For those who think Zeitgeist: The Movie has no sources...

Post Reply New Topic

For one thing, the companion guide is not by Acharya S. It it by Peter Joseph. Acharya S is one of Peter's collaborations for making Zeitgeist: The Movie.

And do you honestly expect me to read an entire site that claims that Peter Joseph is in it "for the cash" to find truths? Pull the other one. I don't get any of my information from self-proclaimed conspiracy sites. Especially if you have already confirmed that they claim that Peter was "In it for the cash".

It is not my intention to "post a thousand paragraphs ssaying that your wrong" coz it is not my way to say "You're wrong" and "you are right". And it is not my intention to "convert" you coz believe it or not I'm not the messiah of a cult who's job it is to make you repent for the evil ways that you have lived under until now and it is my job to clense you!

I never fail to be amused by people amking these assumptions.

I have presented sources with the information, now it seems like you are DEMANDING me to view an entire errouneously contained conspiracy site, when you won't even entirely review the links I have posted in the first place. I'm sorry, but you can't expect me to scratch your back when you refuse to scratch mine.

And besides, if you actually listened to the radio address link I posted on here, Acharya explains how unbiased information can only be found by recovering original sources of information, and not "Encyclopedia-surfing" as she describes it. Taking into consideration that the great majority of pagan and contrary-to-christianity source material was destroyed by the church during the dark ages and the inquisitions, you may notice that the act of finding original sources is not gonna come from mere skimming the internet, like a lot of anti-zeitgeist critics are only bothered to do.

Your comparison between me and your family memeber, I hope you know can only hold any weight at all inside your head. Since you don't know me, you cannot compare me to someone else. Hell, I could even claim that to me you are Lucifer himself! While it's a cute notion, hpow can I expect for this opinion to have any more weight than I perceive it to have? The answer, I can't. I respect that you consider me just like your family member, however that is your interpretation of me, and hense, it is your problem. Not mine.

Come on, I'm not 10 years old, how immature are you asking me to be? Debate solves NOTHING. Debate is an infantile excersise of arguing your point agressively and beligerently with the intention of "winning".

Open discussion is the only way we as a speciaes can get anywhere, coz think about it this way. Say for example if you are severely dogged in your determination to win a debate. Your reputation, your ego, your emotional stability, even your self-worth (some people I have encountered are actually like this) rests on your success, or failure. What happens to that person if they lose? What neuroses are generated? This is one reason why the idea of revenge is reinforced in our culture. Coz we are culturally obssessed with "winning".

Whether it be a motor race, a wrestling match, a football game, a lottery, a debate, the list goes on and on.

If you had watched addendum you will know that we associate the idea of being wrong as a point of apprehension and inferiority, because we consider and incorporate our ideas, and thoughts as part of our identities. And to prove our knowledge wrong therefore proves our identities wrong, which we do not as a culture take kindly to. This results in the feeling of insult and inferiority, becuase we have been "proven wrong".

You realise that we have got this idea completely backwards, since if you have paid attention to addendum you will know that being proven wrong should be celebrated, since it is the act of being elevated to a new level of knowledge and understanding.

And since NONE of us know everything about everything, we are ALL gonna be proven wrong about something somewhere along the line. The point of defeat comes from the fact of being shown this error or lag in knowledge and awareness nby someone else.

So with this in mind, do you REALLY wish to demand a debate with me? or for me to debate with anyone else?

The only thing which you wrote of any real significance. Thank you. When I read the first version of the companion guide, it was way back in 2007. It was originally by Acharya S, and it targeted part 1 of Zeitgeist. I wasn't aware that Peter J released one of his own (or expanded the first). I'll read it first thing tomorrow morning as I'm busy tonight.



But.... you just did post a lot of unnecessary information pointing out that I won't accept the reality that I'm wrong.

I've watched Zeitgeist, and Addendum. I read the original companion guide (and I'm going to read this version tomorrow morning). I've come to my own conclusions.

It's you who refuses to read the rebuttals.



Not you, to be honest. But there are a few individuals here who I love to discuss with, as I always have something new and interesting to learn from them. I like people who are open-minded.

Isn't that what you've been doing? Man up and accept that not everyone is down with Zeitgeist.
Massive paragraphs of chest beating doesn't get you anywhere and makes you look like a douche.

Zeitgeist may have sources, but most are either unreliable or taken out of context for the sake of sensationalism.

Zeitgeist holds about as much credence as The New York Post: none. Anyone who regards it as anything other than shock-value entertainment loosely dressed as "information" is a fool.

Am I the only one that sees irony in this?

Adam, so long as you wilfully blind to the distinction between documentary and agitprop, then this discussion is hardly open.

The only thing of real significance TO YOU. I appreciate you taking the time to read it.



Go back and read what I have put and don't project into it. You will notice that you assume incorrectly.



I appreciate the retraction.

Oh dear. I'm not entire sure where to start with this fellow. lol. All I can say is that your perception has no weight on the reality of my words.



Can you provide evidence to back this up please? Coz otherwise I will have to assume that your statement is nothing more than your opinion.



You obviously haven't either seen or payed attention to either this film or Addendum, because if you had you would know that we recognise that communism, socialism, fascism, democracy, capitalism etc. are all the same in the fact that they are corrupt because of their inclusion of a monetary system.

The idea that this film advocates communism is just purely comedic. Sorry, but you misunderstand completely.

So you think because it features topics that have had political backlashes that Zeitgeist is political propaganda?

Ok, which political party does this film appeal to? I'd be very interested in finding out what you reakon.

Wow, I find this guy unbelievable. o_o

It's not that I claim to be better than you or that I'm right when you are wrong. My train of thought originates from a different frame of reference.

When you look without projecting you take in information much easier.

Yeah, he's been around here promoting his crazy ideas before. He's been found to be pretty clearly immune to facts. I'd recommend not wasting time discussing with him.

Yeah, I vaguely remember the previous thread on the Venus project. Thanks for the advice.

And you're obviously ethical and substantial with your personal attacks which are a clear violation of furum rules, aren't you? I have already sent a complaint about you, since I don't feel I have to put up with you attacking me personally without any provocation.

Look, it is not my problem that you are closed to this direction. And if you could be so kind as to have the courage of your convictions and prove to me (just as you demand my proofs) that I am "immune to facts".

And don't even try and say "oh god, do I HAVE to go through this again", or "I can't be bothered to waste my time with you", or "I don't need to prove" Coz that is called HYPOCRISY. Until you have proved bveyond reasonable doubt what you say about me, then I have no choice but to mark down your posts as nothing more than your biased and insulting opinion. Since you have already directly attacked me personally, I doubt you have said evidence.

I now remember the other post I made in that thread that contained a fake quote I made in which there were a ton of BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. Hey, I pwn! that was a genius way to tell you what I opined about your post, tons of words, zero content.

So you're taking advice from an individual who violates forum rules by launching personal attacks?

Are you aware that you are setting yourself up to be axactly as what you suppose me to be? Basically that is just like saying:

"I will show the world how baseless you are by being baseless myself"

What does that acheive? If you think it makes you look more superior, it clearly hasn't. You know when someone says something and tanother person repeats what they have said in a jibberish and mocking voice purely to attempt to bebase and ridicule what the first person said, that is what you are doing. And believe me, it is quite akin to infantile behaviour. I used to do that when I was at school. Grow up.
And the fact that you claim to "pwn" me is really immature. For one thing you succumb to the cultural fashion that is coined by the misspelling of a child-like claim of victory. Seriously, grow up.