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

Post Reply New Topic

If you are of the opinion that Zeitgeist: The Movie is a bunch of baseless, sourceless conspiracy crap, then you would be wise to check the following PDF link. You will find that EVERYTHING in that film comes from a source, and hopefully for you, you will not be so quick to condemn it.

Zeitgeist: The Movie - Companion Guide

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/z ... ion-guide/

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/z ... -addendum/

Sorry to put things in such an abrupt way, but I used to agree with Peter J myself in the past. After some proper research, it turns out that Zeitgeist is precisely what everyone calls it - conspiracy crap.

So purely because it's material is featured on conspiracy websites, does that mean it was originally manufactured for that exact purpose? Pleeeeeeease.

Watch any interview of PJ and you will realise that Zeitgeist: The Movie was an ARTISTIC ESPRESSION performed by him and him only for free in lower manhattan, as a variation on an old vaudvillian concept. He then put it up on googlevideos not realising how big it would become. He then had to purchase the rights to the material he used from some of the people he used material from, the rest said that he could use it free of charge, coz they were just glad that the info was getting out there.

Peter Joseph has no connections with conspiracy sites or conspiracy organisations. Just because Zeitgeist: The Movie has been grabbed hold of by conspiracy establishments, doesn't make it conspiracy crap. Just as Bob the builder has been grabbed by the gay community as a gay icon, doesn't make him gay.

I think you should read those articles in depth first.

I myself didn't agree with them when they said Peter J was doing it for the cash.

I have read a great deal of what people such as these state. I find it rather tiresome because they go through these great leaps of absurdity and cleverly they appear to debunk anything they wish to purely by stating phrases such as "He/she is a fraud/liar/puppet" etc. then swiftly moving on without providing anything in the way of facts but using nothing more than opinion and pure conjecture.

One thing I have noticed about people who disagree/argue/attempt to debunk these kinds of things frame their arguments with phrases such as "I don't think that", "I seriously doubt that" or my favourite, "that's not what I have been raised to believe".

What does that prove though? Staing that you have an opposing opinion, does not provide contradictory evidence.

And of course people will assume that PJ did it "For the cash" however these people really have no idea how much it actually costs to make a film, and how much of a deficit he actually did it on. He spent thousands making Zeitgeist: The Movie, performed it for 5 nights for free, then had to pay out thousands more for the rights to the material. He charges 5 dollars for a ready made DVD which he could easily charge 30 dollars for, and not forgetting he provides torrents for all his material so people can download, and burn off copies for themselves without paying him anything.

Maybe you could take the time to watch a mini-documentary Charles Robinson did called "Who is Peter Joseph?" at the following link:

Who is Peter Joseph?

In addition to that PJ actually has covered the barrage of "debunking" that he receives in one of his Radio Addresses on BlogTalkRadio.com, which covers ALL of Zeitgeist: The Movie, not just part 1, which is normally emphasised upon being the most attempted at debunking. Here follows that particular address:

Zeitgeist Undebunked - With Acharya S

*Edit*

Besides I don't really concern myself with Zeitgeist: The Movie nowadays. It's actually been quite a while since I have last seen it. I concern myself with The Zeitgeist Movement, which is something that Zeitgeist: The Movie is not representative of. That doesn't however stop people's knee-jerk reactions to slap the conspiracy label upon TZM purely coz PJ made Zeitgeist: The Movie. Even now when Itell people about TZM, people say things like:

"Oh Zeitgeist. That's that conspiracy film, right. So you're a conspiracy movement?"

or

"Peter Joseph uses the eye in his films. That means he is promoting the Illuminati"

or most disturbingly

"Zeitgeist, that's a german word. Are you a neo-nazi movement?"

It's truly comically horrific the leaps of ignorance some people make. However without information, what else CAN they be?

I have nothing else to say. I have made my point, and you have made yours.

We both know life is not as simple as that. Hell, this site would have died years ago if everyone went by the principle that the discussion is over when everyone had made their points. That's why this is called a DISCUSSION forum.

I would never suggested that the work was unsourced. Rather, my complaint is that Peter Joseph demonstrates a research bias. If I propound a thesis, and then only cite the information that supports my thesis, then my thesis is researched and sourced, but it is not good scholarship because it fails to take into account contradictory or unsupportive evidence.

There is a difference between a well researched documentary and agitprop. Zeitgeist is clearly the latter.

And to my mind, this is dangerous. When critics of the establishment fail to do their jobs properly, it becomes easy for the establishment to undermine them. Peter Joseph's work is full of truly stupid errors: for example, the words "son," and, "sun" are homophonic only in English, so no meaningful conclusion about confounding those words can be made in reference to a time when the English language did not exist.

But the central theses that the Church was created (or at least coopted) for a political purpose, that Government can act in ways that are harmful to citizens and that capital has a political agenda are all theses that merit public debate. This debate is not advanced when a leading exploration of these theses is so fundamentally flawed.

So if you could clarify, what research bias does Peter Joseph have? I fail to see what valid points you have beyond your own opinion that it is "dangerous".

An easy way to note crappy stuff is to just beware of "Sun sounds like Son" argument. It is very English-centric. Most latin-derived languages don't have such similarities between the words, and in fact latin has "sol" as "sun" and "filius" as "son".

No, they are lame conspiracy theories because of the rebuttals in the links he posted, did you read them?

I remember you from the last thread dude. Are you actually gonna be mature this time and not post paragraphs of "blah"s?

One thing we should keep in mind is the fact that son sounds like sun is irrelevant. What is relevant is why sun and son have been translated as they are respectively. You see, this is one of the niggling semantic hang-ups that people get caught up on and hense fail to see the larger order issues. It's an age old tactic of getting the masses quarreling over the little things so they don't get in the way of the big things.

So you claim the very development of the English language and the existence of homophones was part of a far-reaching conspiracy and is intended to serve as a distraction from some other nefarious plot?

Adam, you're a freaking moron.

I'm not gonna take you seriously untill you can keep your insults to yourself.

That's OK. I'm not going to take you seriously, period.

Then really, why are you on this thread? Do you gain some sense of satiusfaction and purpose from violatiung the forum rules by launching personal attacks on those you simply don't agree with? Please, grow up.

Actually Adam, if you bothered to look at the side, the articles are further expanded and the authors of those articles debunk every single point of Zeitgeist, bit by bit. It seems now that you merely glanced at the article debunking Acharya S's Companion Guide. I totally agree with them - she's a liar. Her information from the book 'Suns of God' is poorly researched and filled with blatant errors. While you're trying hard to ignore the sol = son hypothesis in Zeitgeist, you must be aware that she chose to title her book 'Suns of God', right? So much for someone who claims to have read the bible from 'cover to cover' in 'Hebrew and Greek'.

You can start reading the rebuttals against Zeitgeist starting here: http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/z ... /part-one/

Please don't write a thousand paragraphs stating I'm wrong until you have read every bit of information on that website. If you disagree with them and can prove them wrong, contact the authors in question and challenge them to a debate.

I can't waste my time discussing such a frivolous topic. They can. In fact, they love to do it.

While I do respect your views, I won't hesitate to point that your attitude has not convinced any of us that you have information of any significance to offer.

And yes, I have watched both Zeitgeist and Addendum. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother going through rebuttals.

I have a family member who's convinced that the antichrist (dajjal in Arabic) has brainwashed me and plotting to take over the world via Freemasonry and Luciferianism. Your methods of 'discussion' and his are very much the same.