly high degree, but I have no patience with inflammatory accusations.

 

[GreNME]

Very much so, and taking place before our eyes. Here in the UK, for the last few months the media have been in a full-on frenzy over the case of Madeleine McCann, the small British child who went missing whilst on holiday with her parents in Portugal.

Front page news all over the country, week after week, posters everywhere, literally everywhere. The message is....your kids are not safe, and it's being bashed into everyone's heads repeatedly. There's nothing to suggest child abductions are any more common now than ever before but suddenly the media are going crazy over them. And, every now and again, a scientist or worker from a child aid agency pops his head up to say "well, you know, the only way to make your kids safe is to have a tracking chip implanted in them." It's happening.

Nick

What is happening? Things like you describe-- the emphasized focus on child safety when an abduction becomes news, and some wild theories on how to make children "safer" being claimed-- has been happening for over 25 years here in the States. The most that has ever come from it here are certain types of legislation that have made sentencing of abductors more strict in terms of prison terms, and have required different law enforcement agencies to work together in finding missing children.

I think it is a bit of an over-reaction to assume this is significantly new or different than the last couple decades, at least. If nothing else, the public outcry for faster law enforcement responses for missing children has resulted in reduced abductions and fatalities from abductions, not the opposite. I will agree that the sensationalism has increased, but past that the actual danger has decreased on the whole.

This is an example of how changes in law enforcement procedures has actually worked for the public good.

 

[Nick227]

What is happening? Things like you describe-- the emphasized focus on child safety when an abduction becomes news, and some wild theories on how to make children "safer" being claimed-- has been happening for over 25 years here in the States. The most that has ever come from it here are certain types of legislation that have made sentencing of abductors more strict in terms of prison terms, and have required different law enforcement agencies to work together in finding missing children.

I think it is a bit of an over-reaction to assume this is significantly new or different than the last couple decades, at least. If nothing else, the public outcry for faster law enforcement responses for missing children has resulted in reduced abductions and fatalities from abductions, not the opposite. I will agree that the sensationalism has increased, but past that the actual danger has decreased on the whole.

This is an example of how changes in law enforcement procedures has actually worked for the public good.

Maybe it's the norm in the states. But this is unprecendented by a BIG margin in the UK. The Madeleine McCann thing has been literally everywhere for months. I mean, posters in half the newsagents in the UK. Really....half. For someone abducted in Portugal. Whole websites, constant front page news across the 10 biggest dailies. It's quite unprecedented. The last time I saw it on this scale was when the government wanted to ban the drug Ecstasy and so leapt onto the accidental death of a policeman's daughter, Leah Betts, in a nightclub.

Could I ask you, GreNME, would you consider it OK to have people microchipped?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Maybe it's the norm in the states. But this is unprecendented by a BIG margin in the UK. The Madeleine McCann thing has been literally everywhere for months. I mean, posters in half the newsagents in the UK. Really....half. For someone abducted in Portugal. Whole websites, constant front page news across the 10 biggest dailies. It's quite unprecedented. The last time I saw it on this scale was when the government wanted to ban the drug Ecstasy and so leapt onto the accidental death of a policeman's daughter, Leah Betts, in a nightclub.

Could I ask you, GreNME, would you consider it OK to have people microchipped?

Nick

Example http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1788169.ece