First off, kudos to the OP for creating the thread -- the number of people who have responded with "stop bashing Zeitgeist, your refutation has no
more validity than it does" either did not bother doing any research, or they have no concept of what research and evidence is.
The claims of the religious portions of the Zeitgeist movie (the only bit that I'm interested in) have been refuted as being based on false data
produced by incompetent and/or discredited researchers, or stems from claims that appear to have absolutely no historical basis. Acharya S (aka. D.M.
Murdoch) writes that Krishna was born on 25 December (of which there is no proof, not that it matters, no serious Christian believes that Christ was
born on 25 December) and cites the pathetically inaccurate Kersey Graves as a reference source. Even critics of the historical Jesus ignore
So part one is a collection of shoddy scholarship and outright fantasy ("Son" = "Sun", get it? I might, if the original scripture was written in
English.) I have no interest in part two or three, but I wonder what the lack of credibility in part one says about them? It would seem that part
one was intended to "shake things up a bit" by taking something that most people know a little about, but few people know much about, and then toss
out a bunch of allegations that make it all seem contrived and controlling. Dan Brown proved that you can use junk history to convince the masses of
pretty much anything that they are inclined to believe, whether it's true or not. The number of people who believe Brown's claim that Constantine
determined the contents of the Bible is shockingly high, even though there is zero evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against it.
I don't know, that seems, to me, to be a rather controlling thing, in itself. Taking advantage of people's ignorance, in order to further your own
But what's behind it all? I had to laugh at the guy who dismissed any sort of connection to the NWO, apparently because he has a preconceived notion
of what that is. No, I don't think that the Zeitgeist Movement is the Rockefellers or DuPonts or Federal Reserve in disguise (though they might be, I
suppose.) But they're clearly a movement that has a New World Order, a one world government, as its goal.
Here's what they're on about:
Started in late 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement exists fundamentally as the communication and activist arm of an organization called The Venus
Project. In some ways it could be categorized as a "Sustainability Movement", in part. The basic pursuit of The Movement is to begin a transition into
a new, sustainable social design called a “Resource-Based Economy”. This term was first coined by Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project and refers to
an economic structure based exclusively on strategic resource management, as the starting point for all decisions.
So what's a "resource-based economy?" Well, it's one in which you, Joe Blow, own exactly bupkiss. You're entitled to nothing, because it's all "the
In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the
need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.
Does that sound familiar?
For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent
its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of
universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones.
-- source: Karl Marx, German Ideology
Now, how are they going to be sharing all of these resources? Think they might come round and say "hey, you've a car, this chap over in India doesn't
have one. You get this bike, and we're going to smash up your car to make more bikes." You don't like it? Tough.
Never mind that utopia-boy there ignores the "elephant in the room", which is resource scarcity. Once you've handed over your sovereignty to your
Zeitgeist overlords, you've given up the ability to determine, for yourself, whether you should have something or not. If there are only enough iPods
to entertain 1/3 of the population, under the current system, you can work hard until you're able to be one of the 1/3, no matter where you are.
Under their system, if they decide to keep them for themselves, or give them out randomly or whatever, if you don't have, you don't get. Period.
"You need an operation? Well, so does this other guy, and he's one of the leaders, so you're going to have to wait." Don't like it? Guess you should
join "the Party" and become one of the decision making elite.
It's been tried before, and it failed, miserably, because you can only get people to go along with that kind of thing at the point of a gun, and the
ONLY reason that the people who were suffering under the system were able to get out from under its thumb is because there was not a one world
government, which is what these people propose.
In short, not only are their claims (at least in part one) laughably wrong, their goal is EXACTLY what they claim to be rising up against.
"Total control is absolutely unacceptable... unless I'm the one in control."
edit on 17-2-2011 by adjensen because: oopsies