Zeitgeist as a propaganda tool for a New World Order

I find Zeitgeist to be a curious phenomenon on a number of levels, but most clearly as a modern form of propaganda, which is biased or misleading information intended to promote a particular cause or point of view. Colloquially, propaganda is the means by which one convinces someone to do something that they normally would not.

The other night, I watched The Triumph of the Will, the 1935 film by Leni Riefenstahl, which documents the 1934 Nuremberg Rally of the National Socialist Party in Germany. Probably one of the premiere examples of propaganda on film, it is a testament that helps answer the question of why Hitler and the Nazis had the popular support that they did. If you'd have stopped an average person in Stuttgart in 1925 and asked whether it would be proper to bomb civilians in England, or to perform tortuous medical experiments on human beings, or to kill someone simply because of their beliefs, it is a safe assumption that the answer would be a shocked "no".

But, after a decade of war reparations, perceived suppression by Germany's foes in World War One, and, most importantly, an economy devastated by hyper inflation, one can see how the message of the return of German pride and dominance, as exemplified by the imagery and machinations evidenced in Triumph of the Will might influence someone to support something that they would not otherwise. Excellent analysis begins on page 27.

If you're not for us, you're against us.

Turn now to Zeitgeist. There are three parts to the first movie, which was released in 2007. None of the subject matter addressed in the movie is particularly new, nor is it anything foreign to the typical ATS user -- conspiracies of religion, government and big banking. But though the subject matter has been recycled, Zeitgeist brings it to a new audience, those who are not readers, and in a new manner, a video that takes advantage of film propaganda methods developed by Riefenstahl.

Though each part of the film has its detractors, if we use Part One, the religious bit, as an example, the intent of the filmmaker becomes clear. As an attack on Christianity, the movie is very weak, relying on highly unlikely theories backed by questionable evidence that becomes absolutely disputable once one scrutinizes it. It is so bad, in fact, that skeptics and atheists are among its detractors, the most simple minded Christian can refute it, and the official Zeitgeist forum refers all discussion on the topic to another web site.

But if the evidence is so poor, how can they expect to convince any Christians that Zeitgeist is right? Therein lies the twist -- although Part One attacks Christianity, in no way is it aimed at a Christian audience. To the contrary, it is aimed away from Christians, to an audience that knows a little bit about the subject (so that the arguments seem factual) but not enough to know that it's ludicrous.

As with most propaganda, the actual intent is not necessarily to change minds, but instead to convince people of something that they already want to believe. "Don't like religion? Well, neither do we, and we're going to show you how you've been lied to, and how we're sharing the truth." Someone who doesn't think much of organized religion is going to think that, not only are these Zeitgeist guys really on the ball, but they're my kind of people, they think like I do!

No matter how unlikely the truthfulness of something is, if it reinforces a belief, it creates a bond of credibility between the propagandist and the person that they want to persuade.

Intentionally misleading information becomes truth.

But what about the other part of the propaganda claim, that its true intention is to convince people to do something that they commonly wouldn't? That is, in fact the heart of the matter, and it is amazing that people don't see it, because the actual intent of the Zeitgeist movement is the exact polar opposite of what it seems.

Parts Two and Three of the movie extend the notion of societal control, first by government (exemplified by the 9/11 controversies) and then by international bankers, resulting in a movement toward a One World Government. That's pretty standard stuff, and points to whom Zeitgeist is really aimed -- those who fear the loss of liberty that such a New World Order would entail.

But, again, if this is propaganda, what is the purpose? To what does it intend to lead those who would be in active opposition to a One World Government? The surprising answer comes from Zeitgeist, themselves.

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.
-- (source)

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 people's resources."

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.
-- (source)

Does that sound familiar? Peering through the rhetoric (and there is a lot of that, including Zeitgeist apologists who are quick to jump on the "what is, is not" misinformation bandwagon,) it is abundantly clear that Zeitgeist is promoting old school communism, classic Marxist/Leninist thought. Think that communism has been disproven as impractical? That the horrors 20th century Soviet Russia, Communist China and Cambodia were sufficient to close the door on dictatorial communal resource allocation? Nonsense! We just need a different sort of dictator, an enlightened, new age ruling elite, that truly does have our best interests in mind.

Kind of what this fellow suggested, back in 1845:

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

How can a resource-based economy, one which ostensibly holds the world's resources as the common heritage of all the Earth's people, exist within the current system? A system of capitalism, of nations, of independent thought? The obvious answer is that it cannot be. The only means by which such a system can be put in place is to do what Marx suggests -- by the claim that they are doing it for the betterment of all mankind, the Zeitgeist crowd will need to establish their own New World Order, a One World Government that has complete and total authority to dictate the terms and conditions of your life.

"Wake up!" cry the Zeitgeist proponents. Wake up, indeed. Changing from one set of dictatorial overlords to another merely improves the lives of the new ruling elite -- the eternal game by which those who consider themselves your moral or intellectual superiors use you and your passions to further themselves.

reply to post by adjensen


Amen to that, I want to projectile vomit just seeing the name of it. It has Satan's fan club written all over it.

reply to post by adjensen


Exactly, I agree with you. I myself felt that zeitgeist was merely an attack on christianity while evidencing the existence of the NWO. I think that if it wasn't propaganda the creators are naturally biased towards Christianity. I think that at some point, if you're going to attack Christianity, you must first understand it. Now, this in itself is an accomplishment because most "Christians" these days hardly understand it. Throughout history the "church" has promoted and even participates in unchristian actions. All of the holidays put in place by the Catholic Church were to supersede pagan/gnostic holidays. Don't judge a religion based on the actions of the bad eggs. Knowledge comes from understanding, if you don't understand then you've got no knowledge to evidence.

You are quite right about Zeitgeist's anti Christian slant. And it's no wonder, "resource-based economics" is where we will get the mark of the Beast: p2pfoundation.net...

The "resource based economy" needs the "social credit system" of fiat currency. Fiat currency without bankers. But to be able to implement this properly, one pretty much has to use a computer and have a unique internet ID, hence the mark of the Beast implant. This can only be implemented successfully after the Dec 21, 2012 through May 19, 2013 events.
p2pfoundation.net...

"The idea of a social credit system may derive from this resource Internet in the context of how it would deal with the human component of its creation and maintenance. In essence, the idea of a social credit economic system is based on people being allowed more bandwidth of resources relative to the reputation they build in the society as whole, this reputation digitally tracked life-long, and the public opinion of a particular activity they are engaged in. It’s sort of like having a system that Googles your name regularly to see how many people know you on-line and how positive their opinions of you and then assigns you a credit rating based on that on the premise that what you do has a certain greater than average value to the society. I sometimes call this Star Trek Economics because the concept was first presented in the popular culture in the Star Trek TV series. In Ray Bradbury’s vision of the future we arrive at a moneyless resource-based economy founded on ‘replicator’ use; a replicator being a machine that synthesizes anything it has a computer model for from pure energy and can recycle it back into energy, with some net loss. Thus the global resource budget is simplified to an energy budget.

Everything that we do and share should be seen as a form of propaganda. Information, is to be heard and based on an individuals perception of the material, they can do what they please with it. I listen to lots of info, but I do not think that all of it is legit.

Some people take things way to serious, while others get upset about the implications of the material. Sure sometimes I will see something with Alex Jones, or David Icke, I even listen to ATS radio, but I dont take them as gospel. Just as information that I can dissect, interpret, and either agree with or dismiss.

I am grateful to all that take the time to inform others of things that normally people wouldn't look at. Religion was not called out only in Zeitgeist, but for a very long time, by many many authors, and professionals, and of course the occasionally loony.

Take info as just that. There is no true "speaker of truth" as we will all have different opinions. Propaganda, was when you had no choice but to except the information. There was no researching, or looking into another opinion. We have that now, and I appreciate any form of discussion. I appreciate your opinion, as well as the opinion of anyone who has one.

I dont care who backed the movie, who wrote the movie, or who edited the movie. What I do care about is that people began to ask questions. Some searched as others did not. People spoke out and debunked the movie and still some refuse to see it, but if it wakes up at least one person I am happy.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by adjensen


While I could agree with you about the attempt at discrediting religion in this movie, you yourself attempt to discredit the ressource-based economy using typical anti-communism propaganda. Kind of ironic.

Anyway, like you said, the common joe-blow doesn't own anything. The present tense is not a mistake, it's the reality.

The difference from communism, is the idea of the single credit, which would prevent unrestricted inflation IF implemented worldwide.

((Thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis
Capitalism + communism = NWO ??????
Beware of over-simplification))

Let me just say...WOW.
This was a great read. I really enjoyed it.

Originally posted by Vio1ion
reply to post by adjensen

 

While I could agree with you about the attempt at discrediting religion in this movie, you yourself attempt to discredit the ressource-based economy using typical anti-communism propaganda. Kind of ironic.

Either you or another Zeitgeist apologist is welcome to explain the economic and political conditions that would allow such an egalitarian economy without a global government which has absolute control, and how such a system would function efficiently, given the technical, social and resource limitations that exist. I would also like to understand why Zeitgeist claimants use terms like "unlimited resources", which is clearly impossible.

In my research, I found a lot of amateur claims, statements by people who are ignorant of economic theory and history, and, as I said, an awful lot of "what is, is not" misdirection.

I remember as a kid when I first read about Communism & Socialism. I couldn't understand why my teacher--and my country--were so against it.

It sounded so beautiful and pure to me. As an adult with more experience of the world, I totally understand why the 'feel-good' Utopian philosophy of rabid reactionaries will only be a tool for, "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss."

NoRegretsEver, imo, makes some very lucid & mature observations about the matter. Bravo. Questioning the system is definitely a good thing.

Those trying to force a one-size-fits-all untested philosophy on the masses, however, is another thing and shows a remarkable lack of understanding history & lessons learned.

The following vid features “Lead Technician” of the Zeitgeist Movement Douglas Mallette (The Venus Project) who has some pretty violent tendencies it seems. His demeanor & 'final solution' does seem very reminiscent of Nazi ideology. He's also willing to work under the auspices of the U.N. RED FLAG!! Did he say U.N(WO)?!. Listen to it and tell me if you would really trust this man to structure your life:


Here's a short & to the point vid that asks a great question:

We can all work together to make a better world I believe…but we can't enforce a perfect one. Christian extremism or New Age extremism or Islamic extremeism or Atheistic extremism for that matter--just won't work.

Excellent commentary and analysis! Sustainability = the UN Green movement aka UN Agenda 21

green-agenda.com...

www.crossroad.to...

I had not heard of the Venus project before

Originally posted by Vio1ion
reply to post by adjensen

 

While I could agree with you about the attempt at discrediting religion in this movie, you yourself attempt to discredit the ressource-based economy using typical anti-communism propaganda. Kind of ironic.

Anyway, like you said, the common joe-blow doesn't own anything. The present tense is not a mistake, it's the reality.

The difference from communism, is the idea of the single credit, which would prevent unrestricted inflation IF implemented worldwide.

((Thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis
Capitalism + communism = NWO ??????
Beware of over-simplification))

edit on 22/2/11 by Vio1ion because: Too simple

No, its really not quite that simple. Antony Sutton explains the Hegelian dialectic more thoroughly. Those of us who have studied it use that for simplicity sake when we don't have much room or time.
An excertp from his book " merica's Secret Establishment" was reprinted at Alex Jones site.
"Antony Sutton on "Left" versus "Right" and the Hegelian dialectic in American politics

Anthony Sutton July 9 2003

How can there exist a common objective when members [of The Order of Skull and Bones] are apparently acting in opposition to one another?

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right" are artificial devicces to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.

The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.

The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, niether left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where "change" is promoted and "conflict management" is termed the means to bring about this change.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State...

So who or what is the State? Obviously it's a self-appointed elite. It is interesting that Fichte, who developed these ideas before Hegel, was a freemason, almost certainly Illuminati, and certainly was promoted by the Illuminati."

That is only part of the piece reprinted.

Excellent thread, some very interesting and intellectual thoughts and opinions.

I really enjoyed all the films in honesty, and only really come to the conclusion that the movement was something different than it looks to be after the third film.

I think it could be a NWO propaganda film, but I feel at the end of the day its change, and in order that we develop as a civilisation, a movement out of one ideology to another, and in most cases for the better, in my opinion is good.

Yes some of the theories are a bit hard to swallow, but what the Venus Project are doing I think is using the extreme in order to eventually come to a happy medium.

I think it would be very foolhardy if the elite decided on a one way road to change, and expected humanity to follow, as is being shown in the middle east at the moment, eventually enough is enough, and any change that is about to happen in this day and age will be viewed with skeptisism and with eyes wide open.

I think the eventual outcome will be a half way road, and I do believe change is needed, as at the moment, things arent good, and there is no way of good times coming in a debt based economy.

It creates greed, selfishness and conflict, and in the end that isnt going to be any good fo anybody.

Thanks for the very good thread.

I too watched the first couple Zeigiest films and loved them. The religion movie has a lot of great points as does the 9/11 movie. Then when I started seeing #1) how well these movies are put together (financially backed) and #2) their "answer" for a "new society", I started getting weirded out. Thier ideas are beautiful, but somethings not right...

You know, I have no problem with a united world, there are many benefits as long as it's done positively by trustworthy individuals. The movement towards the NWO now seems to be extrememly shady and negative... Murderous, power hungry people seem to be backing it.

You must be aware that the people in charge are playing both angles. They create extremes to try and make you pick sides... Dem vs Rep., science vs religion, religion vs religion, my god vs your god, white vs black, angels vs demons... If you're too busy fighting each other, you can't see them with thier hands in the cookie jar. Take 9/10/01 for example. Donald Rumsfeld went in front of the nation and told you 2.3 TRILLION dollars of the taxpayers money is missing (youtube it). The very next morning, the "plane" hit the pentagon in the very place where the servers and all this info was stored. This isn't something you remember or hear about since. It would seem they do something like 9/11 and are now showing you they did it while leaving a few details out.... Why? To create chaos, riots, revolt. Then it would be all too easy for them to exercise thier "Patriot act" and take your remaining freedoms away... hell, you'll be begging for them to do it during all the chaos!

Keep in mind in the coming days. We are all one and our thoughts are creative power... and they know this. By creating 2012 and "end of days" type propoganda, they are not only feeding on your fear but trying to get enough people to believe that it will happen. If enough people do, it WILL manifest. Think positive. Stay balanced.

Originally posted by Koition
You must be aware that the people in charge are playing both angles.

It's not merely the people in charge, you also need to be wary of the people who WANT to be in charge. The 1917 Russian revolution substituted Bolshevik for Romanov, to the betterment of the Bolsheviks, but there was little improvement for the typical citizen, and within twenty years, millions would be dead at the hand of their supposed saviors.

Suspect, deeply, anyone who says that they have a better way, but they need you to do the heavy lifting of getting them into the position where they can make it happen. In the end, they will have achieved their goal, power, but you'll be reliant on them to achieve yours. Hardly parity.

Keep in mind in the coming days. We are all one and our thoughts are creative power... and they know this. By creating 2012 and "end of days" type propoganda, they are not only feeding on your fear but trying to get enough people to believe that it will happen. If enough people do, it WILL manifest. Think positive. Stay balanced.

No matter what one's belief is regarding those issues, that is valuable advice. Negativity breeds negativity.

"Suspect, deeply, anyone who says that they have a better way, but they need you to do the heavy lifting of getting them into the position where they can make it happen. In the end, they will have achieved their goal, power, but you'll be reliant on them to achieve yours. Hardly parity."

Reminds me of those pety little "pyramid scams", like Team of Destiny, Amway... a microcosm of the macrocosm... as above, so below.

reply to post by adjensen

I think you are correct to approach these videos as sophisticated propaganda.

But in so doing, you must then address the subject of propaganda. Anyone who wants to influence public opinion uses propaganda. Modern advertising could be considered a form of propaganda. So could most motion pictures and news broadcasts.

The question becomes: What is the intention behind the piece? Ads are usually straightforward. They want you to buy a product. Political propaganda usually clearly aims to garner support for a particular political group or policy. Usually propaganda is created in an effort to gain support. But in recent times a more sophisticated form of propaganda has emerged. And its basic intention seems to be to make the viewer less aware.

Imagine, if you can, that you are involved in a secret criminal group that is trying to control the planet for no reason much more compelling that they are convinced that to leave a planet uncontrolled or only loosely controlled is the worse thing that could possibly happen.

Your job is to get the general public to go along with this plan. But the general public don't have this control obsession and know it's just a bunch of BS. So it's no use trying to get them to outright agree with you that so much control is really necessary.

You need to find some way to trick the general public into going along with this. This is a weird idea but it seems to be almost workable. What seems to happen, though, (and the criminals behind it aren't very aware of this) is that the process of performing the trickery imitates the process of how the criminals themselves were tricked into becoming criminals:

1) Traditional religions must be heavily invalidated. This opens the door for a "new" belief system which makes criminality okay. Any "new" religions that might compete for the public's attention must also be heavily invalidated.

2) The idea that people are really spiritual beings or that higher levels of awareness or freedom and ability are possible through spiritual advancement must be somehow bypassed. This is such a vital truth of life that it is seldom attacked directly. Most propaganda of this type ignores this or seeks to minimize its importance. One way to do this is to tell us that science has all the answers that we really need.

3) Other traditional cultural institutions must also be effectively invalidated. These institutions are there to uphold the three building blocks of sane action: Knowledge (the education system); Responsibility (the justice system); Control (various systems of administration, including government). If you can convince a person that his cultural institutions ("the system") have totally failed him in every way shape and form, then you have a very lost person who will tend to accept any "new" system offered.

Accomplishing the above three points is a great way to make a criminal. Traditionally this has been done with the help of pain, drugs, and hypnosis (PDH). But those techniques are tedious and have only succeeded in creating a relatively small number of real criminals so far. So I believe that a "softer" strategy has been devised for use on the general public. Either way, these techniques take advantage of the "confusion mechanism."

The confusion mechanism involves 3 steps:

1) Knock out some stable data. Stable data serve to keep confusion reduced to a level that is not overwhelming. If you can knock out enough stable data fast enough, considerable overwhelm can result.
2) Continue until the victim shows definite signs of overwhelm (being upset, passing out, rioting, going crazy, etc.)
3) Provide new stable data as the "solution" to the person's confused state.

The Zeitgeist videos seem to fit the above outline for our hypothetical "ideal" propaganda piece.

Does that mean that the people involved in creating these videos are totally aware of how they fit into "the plan?"

Probably, they aren't. Unfortunately, any time someone goes through a "confusion" sequence as outlined above, it results in reduced awareness. As the process goes forward, the victim becomes less and less aware that he is relinquishing his ability to control himself to his environment . In the end he has apparently lost this ability, while at the same time being totally obsessed with the subject. He has given all of his ability away to the mechanisms installed to control him, or to control others through him.

Luckily, the other "new" religion has developed methods for returning more awareness to people. And you don't even have to be a member to study and use them! Of course, if you believe the "experts" that's just another con.

reply to post by l_e_cox


Excellent post, thanks for adding that. There is a rather thin line between marketing and propaganda, and has been for a long time. The day of allowing something to stand merely on its merit ended when the public demonstrated that an obvious truth has seemingly less value than a well crafted deception, even, paradoxically, when the deception is abundantly clear.

Originally posted by jcrash
You are quite right about Zeitgeist's anti Christian slant. And it's no wonder, "resource-based economics" is where we will get the mark of the Beast: p2pfoundation.net...

The "resource based economy" needs the "social credit system" of fiat currency. Fiat currency without bankers. But to be able to implement this properly, one pretty much has to use a computer and have a unique internet ID, hence the mark of the Beast implant. This can only be implemented successfully after the Dec 21, 2012 through May 19, 2013 events.

Use lateral thinking my friend. So nobody can just buy an implant gun online along with the ammo and use it willingly?

Originally posted by adjensenThough each part of the film has its detractors, if we use Part One, the religious bit, as an example, the intent of the filmmaker becomes clear. As an attack on Christianity, the movie is very weak, relying on highly unlikely theories backed by questionable evidence that becomes absolutely disputable once one scrutinizes it. It is so bad, in fact, that skeptics and atheists are among its detractors, the most simple minded Christian can refute it, and the official Zeitgeist forum refers all discussion on the topic to another web site.

I checked out your links, and the first one, provides no citations, no specific examples, and no data. It's a general critique, of which one of the complaints seems to be that the movie was very sparse on citations. I just find it curious, because the author is critiquing a lack of data, citations, and then fails to back this us with his own proof...he seems to just be saying "trust me". The second link regarding the wise men is grasping at straws, for example it makes a point that we don't really know how many actual wise men there were, there could have been 10 or 3. That the bible only says that there were 3 gifts, not 3 wise men. Either way, it doesn't really disprove or refute anything, the important information here is the number 3. The other point it tries to make is regarding the following of the star, either way it seems to agree that the star was over the house which contained the child. This again, doesn't refute anything. Furthermore, the article says nothing in reference to the movie. It also is using a TRANSLATION of the bible, of which the author appears to have provided his own translation (i.e. the bible doesn't say that there were three wise men it clearly says there were three gifts, etc.) It's a well known fact that there are many translations and each translation can say vastly different things depending on the source text it was working from and the language it was translated from/into. So I'm not placing much stock in that article...It neither proves nor disproves anything. The second link you imply, that simply by the mere fact that it references another forum outside the original site that that is a reason to debunk what was said in the film. Um, No. Doesn't work that way. You have to use facts to prove something, not emotional appeal. Secondly, the link it refers to actually does provide a wealth of data, one being "Acharya S's "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Which given that you haven't made any references to the claims made in the movie, I'm assuming you have not read. I suggest you do.

There was another thread that I looked at, and the author made some good points regarding the first part, as well as in reference to this companion guide. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I'm just going to quote from this thread, and then I will link so you can read the whole in it's entirety.

Originally posted by lucifer777Peter Joseph who produced Zeitgeist is not really a scholar of religion and has made a few claims which seem not to be verifiable, however to jump to the conclusion that "all" his claims must therefore be unverifiable is simply unfair....Further critques of Acharya S's work should be based on Acharya S's writings and not on Peter Joseph's attempt to summarise Acharya S's thesis.

Here is a link to the companion piece, also, to the OP I suggest, for the future, if you want to try and refute the idea you provide citations to what you a refuting, and historical evidence and sources to back up your claims (instead of just saying what amounts to "the whole thing is wrong, trust me, and in case you might not want to here's an ambiguous article with no citations or proof either), Here's the guide, probably would be a good start for you :
files.meetup.com...

Moving on, another good point...

Originally posted by lucifer777If Christians do not agree with the claims made in Zeitgeist, that does not constitute debunking (showing to be false). If a book or historical work has a few claims which cannot be supported, this does not necessarily disprove the entire book.

I have taken the chapter headings and text of Zeitgeist from
"http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/" which seems to be the major "debunking" site for Zeitgeist, however it is more of a Christian "attack" on Zeitgeist than a debunking, since many of the claims made in Zeitgeist can be substantiated by historical evidence.

The OP then goes on to list the text from the first part of the movie and shows how it either can or can be substantiated. Instead of copying and pasting the whole thing here, I'm just going to link.

Instead of posting Lucifer777's entire post, I'll just refer you to it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, I suggest, for the future, if you are going to try and refute something, you do the work, as Lucifer777 has done, provide citations from the movie and then historical evidence (and here something I'm not sure many Christians "get" unless we are talking about what the bible did and did not say, i.e. quotes from the bible, translations and so on, you cannot use the bible as historical evidence of something, the bible has never been proven to be an accurate historical text. It's a collection of stories that may or may not be true, that may or may not be myth. Just a heads up because it's hard to have a scientific and historically accurate conversation with people when they say what amounts to "the bible says Jesus was a real person therefor Jesus was a real person")

Originally posted by adjensenBut if the evidence is so poor

Again, you need to show that the evidence is poor. You need to show examples, presented in the movie and evidence to the contrary. What does historical text say? What do scholars say? What have archeologists found? Another user here (the one I referenced above) has already done just that, and comes to the conclusion that while some things cannot be found (again, not the same thing as it's untrue) for the most part the claims made are substantiated through the historical evidence. The entire thread actually is an in depth discussion of a lot of the points made in the movie, with links and references, etc. So again, I suggest giving it a read.

One final thought, in my opinion I think the gist of what the first part of the movie is saying about religion is accurate. It's a known fact that Christianity suppressed earlier pagan religions, as well as it has many similarities with the sun cults and other pagan religions around the world at the time and earlier. In my opinion, for much of the middle ages, Christianity was used as a method of control and indoctrination over the population. People today, I have noticed, are often blinded by their religion. For example, I agree that general rules like "thou shall not kill" and so on are good to have, but again, I'm the type of person who believes there's always some gray area, so there's always exceptions to the rules...But anyway, given these commandments, I do not understand certain evangelicals who are actually looking forward to the end of the world, and seeing all the "sinners" (non-christians, jews, atheists, muslims, etc.) suffering, killed, maimed, burned etc. This is part of the political reason that these people also highly encourage the wars in the middle east, because according to them the muslims need to be driven out of the land so that the temple can be rebuilt (the location currently that is the dome of the rock)...of course they don't want the temple rebuilt for the sake of the jews, but because in order for the end times to begin and hence the coming of jesus, the temple needs to be rebuilt. Now, it doesn't seem like any "good" person would wish death and destruction on millions of other people, but that is exactly what I see from these people. Many of them will say that these people "deserve" it because they are "sinners", well how are thousands of children, who by sheer chance happen to have not been born a christian "deserve" to burn in hell because their parents chose the "wrong" religion. Sorry, the whole thing just seems crazy to me, and, um, very non-christian.

Anyway, even though I was raised Catholic, I have seen over the years how hypocritical the Church is, and started studying history, and came to learn that things have been really messed up within certain religions for centuries. I also reject the idea that people who don't believe in God are immoral, or have no morals. A human being does not need to believe in a certain religion in order to have empathy and know that certain things like stealing, and murder are wrong. I quickly realized that I could become a much better person on my own, without religion, than I could if I had stuck with the faith I had grown up in. Personally, I think I am a better person and I think I am more a more tolerant, empathetic and caring person now than I was before. Anyway, religion may not be right for me, but I certainly accept the fact that other people can choose to believe in whatever they want. My only issue here is that "while people are entitled to their own opinions, faiths, and beliefs, they are not entitles to their own facts" and this is why I say to the OP (and others who agree with him) that you need to back up you assertions with facts. That's all I'm asking here.

reply to post by adjensen


I have not yet watched the film, so Im not arguing against most of your post. In fact, bravo. It was a very good analysis, very intelligent.

However.

What I will argue against is your conclusion. You seem to be arguing the only way a resource based economy could work is a Marxist one. And I know thats not true. There have been many cultures who did not consider ownership of the land, air, water, etc., possible. And I have enough exposure to that idea not to find it the horror you are making it out to be.


Not being allowed to own the land, air, water, forests, etc., is the natural state of man in relation to Earth. The idea of ownership of it is the aberration. You just dont recognize it as such because you are so used to it. But let some yahoo stick a jar over your head and start charging you for access to "his" air, and you will realize immediately how truly barbaric resource ownership is.


Edit to add, Bechtel tried rain ownership in Bolivia and set the people off too. Its hard to see how ridiculous it is to own things like land until you consider things like owning the air or rain. Things we dont have a history of tolerating fake ownership of.