Zeitgeist - The Discussion : RSS 0.91http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/low.mtmen-usZeitgeist - The Discussion : RSS 0.91http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/low.mtm<![CDATA[restlesschicken @ 3/17/2008 2:10:55 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q29
for part I, the fact that sticks out like a sore thumb is the 'born on dec. 25th' bit. my neighbor is a Jahova Witness, and she insists that the bible never actually states when Jesus' actual birth date was, so she doesn't celebrate december 25th.

another 'fact' that really screams out: the meeting of the bankers on jekyll island, as pointed in part III. 'the meeting was so secret and hidden, the invitees used false names to travel to the island.' if the meeting was so secret and nobody knew about it, how the hell does the Zeitgeist filmakers know?

especially Zeitgeist, i really wish these sort of films would identify and supply their information sources.]]><![CDATA[TraumaMamma @ 3/17/2008 11:17:20 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q28« suckersklub : Not at all. I was talking about part II of the Zeitgeist movie.

Baby.Ok, Baby, just checkin'.

I couldn't stomach the announcers whiney, condescending attitude, so I didn't get that far in the movie.]]><![CDATA[suckersklub @ 3/17/2008 11:06:40 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q27« TraumaMamma:Baby, I like the way you think, but did you post this on the wrong thread??Not at all. I was talking about part II of the Zeitgeist movie.

Baby.]]><![CDATA[TraumaMamma @ 3/17/2008 10:56:06 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q26« suckersklub : Now that I've been to NY and have seen Ground Zero, I'd like to put that earlier statement of mine into perspective:

I still think that the explosion argument is built on sand, but I admit that the precision of the entire operation was absolutely astonishing.
Seeing that hole inbetween of the surrounding buildings made me consider the theory of a planned demolition a bit more likely at least, and the strong belief in a top-level conspiracy comprehensible at least.Baby, I like the way you think, but did you post this on the wrong thread??]]><![CDATA[suckersklub @ 3/16/2008 9:19:58 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q25« suckersklub:Part 2: The general idea of staged conflicts sounds convincing, but the entire passage about 9-11 is for paranoid freaks only. A scenario as it is described here could never have been executed with the precision and to the extent described here. Furthermore, a main part of the argument is based on non-expert witnesses' reports - look at the "explosion" statements, for example: I doubt that the average citizen does know the correct definition of an "explosion" at all; he'd rather apply that term to more or less any incident above a certain threshold of loudness and force. Nevertheless, the theory strongly relies on an actual explosion (as opposed to a collapse, a crash, a bang or whatsoever) having taken place.
Now that I've been to NY and have seen Ground Zero, I'd like to put that earlier statement of mine into perspective:

I still think that the explosion argument is built on sand, but I admit that the precision of the entire operation was absolutely astonishing.
Seeing that hole inbetween of the surrounding buildings made me consider the theory of a planned demolition a bit more likely at least, and the strong belief in a top-level conspiracy comprehensible at least.]]><![CDATA[icepigs @ 3/3/2008 7:52:12 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q24« Ktulu : Ron PaulHello Ktulu...and welcome to Plime.


The Ron Paul banner is new. This website has been up for quite a while. I don't think that Ron Paul has anything to do with the movie Zeitgeist.

Ron Paul has been staunch in his stance on the way the government should work and if it goes against the core of the constitution, he's against it. The Federal Bank is VERY much against the core of the constitution and I would bet that's why the people who put together this movie are supporters of Ron Paul.]]><![CDATA[Ktulu @ 3/3/2008 6:08:43 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q23I guess I'm not among the smartest people on the planet, but after I've seen at the bottom of their web page "support Ron Paul", etc....
And, imagine! This comes AFTER they presented us all the bullhsit and frauds and conspiracies that happen in the world. No wonder the dumbs (70% of the U.S.A. citizens) will let themselves manipulated. Don't worry! The same amount of stupidity can be found all around the world. I like to consider myself (probably) the most impartial and realistic person on "the whole damn world", thus I would say maybe R. Paul is behind this movie! Who knows? I mean, among us... Since I can't trust any authority on this planet, for they are the source of destruction, how can I trust an alternative?!
I'm sorry, but the directors were right concerning only one thing: We are human, we are beautiful beings, we should love each and every other ones, and we should TRUST OURSELVES, take a moment, and balance the pros and cons, WITHOUT listening to anybody!]]><![CDATA[SpamTrap @ 2/4/2008 1:26:25 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q22« suckersklub : That's simply not true. It is a commomly accepted fact that for example Latin, ancient Greek and Sanskrit (ancient East Indian) share surprisingly many characteristics in syntax as well as in lexicon. Of course, these similarities are often disguised due to various sound shifts which occured over time, but they are recongnizable nevertheless. All of these languages are assumed to share the common root of the Proto-Indo-European language.
Yes, however these names were made up after the population and the languages parted.
They refer to:
Myrrha, mother of Adonis
Mary, mother of Jesus
Maia, mother of Hermes
Mariana/Mandane, mother of Cyrus
Miriam, mother of Moses
Miriam, mother of Joshua
Maya, mother of Buddha
Maritala, mother of Krishna

Lets see:
Krishna's mother is Devaki.
Mother of Cyrus is not made up, not a legendary figure, her name is not a made up name.
What does Adonis do on the list???
How many similar roles have names starting not with a letter M? This is badly conducted statistics.]]><![CDATA[suckersklub @ 2/1/2008 9:22:33 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q21« spamTrap:The first hint for me was when they started to list names that all started with the letter M. In different languages, geographically too far away for this kind of influence.That's simply not true. It is a commomly accepted fact that for example Latin, ancient Greek and Sanskrit (ancient East Indian) share surprisingly many characteristics in syntax as well as in lexicon. Of course, these similarities are often disguised due to various sound shifts which occured over time, but they are recongnizable nevertheless. All of these languages are assumed to share the common root of the Proto-Indo-European language.
_______________________________________________________

Apart from that, the point of that entire introduction on Jesus as a global astrological archetype is to demonstrate how power can be gained through the control of information that is never questioned by anyone.]]><![CDATA[spamTrap @ 2/1/2008 8:09:29 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q20« unzercharlie : Can you give some examples? I agree with pretty much everything everyone's said. It's not the most neutral thing I've ever seen, but I was impressed with part one.The first hint for me was when they started to list names that all started with the letter M. In different languages, geographically too far away for this kind of influence.
Look at the movie again. As it starts it is not bad. But the point of the film is not the things it says in the first 100 minutes, the point is to tell you, how you shouldn't let yourself manipulate. Methinks this film was made to show how manipulative videos are made. It is your task to figure out what is wrong with the various parts. For me it was easier to spot the discrepancies in the second part. If I knew more about astronomy I would spot things easier at the start I guess. As a matter of fact there were something fishy with the stars too, but cant remember, did anyone spot what was wrong with the "facts"?]]><![CDATA[spamtrap @ 1/26/2008 4:05:37 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q19It is like going from normal to very dubious and manipulating,
but thats all right because if you dont get what it is saying, it rubs your nose in it: TV is just illusion, the sad thing is that you are watching this movie instead of reading something and that you give a chance let yourself manipulated instead of getting some real information and trying to think.]]><![CDATA[suckersklub @ 1/26/2008 3:08:11 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q18
Part 1: Interesting, even quite convincing if you are willing to accept a certain degree of eclecticism. Liked it.

Part 2: The general idea of staged conflicts sounds convincing, but the entire passage about 9-11 is for paranoid freaks only. A scenario as it is described here could never have been executed with the precision and to the extent described here. Furthermore, a main part of the argument is based on non-expert witnesses' reports - look at the "explosion" statements, for example: I doubt that the average citizen does know the correct definition of an "explosion" at all; he'd rather apply that term to more or less any incident above a certain threshold of loudness and force. Nevertheless, the theory strongly relies on an actual explosion (as opposed to a collapse, a crash, a bang or whatsoever) having taken place.

Part 3: Some dubious statements here, too, but very convincing in general.

Even if some of the information is made up, unprovable, or cited out of context, I think the basic message about the world being run by a bunch of Machiavellian capitalist asshats who don't even stop at staging wars to increase their power and wealth is true, and therefore worth spreading. In fond memory of Michael Moore, I'd totally allow that end to justify questionable means.]]><![CDATA[unzercharlie @ 1/25/2008 5:27:15 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q17« SpamTrap : I'm half way and it is more and more fishy.
It goes more and more off from facts to fiction.
First to facts that can not be checked, then there are some hints of facts pulled out of their ass. If this is going on much further the end should be some kind of socio-horror.Can you give some examples? I agree with pretty much everything everyone's said. It's not the most neutral thing I've ever seen, but I was impressed with part one.]]><![CDATA[SpamTrap @ 1/25/2008 4:48:30 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q16It goes more and more off from facts to fiction.
First to facts that can not be checked, then there are some hints of facts pulled out of their ass. If this is going on much further the end should be some kind of socio-horror.]]><![CDATA[TraumaMamma @ 1/25/2008 3:14:49 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q15« hOOsker:OK, I just watched 30 minutes of it and will get to the rest of it later when I have more time.

A couple of first impressions.

If I were to make a film showing my factual evidence regarding the fallacies of religion, I would never show bias. The condescending tone of the narrator, the cartoon devil, the George Carlin bit, and on and on... all show an agenda. What this does, in any format, is get those who already believe the way you do to say "Hell Yeah, you go!" while those you would think should be more of a target audience, those who don't believe the way you do, but may be persuaded, to be "Put off"


more later...OOH! I only watched 15 min of it and noticed the tone in his voice and immediately ceased to be informative for me.]]><![CDATA[hOOsker @ 1/25/2008 3:10:57 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q14« icepigs : 


So - who all has seen this?OK, I just watched 30 minutes of it and will get to the rest of it later when I have more time.

A couple of first impressions.

If I were to make a film showing my factual evidence regarding the fallacies of religion, I would never show bias. The condescending tone of the narrator, the cartoon devil, the George Carlin bit, and on and on... all show an agenda. What this does, in any format, is get those who already believe the way you do to say "Hell Yeah, you go!" while those you would think should be more of a target audience, those who don't believe the way you do, but may be persuaded, to be "Put off"


more later...]]><![CDATA[SpamTrap @ 1/25/2008 12:17:34 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q13<![CDATA[Bornbad @ 1/25/2008 1:43:56 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q12















0
00]]><![CDATA[TraumaMamma @ 1/24/2008 9:32:53 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q11
Glad I ain't Catholic anymore.

not to jack your thread, but some interesting compilations here...

2012 and Bees]]><![CDATA[localway @ 1/24/2008 7:53:03 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q10I really liked it because it was very non-complex and easy to watch...maybe a bit uncormfortable for some.
Also it laid out things that are available to people taking a history course in the west. Some of them could be argued--like the texts and documents concerning comparisons of Moses, Jesus, etc... with other persons of other religious/philosophical cultures not Hebrew/Jewish.
But even then the history that is taught still implies some of those same things.
Good post]]><![CDATA[icepigs @ 1/24/2008 7:46:58 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q9« localway : After I watched the movie, I purchased it.I purchased 5 (and got the 6th one free).

I've handed them out to people (friends/family) and told them they MUST watch it and then give it to someone else (with the condition they watch it and pass it along)]]><![CDATA[localway @ 1/24/2008 7:44:41 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q8Also, I just wondered how a lot of people would feel if they watched this. I think for the most part--the religious part of it would be the end of the world for most people. The reason I say this is because there is the on-going theme of things like this being the coming of the anti-christ...where it will appeal to the "masses" and make them not believe...]]><![CDATA[Hoosker @ 1/8/2008 1:03:39 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q7« icepigs : I didn't see that posting originally, but I did know some of the info there, but not all....and yes - things like this are covered in the first part of this documentary.Great, now I am even more interested in seeing it.

Don't sweat not seeing the post...it was from back in "The Day"...almost prehistorical plime even.]]><![CDATA[icepigs @ 1/8/2008 12:42:24 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q6« Hoosker : I haven't seen the movie but I will when I can find the time...Is what your referring to have anything to do with the ancient Sumerian writings??I didn't see that posting originally, but I did know some of the info there, but not all....and yes - things like this are covered in the first part of this documentary.]]><![CDATA[Hoosker @ 1/8/2008 12:06:54 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q5« icepigs : I knew some of the stuff about how the Jesus Myth was taken from other, older, religions....but there was some other things that I didn't know (about the Moses myth...that was pretty interesting).


So - who all has seen this?I haven't seen the movie but I will when I can find the time...Is what your referring to have anything to do with the acient Sumerian writings??]]><![CDATA[icepigs @ 1/8/2008 11:44:41 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q4

So - who all has seen this?]]><![CDATA[unzercharlie @ 1/7/2008 4:45:44 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q3<![CDATA[Hoosker @ 1/7/2008 4:09:53 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q2I'll be happy to have a civil conversation about this movie...Well, that just ruined it for me.]]>
Zeitgeist - The Discussion
 < 1 2 >
<![CDATA[icepigs @ 1/7/2008 3:55:23 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/f/2841/1/rss0_91.rss#q1I was going to place this under "movies" but I think that's the wrong spot...I placed it under politics because that is the root of this whole thing, isn't it?

Zeitgeist The Movie was originally posted around 4 months ago. I didn't watch it then because it was just too long. I forgot about it.

Someone else referred me to the movie about a week ago and it was slow at work, so I started watching it. I watched the first two parts then. I watched the third part today.

First of all, if you haven't watched it, do so.

If you need to break it down into smaller parts, you can watch Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 separately. (If you go to Google Video, you can even watch it broken down into 5 smaller parts)


Anyway, I have to admit that it was very a shocking movie.

Who has seen it and what do you think? (I'll be happy to have a civil conversation about this movie with anyone!!!)]]>