ZEITGEIST CONSPIRACY

  • Kevin82

    Posts: 273

    Dec 03, 2007 4:31 AM GMT
    This is a 2 hour video on the relationships between the christian religion, 911, and the Central Banking Institution. It is upsetting. What do you do with this kind of information?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2007 5:34 PM GMT
    Rather than a video about the relationships between the christian religion, 911, and the Central Banking Institution, I would describe it as more like three areas/topics in which the public has allegedly been lied to or deceived (deception seeming to me to be the only commonality amongst the three).

    As far as what one should do...

    If one finds one or more of the presentations interesting and/or disturbing then he should do some critical research to satisfy himself about the facts and conclusions. Personally, I found the piece on religion interesting and will probably check into the information presented in that segment some more.

    With regard to 911, my impression (based on what I recall from other testimony that I followed subsequent to 911) was that there appeared to be selective editing of the testimony, that hypotheses were presented with limited evidential support, and that at least some of the conclusions that they reached may be erroneous.

    I don't know enough (very little, in fact) about the Central Banking Institution to make any sort of judgement. But I tend to always be a bit suspicious about conspiracy theories/claims. Once again, as in the 911 segment, I would like to see/read for myself the complete testimony/statements that contained the "one line" excerpts that were presented in this segment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2007 6:07 PM GMT
    the religious stuff is ludicrous. Genuine Bible scholars can tell you more interesting things about how Christianity came around. Check out the Jesus Seminar. There were a lot of theologians voting to say that Jesus basically didn't say the things he said.

    Anyway, what I am saying, is that this has no citations or credentials for any assertion he makes. And honest Christian scholars could better inform you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2007 6:25 PM GMT
    I've seen this before. In short it presents a generalized view designed to impact the viewer without really providing any solid background information. A nice big quick propaganda film.

    There are many things to point at but one of the first is the calendar we use and associate dates with has not been the same over time. The video creators used whatever calendar they saw fit to associate dates together. Add that to the fact not all scholars agree on some of the facts given, such as birth dates, powers, the whole virgin ideal, etc..
  • Kevin82

    Posts: 273

    Dec 04, 2007 5:27 PM GMT
    The points that interested me the most had to do with all the similarities from different cultures regarding the Christian mythology, especially the similarities between the bible and the Egyptian book of the dead. What got me about the 911 conspiracy is demolition style fall of the building. Seems pretty undeniable that there was a lot more to the 911 attacks then the media lead us to believe. Also the propaganda tactics to instill fear about terrorism, terrorism, and more terrorism. I guess I just wouldn't put it past the government.
    I think this video does show a distinct relationship between Christian myths, 911, and the banking institution basically being that men have always strived for as much power as they can get and using lies to control those below them is the common thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2007 5:37 PM GMT
    well, as i said in my other post response concerning gays and the bible (it was a veritable essay lol) the astronomical and literary and historical facts in the first segment of the movie are irrefutable. i actually haven't even watched beyond that part, knowing what follows, because facts are all i'm interested in, not the harebrained conclusions paranoid people draw from them. i personally think that the makers of the movie got the basic facts right about the astrological sources of religions' inspirations and structures (its stuff that can't be refuted astronomically cause that IS how the zodiac and heavenly motions work out, and the ancients DID understand that- they invented the zodiac, and the early religions from which our modern religions were birthed did personify and worship those ideas lol), but even as each religion starts out as a set of good ideas and truths which are then corrupted over time by the organization monopolizing and interpreting them... the movie is ironically guilty of the very thing it condemns religions and stuff for. it's starting out with a good foundational set of truths, and then using them to jump to ridiculous conclusions. disregard all but the first part of Zeitgeist, that's my advice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2007 5:47 PM GMT
    I haven't seen the video but I can tell you that conspiracy theories about the Central Banking System (the Federal Reserve) are a staple part of the agenda of the tin-foil hat-wearing lunatics in this country. Anyone who has studied history may recall that the first attempt to have a central bank was under Andrew Jackson; it was called the Bank of the United States, and it fell prey to political manipulations. For a long period afterwards, there was no "central" bank. When a need for monetary stabilization arose after the turn of the next century, Congress wisely elected to make the Federal Reserve private--NOT from some silly ideology about how privatization is better than government, but precisely to keep politics out of the banking system. And while Federal Reserve Chairmen are nominated by the president, their terms are deliberately staggered so as not to coincide with a presidential term, AND they cannot be dismissed by a president. Once appointed, they really are independent (in theory).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2007 6:54 PM GMT
    Kevin82 wrote: "What do you do with this kind of information?"

    Generally I laugh my ass off... then I get kind of sad that people can actually be taken in by this kind of shoddy, deliberately obtuse, pseudo historical crap.

    Some people have just enough education and knowledge to be dangerous.

    Despite the huge number of true historical facts, the authors have managed to put together a miasma of 'connections' to 'prove' their own wild theories.

    The only thing missing from the videos is an appearance from the WBC.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2007 6:59 PM GMT
    ITjock you just said it best icon_razz.gif

    Take everything with a grain of salt. I don't believe in god, and believe the government was behind 9/11 because I looked at the evidence presented, had doubt and did my own research.

    This video doesn't promote looking into things, it just promotes a stance with propaganda. If you want to believe the points the video puts out do your own research.


    And peter, were NOT a democracy. We have the right to discuss as protected by the Republic. Democracy is mob rule. We are ruled by elected officials with limiting factors contained in a document. Hence - Republic.

    - words from a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2007 8:53 PM GMT
    picless ghost...psshhh nice ad hominem.

    I agree with Trance and itjock. The creators of this video basically are the same as bible code lunatics. manipulate whatever you can to make things "prove' your point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2007 10:14 PM GMT
    um, the bible does have codes- sir isaac newton spent 15 years working on cracking them- he didn't quite, but the advent of the computer has led to some very interesting discoveries...

    the hebrews used kabbalah and numerology to create their holy texts, writing with letters and words that had numeric, symbolic, astrological, alchemical, and phonetic meaning attached to every one- this is irrefutable. the surface level stories and parables themselves hide deeper truths from the ignorant masses who can't (won't) look any deeper, and beyond that even, there are deeper layers of kabbalistic meaning bound up in the texts. certainly this is true and verifiable in the old testament- the books of moses- as well as in many other sacred hebrew texts... though admittedly there is much less to be found in the way of arcanum in the new testament, since its creators were basically an uneducated and uninitiated heretical cult faction of Judaism (not necessarily a bad thing- all reforms begin as such).

    grimms fairy tales, in a parallel analogy, weren't meant to be believed to actually have transpired in the dark forest of germany- one is meant to find the moral and intellectual meanings clothed by the stories themselves. the bible is the same, as were the greek mythos, the roman... basically any story of any culture. choose as many may and do to ignore what matters in that book by focusing on the symbols it uses instead of their meanings, that does not mean that many do look deeper, and find things of great value.

    unless you are knowledgeable of the kabbalah, you really don't have the footing to even try refuting that, let alone calling those who are knowledgeable on the matter 'lunatics.'

    i agree that the creators of Zeitgeist did abuse the facts to wring out their own conspiratorial propagandist conclusion- and so in that sense i agree. but i still affirm that the first 3rd of the movie is valid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2007 10:24 PM GMT
    I thought the movie was kind of fun. In a Davinci Code sort of way it was very entertaining.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 1:10 AM GMT
    what does the 1st part got to do with the rest? I disagree with the statement that bible plagiarized stories, and calling other god's had the same story as Jesus. Just a quick search will show that the film generalized every parts to make them seem fit.

    besides, Jesus appeared even in documents outside of bible. I even read one letter to an local officer at that time, described how Jesus look like. and new testaments itself were letters written while many witnesses of Jesus were still alive. if they was untrue, you'd think 11 deciple's plus many christians would die for a lie.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 2:03 AM GMT
    The makers states on the website that:

    "It is my hope that people will not take what is said
    in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized."

    I'd like to encourage people NOT to comment on it if they have not seen it, and NOT to state that facts in it are false without a specific reference. What good does it do when people make unattributed statements that something is false? It leaves people having to decide between two unattributed sources.

    And there are citations and a transcript (in progress) at the website. Since the maker is going to efforts to document online all of his sources, people criticizing should at least be specific. Not that the 2 hour movie is without error-- but unspecific statements are of no use.

    ITJock writes: "Generally I laugh my ass off... then I get kind of sad that people can actually be taken in by this kind of shoddy, deliberately obtuse, pseudo historical crap. Some people have just enough education and knowledge to be dangerous. Despite the huge number of true historical facts, the authors have managed to put together a miasma of 'connections' to 'prove' their own wild theories."

    I suggest that this statement applies more to the information fed to people by the mass media, and the conclusions made by people like George Bush, than to the movie. What ITJock describes is EXACTLY what the Bush administration did with Iraq. And they had something to gain from it. What do the makers of the non-profit movie have to gain?

    It's about time people started using impactful media to challenge the public complacency towards the BS presented to them over the last 6 years.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 2:10 AM GMT
    sickofthesame:

    You posted (with regard to the religious portion):

    "......Anyway, what I am saying, is that this has no citations or credentials for any assertion he makes......"

    There is a list of "Credits and Sources" at the end of the presentation. I'm not qualified or familiar enough with the material (nor can I follow the text as it's scrolling by at normal speed) to judge the quality or comprehensiveness of the credits and sources listed, but I don't think it's fair to say that there are "...no citations...".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 3:01 AM GMT
    ebl333 - could you provide a link or other evidence as to jesus outside the bible?

    As far as I know the bible is the only document containing references to jesus from the time period. I would love to see anything else out there. Might make for an interesting debate on validity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 3:22 AM GMT
    there is no real written evidence of jesus having lived when he was said to, contemporary with his 'lifetime.' as the movie says, what little (3) of texts by historians contemporary with jesus there are refer only to a 'christ,' or 'anointed one' and that could have been anyone deemed holy or enlightened or even noble in that time. the gospels and everything in the new testament were written at least 100 years after jesus's supposed death. that's why each gospel varies, and many gospels formed by different christian sects differed so greatly that the church, when it formed as a centralized political power, left most of what was written about jesus OUT of the bible. really, there is no evidence outside of the bible that he existed, and the bible, as a compilation by the early roman church (council of nicene), is a bit biased lol. jesus's birthday does coincide exactly with the beginning of the age of pisces, and every event of his supposed life does, irrefutably, mirror events in the lives of prior solar death/resurrection gods. i've been studying egyptology and world mythology, out of a genuine and objective interest, since middle-school, with interest in it since my earliest memories- im even now taking an 'ancient egyptian and mesopotamian mythology and religion' class at my university- the professor had never heard of Zeitgeist, but everything discussed thus far supports its findings perfectly.

    now, jesus's non-existence as a man does not diminish his spiritual value and worth- it doesn't change his teachings, what he represents, what his cosmic/divine function is. the fact that he's an archetypical symbol or character could only offend those who accept only a surface-level approach to the bible- i say leave them to their sullen and unsupported denial of the facts stacked high against them. petty, but people will esteem what they will, for better or worse. we're all free to believe what we want, and if the passion and Will of a person in approach the divine is great enough, it doesn't matter what beliefs get them there. but please, attempts to validate or support the idea of jesus' being a historical figure are really very frail and frantic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 3:48 AM GMT
    Trance, Josephus is the only one who may have written about him, but that source is severely dubious. Other than that, there is nothing.

    Sir Issac Newton was off his rocker on many things. Bible code was one of them. The bible code is overwhelmingly ludicrous because you can make any text say anything if you skip the correct amount of letters (assuming that you have a long enough book).

    I love John Safran, check this.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 4:16 AM GMT
    icon_lol.gif

    Just as I thought, thanks sick. I still do hope something something new is discovered. Debating religion has moved outside something people generally want to talk about. I'd love to see some text unearthed that provided some links to biblical themes outside the bible.

    I bet such texts do exist, but rather they show how the bible used pagan myth to influence its stories. I imagine the vatican keeps them well locked away. Further I even suspect most of the popes and roman catholic officials didn't even believe in god. What they believed in was keeping up appearances to maintain their power.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 4:20 AM GMT
    i have no doubt that christianity absorbed pagan myths. Jews did it too as well with their many names for God (all conveniently translated God, so as to not confuse the nervous followers of a faith that was not consistent).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 4:42 AM GMT
    agreed trance icon_smile.gif i don't doubt many believe in god, but i'm sure they understand those things that they've been hiding from the masses since the organization's inception, to maintain that power and wealth. their conception of god is most likely very un-catholic, in the common sense, and probably very unique in today's world
  • Kevin82

    Posts: 273

    Dec 05, 2007 4:44 AM GMT
    Czarod stated
    but even as each religion starts out as a set of good ideas and truths which are then corrupted over time by the organization monopolizing and interpreting them... the movie is ironically guilty of the very thing it condemns religions and stuff for. it's starting out with a good foundational set of truths, and then using them to jump to ridiculous conclusions. disregard all but the first part of Zeitgeist, that's my advice.

    Czarod. How can you say disregard all but the first part of the Zeitgeist if you haven't watched it? That is pretty much eating a third of a sandwhich, loving it and then throwing the rest away because you've had sandwhiches like that before and it will probally be the same.

    P.S. I'm hungry
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 4:52 AM GMT
    <object width=">
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2007 4:59 AM GMT
    i say that not to spite the theories derived from the first part- but simply to express that politics and conspiracy theories hold no interest for me. i'm not, personally, interested in the conclusions drawn from the first part, or rather, the ideas and theories they've used the first part to support. my interests are more concerning myths and religion and spirituality- so the facts of the first part are all that captivate me.
  • calipally

    Posts: 246

    Dec 05, 2007 6:26 AM GMT
    I saw the movie; Some parts I liked, some I laughed at, and some made me think. Conspiracy theorists rely on facts to formulate their theories but what they extrapolate from those facts may be 180 degrees from what we would.

    We are ordinary people, going about our lives, carving out an existance. There are those who crave and kill for power and wealth. Take the fact that it has been proven that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003. That has not stopped Bush from CONTINUING to propogate that Iran is STILL a nuclear threat to America. He will beat that war drum until the end of his term. We Americans will always be passive to our government as long as we have our SUVs, Starbuck's, plasma TVs, whatever.

    It is difficult for sane, basically good people to believe that evil can be so outrageous as to stage wars and cause the deliberate deaths of thousands and thousands of lives. After what we all have seen since Bush took office, I'm more willing to believe the "unvelievable" than not.

    And if you don't think that organized religion is a joke, then explain to me how the "religious right" can throw their support behind Giuliani? None are so blind as those who shall not see!