• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Zeitgeist

arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
ahdkaw said:
You are quite right, but I reckon it's a conspiracy by TPTB to keep the conspiracists busy. ;)

Which makes me think of a similar feedback-loop employed by Bible Thumpers the world over.
LOL a conspiracy of conspiracies!
 
arg-fallbackName="PsycoDad"/>
ImprobableJoe said:
Instead, every act of craven-self-interest is seen as proof of a link to a greater evil.
Nope, you,´re implying it. I,´m just asking "qui bono". Afterwards circumstantial evidence,´ll lead the way.
ImprobableJoe said:
No one in this scary fantasy world ever thinks to themselves "hey, look... I can make a bunch of money here!"
Again wrong. The system serves them. How the system works is obvious to all capable of critical thinking, just a little.
ImprobableJoe said:
No, they don't really think at all. They receive instructions from the Jewish Bankers, the Mafia, the CIA, the Illuminati, the Vatican, or whatever the current favorite evil cabal is this month.
:lol:
Yea, another ridicule attempt. No one receives "instructions" because the logic of the system dictates the behaviour (maximazation of profit).
ImprobableJoe said:
What the world is to a conspiracy nuttter, is a huge novel where every character has a role to play in advancing the conspiracy plot.
That is what YOU want to be made of it or better suppose to be made of the availale information. Instead of implying "the truth" of rational thinking you should state a real argument. But all you do is generalizing or ridiculing. You never give way to your point of view. You,´re just insinuating that the"other" side is wrong in regard to logic or rationality. But you,´re keen on never giving way to contact surface. Of course your elusiveness has nothing to do with lack of real arguments but only due to lack of "reason" or "inteligence" of your counter part. (pleading to authority?; Yours??)
"Duh!"
A real sensible attitude. Just mentioning it before you accuse me of trying to imply it.
->That was a neutral assertion of your over all argumentationnal behaviour up to this point.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
PsycoDad said:
That is what YOU want to be made of it or better suppose to be made of the availale information. Instead of implying "the truth" of rational thinking you should state a real argument. But all you do is generalizing or ridiculing. You never give way to your point of view. You,´re just insinuating that the"other" side is wrong in regard to logic or rationality. But you,´re keen on never giving way to contact surface. Of course your elusiveness has nothing to do with lack of real arguments but only due to lack of "reason" or "inteligence" of your counter part. (pleading to authority?; Yours??)
"Duh!"
A real sensible attitude. Just mentioning it before you accuse me of trying to imply it.
->That was a neutral assertion of your over all argumentationnal behaviour up to this point.
I've stated my "argument"... if you don't like it (which you clearly don't) then argue against it, instead of whining about "tone" and other irrelevancies.

My position is pretty simple, which is probably why you can't comprehend it... it isn't an absurdly complicated linking of disparate facts, half-truths, discredited rumors, and a dash of anti-semitism thrown in. Without those elements, it doesn't even ping your radar. So what part confuses you so much? I'll do my best to clarify it.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
PsycoDad said:
Was not MY point
You were exaggerating, I'm sure. I was too. But that seems to be neither here nor there.

What part of my position confuses you?
 
arg-fallbackName="PsycoDad"/>
ImprobableJoe said:
... it isn't an absurdly complicated linking of disparate facts, half-truths, discredited rumors
So i,´m now refering to the "Corportocracy" idea of Zeitgeist-Addendum.
The fact that heads of corporations swap into government positions and vice versa doesn,´t lead to a constant conflict of interest?
Especially when these persons own stock- or other financial assets in their former firms.
That is far fetched?

Have you heard of the Bilderberger meetings? 200 of the most important people from around the world meet annually, no journalists allowed. And now tell me they,´re just sipping tea.

Have you heard of Vanguard mutual funds or Kinetic investments?These two financial behemoths allone suffice to stir the US economy. They control roughly 500 billion $ in cash, the london stock exchange, the Dow Jones &Company Inc ect.. Yet no oversight.

Every element needed is there.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
PsycoDad said:
So i,´m now refering to the "Corportocracy" idea of Zeitgeist-Addendum.
The fact that heads of corporations swap into government positions and vice versa doesn,´t lead to a constant conflict of interest?
Especially when these persons own stock- or other financial assets in their former firms.
That is far fetched?

Have you heard of the Bilderberger meetings? 200 of the most important people from around the world meet annually, no journalists allowed. And now tell me they,´re just sipping tea.

Have you heard of Vanguard mutual funds or Kinetic investments?These two financial behemoths allone suffice to stir the US economy. They control roughly 500 billion $ in cash, the london stock exchange, the Dow Jones &Company Inc ect.. Yet no oversight.

Every element needed is there.
So what? That's the real question. Rich people are powerful. Powerful people are rich. They hang out. So what does that mean?

Here's where the rational people are separated from the nuts, so choose your answer wisely. :)
 
arg-fallbackName="PsycoDad"/>
ImprobableJoe said:
. Rich people are powerful. Powerful people are rich.
Yet every attempt to obtain any information on either the Bilderberger group or the huge hedge fonds is withheld because of being "private".
There,´s no "global anti-trust law" no oversight on monopolizing tendencies in the financial sector or the trade of financial assets. Every time the necessity is pointed out it,´s just conspiracy nutters imagining paranoid fantasies! YET evertime in the past when a national monopoly occured it was abused in terms of severe price manipulation.

In my opinon just being rich and powerful doesn,´t mean i can do whatever i want. And that,´s what the do under the guise of private property.
At least the financial corporations should be monitored as their behaviour has severe impact on average citizen,´s lives. Any absurdly complicated linking of disparate facts, half-truths, discredited rumors ?
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
I'm just going to step in between Joe and Psyco and say: simmer down, I don't want to warn anyone and you're both getting awful riled.
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
PsycoDad said:
Yet every attempt to obtain any information on either the Bilderberger group or the huge hedge fonds is withheld because of being "private".
There,´s no "global anti-trust law" no oversight on monopolizing tendencies in the financial sector or the trade of financial assets. Every time the necessity is pointed out it,´s just conspiracy nutters imagining paranoid fantasies! YET evertime in the past when a national monopoly occured it was abused in terms of severe price manipulation.

In my opinon just being rich and powerful doesn,´t mean i can do whatever i want. And that,´s what the do under the guise of private property.
At least the financial corporations should be monitored as their behaviour has severe impact on average citizen,´s lives. Any absurdly complicated linking of disparate facts, half-truths, discredited rumors ?

I think we're maybe talking about two different things here.

If all you're saying is "we should watch out for monopolies" or "there needs to be more oversight of the financial markets" then we're in agreement. If you're looking at a secret meeting and saying "geez, maybe there's inside deals going on that aren't in my best interest, or the interest of most working-class folks" that's OK too. That's reasonable, based on evidence and past experience.

That's why earlier I referenced the fact that this is a thread about Zeitgeist, because they don't stop there. They assume that every secret meeting is a meeting of the NWO, the conspiracy responsible for Tonkin and 9/11 and killing Jesus. They see a group of powerful people getting together and say "they are probably talking about mind-control chemtrails, or lizard aliens, or how they invented AIDS to kill black people, and having a big old laugh about vaccines causing autism."
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
I'm just going to step in between Joe and Psyco and say: simmer down, I don't want to warn anyone and you're both getting awful riled.
You're only saying that because you're part of the conspiracy!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :roll: :twisted: :idea: :arrow:
 
arg-fallbackName="Th1sWasATriumph"/>
ImprobableJoe said:
You're only saying that because you're part of the conspiracy!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :roll: :twisted: :idea: :arrow:

You're clearly part of the conspiracy to infer that I'm a member of a conspiracy. For that, you get a warning. WARNED
 
arg-fallbackName="PsycoDad"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
I'm just going to step in between Joe and Psyco and say: simmer down, I don't want to warn anyone and you're both getting awful riled.
But we have come to something.. :(
I thought this was the goal.
 
arg-fallbackName="PsycoDad"/>
Th1sWasATriumph said:
I don't want you to stop! Just don't start calling names or anything.

At least I wasn,´t at this level and I don,´t think Joe has been. :cool:
At least he kept himself back for quite a wile :!: :!: :!: :!:
Don,´t mind our quarrel too much as we found our basis. ;)
 
arg-fallbackName="Tinman"/>
Part I : I liked it. It put my thoughts into words.

Part II : Didnt understand all of it. But what I did udnerstood was pretty disturbing.

Havent seen Part III yet
 
arg-fallbackName="SatanicBunny"/>
Tinman said:
Part I : I liked it. It put my thoughts into words.

Part II : Didnt understand all of it. But what I did udnerstood was pretty disturbing.

Havent seen Part III yet


When I first saw Zeitgeist I was excited, more than excited, it seemed to explain a lot of things. And likewise I thought that some of the things mentioned in it were pretty damn scaring and disturbing. For all intents and purposes I was one of these consipiracy theorists for a while. But later on I realized that in my excitement I had forgotten to check the validity of many of the claims I so eagerly bought into.

And that's just the thing: Most of Zeitgeist is not based on facts. It uses distortion, quote mining and pure lies to connect pieces of facts to create an intriquing but neverthless false view of the world.

So, once you've watched it trough I advice you to do some reading* about what exactly is wrong with Zeitgeist so that you won't fall into the same trap I did. Be warned, the mind easily sees what it wants to believe.

* A good place to do that would be here. The article goes through the whole movie, one argument at a time.
 
arg-fallbackName="Tinman"/>
I always think stuff through. Although it seemed to give me some answers I never abandoned the thought that it my be wrong. Thank you for the link.

And yes you are correct.
I was excited as hell when I watched it but then again, I watched around myself and I still felt that it all cant be so corrupted.
 
arg-fallbackName="G-Smo"/>
SatanicBunny said:
So, once you've watched it trough I advice you to do some reading* about what exactly is wrong with Zeitgeist so that you won't fall into the same trap I did.

* A good place to do that would be here. The article goes through the whole movie, one argument at a time.
you know that only complicates things for me... If you want to debunk someones statement on the internet, and your sources are either difficult to come by, or too easy (internet reference), then i just prefer to stick to my own critical thought about either statement.

I know which references I'm quite sure to be true in the first part, as well as those which "debunked" but were clearly pointed out in my upbringing. so the nativity story and every aspect about it, I already knew from what my catholic mother used to tell me. Wether it is actually in the bible or not is then irrelevant. In the same way I know the mentioned of facts about Dyonisus long before I ever heard of the movie (in my case, long before i heard of the internet). "Official" or not doesn't matter, the 'story' existed before it was mentioned in Zeitgeist and that has a value of truth of its own.

And come on. You can't deny the fractional banking system. Here in Belgium thousands of people have lost their job with what used to be the most trusted employer in our country upto right before the crisis. All because of their lack to maintain liquidity.
 
arg-fallbackName="TonyBtheEG"/>
I don't believe 2 enormous towers built very well can fall-near-the-speed-that-gravity-is-known-to-pull at.

I like this film and I do tell people about it here and there.
 
Back
Top