Zeitgeist 2

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
TheBeeCeeEmm
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:13 am UTC
Location: Here and there.
Contact:

Zeitgeist 2

Postby TheBeeCeeEmm » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:04 am UTC

Zeitgeist: Addendum ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7695921912 ) is out, and I think this one is going to get more attention than the last. I think it's better than the first, and at least more appealing to a lot of people because it doesn't come off sounding so conspiracy-theorist-like.

Watch it, and let me know what you guys have to say about it, I thought it was really relevant and it JUST came out in the last few days I think so it talks directly about the current financial crisis and all that.

Definitely worth watching all the way through, it gets better the more it goes on.

For those of you who don't want to watch it because of how the other one was, it's really different, especially past the first half or so. They only reference 9/11 like twice, and that just in something like 5-second passing.

As an intelligent group, what do you all think? Any immediate criticisms?
There is no certainty, only opportunity.
http://www.counterorder.com
Belial wrote:You're basically saying that my computer is nonfunctional because it doesn't make waffles.

Avatar is Copyright of Freydis.

Mane
21th Century African?
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:56 pm UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Mane » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:46 am UTC

I think you'd be better served reading a philosophy text book and a history textbook

Matsi
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:22 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Matsi » Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:22 pm UTC

I believe the makers of Zeitgeist are at the very least deluded, and are possibly having an extended psychotic episode. Which is why I will not watch this second one.

My roommate fervently believes in conspiracy theories like those put forth in these movies, and he keeps trying to convince me of the most ridiculous things. Trying to convince him there are much better explanations that are less convoluted seems to have no effect. So i usually kind of zone out when people start talking about these things nowadays.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:36 pm UTC

Oh, wow.

I couldn't get through the first third of this. I don't understand much about economics, but Jesus, even I'm aware that debt isn't automatically bad. And what the fuck was with that "YOU ARE A SLAVE TO THE BANK" rhetoric? I'm a slave because I work for a living to buy stuff? Yeah, the money I make is based on debts; it's still legal tender and I still can trade it for physical things. Delicious things, like ice-cream.

Some of the stuff it said was informative, and it occasionally made a point--like a blind man meandering through a sharp stick factory. But all in all, it's a load of rubbish.

Edit: I got through a little more, and the stuff about governments getting overthrown for financial interests is something that needs to be hit on more. I'd like at least a little fact-checking on it, though.

User avatar
TheBeeCeeEmm
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:13 am UTC
Location: Here and there.
Contact:

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby TheBeeCeeEmm » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:26 pm UTC

Matsi wrote:I believe the makers of Zeitgeist are at the very least deluded, and are possibly having an extended psychotic episode. Which is why I will not watch this second one.

My roommate fervently believes in conspiracy theories like those put forth in these movies, and he keeps trying to convince me of the most ridiculous things. Trying to convince him there are much better explanations that are less convoluted seems to have no effect. So i usually kind of zone out when people start talking about these things nowadays.


That's basically like saying you wouldn't watch Star Wars IV-VI because you didn't like I-III, fyi.

Before the shitstorm, no, I'm not saying this is as good as the original Star Wars movies or something. But there's a big difference between Zeitgeist 1 and Zeitgeist 2.
There is no certainty, only opportunity.
http://www.counterorder.com
Belial wrote:You're basically saying that my computer is nonfunctional because it doesn't make waffles.

Avatar is Copyright of Freydis.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Kachi » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:31 pm UTC

Am I mistaking Zeitgeist for Loose Change? One of them was started by a few college kids who talked extensively about 9/11 contributions and made quite a bit of money off of the video, but never donated any money to the cause (at the time I had checked.) I can't recall which it was.

Either way, I won't watch Zeitgeist 2 until I can be assured that I won't have to wade between what's credible and what isn't.

Matsi
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:22 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Matsi » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:23 pm UTC

TheBeeCeeEmm wrote:
Matsi wrote:I believe the makers of Zeitgeist are at the very least deluded, and are possibly having an extended psychotic episode. Which is why I will not watch this second one.

My roommate fervently believes in conspiracy theories like those put forth in these movies, and he keeps trying to convince me of the most ridiculous things. Trying to convince him there are much better explanations that are less convoluted seems to have no effect. So i usually kind of zone out when people start talking about these things nowadays.


That's basically like saying you wouldn't watch Star Wars IV-VI because you didn't like I-III, fyi.

Before the shitstorm, no, I'm not saying this is as good as the original Star Wars movies or something. But there's a big difference between Zeitgeist 1 and Zeitgeist 2.


I don't think it is the same. First of all, Star Wars is just entertainment, Zeitgeist is a documentary. But more importantly, George Lucas (while maybe slightly egomaniac) doesn't come across to me as someone who has paranoid delusions.

The first Zeitgeist, while not as way out there as Loose Change, came across to me as the product of people with an overactive imagination, making more of interconnections in our world than they are. All couched in convincing arguments, but with hardly any time devoted to highlight counterarguments (if at all, i can't remember any).

The world is complicated, and people are capable of evil, but i believe it isn't as complicated or evil as Zeitgeist would have you believe.

User avatar
Sicarius Barritus
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:56 am UTC
Location: Winnipeg, MB, Mooseland
Contact:

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Sicarius Barritus » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:26 pm UTC

Zeitgeist of the 21st century: People with too much free time and overactive imaginations.

drunken
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:14 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby drunken » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:39 pm UTC

I have been a fan of Bill Hicks for many years, and then a fan of George Carlin, both of shom are extensively quoted by both movies. I have also been interested in the work of John Pilger as of recently. This in conjunction with being from overseas (ie not the US) means I have had a very different upbringing and perspective than many other people on this forum. Rather than to say I agreed with these films it would be more accurate to say that the films agreed with me because I have known most of this stuff for a long time. The only new stuff I got from these films was the stuff concerning US history and politics, admittedly thats more than half :-)

I would like to address the comments of some of the previous posters:

Matsi wrote:I believe the makers of Zeitgeist are at the very least deluded, and are possibly having an extended psychotic episode. Which is why I will not watch this second one.
My roommate fervently believes in conspiracy theories like those put forth in these movies, and he keeps trying to convince me of the most ridiculous things. Trying to convince him there are much better explanations that are less convoluted seems to have no effect. So i usually kind of zone out when people start talking about these things nowadays.


The phrase 'conspiracy theory' as a term denigrating the authenticity or objectivity of an idea is really ridiculous. Conspiracies happen, we know they happen, when the government says terrorists are conspiring to bring down the US is that a conspiracy theory? If we admit the obvious, that sometimes conspiracies happen, then it is perfectly logical to create theories about them, it is no different from creating theories about anything else. Of course when people get obsessed with them it can cause problems but it is obsession that is the problem. Being obsessed with pokemon or internet forums are just as problematic.

Perhaps if you disagree with The Zeitgeist you would be happier with this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7572663630528394775 or this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=333905257096516824&q=zeitgeist+douglas&total=13&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

These are the two biggest 'Zeitgeist rebuttal' movies that I could find. I skipped throught he second one to see if there was anything in it that wasn't about religion (I couldn't find anything) and only got through the first 20 minutes of the first one. Hopefully someone with more patience than me could watch them and bring a summary to this thread. I for one would appreciate that.

Points for the rebuttal movies from my own (breif and patchy) viewing:

-Many of the facts and much of the research behind the part about christianity are a bit patchy. Mostly this is because of time. It is very difficult to get conclusive historical evidence that far back.
-Right at the start the first movie distances itself from the establishment of government and admits that religion can be used by totalitarian governments to control people.

The main point for me against the rebuttals is that they are by christians and aim to dispute the way in which the movies portrayed religion. I didn't hear any mention of US government or monetary policy in the rebuttal movies. This is incredibly important to me because it seemed to me that the only reason the movies even mentioned religion was to make the same point that the rebuttal movie started with, ie. that religion is often used by governments as an instrument of control.

The Great Hippo wrote:Edit: I got through a little more, and the stuff about governments getting overthrown for financial interests is something that needs to be hit on more. I'd like at least a little fact-checking on it, though.


I recommend John Pilger for this, most of his documentaries are pretty eye opening. In fact I rate them as being more relevant and also more convincing than most of Zeitgeist. But then Zeitgeist is made for the masses whereas Pilger assumes you are intelligent and just don't have the information. This should give you everything you need: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4034713/John_Pilger_-_Documentaries_that_changed_the_world except that that pack doesn't contain his latest movie which is also good and can be found here: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148

Anyway in conclusion this is all stuff that I have been wishing and hoping for US citizens to open their eyes to. I don't mean to sound patronising but this affects all of us.

Also for the record I didn't agree with every word of the Zeitgeist movies, just the overall message. Some of the stuff near the end of the second one was based on fantasy technology to make everything ok, but they did say 'the problems we are facing are technological not political' and that made it ok. As long as it's admitted that there are problems with the technology then no one is being mislead. We can indeed solve these problems if we work on them. I am also not sure if citizens of the US should really boycott elections. This is a dangerous thing to say and although they are right that if everyone did it it would achieve wonderful things, not everyone is going to do it. Already US voter turnouts are ridiculously low but that has not affected the percieved credibility of the democratic system in the country. It bloody well should though :-)
***This post is my own opinion and no claim is being made that it is in any way scientific nor intended to be construed as such by any reader***

Matsi
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:22 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Matsi » Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:36 pm UTC

Well drunken, I am not from the US either (I am from The Netherlands actually), and while i identify with many parts of US culture (it's kind of hard not to do so when you grow up in NW Europe), my upbringing is also very different from an American one.

Now, I don't know much about John Pilger (I'll have to check out some of his work, especially after reading his wikipedia entry), I know about both Bill Hicks and George Carlin. You do realize they are both comedians? Sure, great comedy is always based on truth, but the thing is, it is not truth in itself. I can see how they both would agree with the majority of Zeitgeist though, considering their careers.

drunken wrote:The phrase 'conspiracy theory' as a term denigrating the authenticity or objectivity of an idea is really ridiculous. Conspiracies happen, we know they happen, when the government says terrorists are conspiring to bring down the US is that a conspiracy theory? If we admit the obvious, that sometimes conspiracies happen, then it is perfectly logical to create theories about them, it is no different from creating theories about anything else. Of course when people get obsessed with them it can cause problems but it is obsession that is the problem. Being obsessed with pokemon or internet forums are just as problematic.


Yes, conspiracies happen. Yes, world leaders sometimes broker deals in back rooms with major corporations. But i have a problem with the importance the Zeitgeist makers give to the interconnectedness of the powerful people in our world. I see no conspiracy in that, It is just the way the world works, and in the democracies of our world those connections are not the problem. If leaders would really push us too far, we would simply not elect them anymore, and they know that.

I am not arguing there's nothing wrong with the way our world works. There's plenty of things I'd like to see changed. But I just don't believe it runs as deep as the makers of Zeitgeist do.

Edit:

Hmm I realize I am basing all this just on the one time I saw the first Zeitgeist. Based on what you say, I might just have to watch the second one. It's just that the first one left an indelible impression on me that will certainly colour the way i view this new documentary.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby TheAmazingRando » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

The reason people attacked the religion aspect of the first Zeitgeist was because it was the most easily falsifiable part. It used old, tired arguments, most of which I had seen refuted well before the film was even made. It wasn't just patchy research, it was stuff that any honest research would show was almost completely unfounded. If the best information you can find is word of mouth from unreliable sources, the only honest thing to do is drop that aspect of the film, not show off a bunch of unchecked assertions and pretend they're solid fact.

You can say "that's just one part of it!" but that one part of it proves that the creator is not above lying, and doesn't care much for fact checking or journalistic integrity, so long as the data supports his statements.

If you're trying to make a documentary, credibility is everything, and this guy has shot his own straight to hell. He's shown that his idea of a good documentary is throwing shit at the wall and hoping some of it sticks. I don't care if this one's different, if he makes good points, even great ones, he simply doesn't deserve the attention. Consider it a boycott on deceitful and sensationalist documentary filmmakers.

iantendo
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:50 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby iantendo » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:36 am UTC

The problem with things like this is that "armchair activists" (as I like to call them) watch these videos then spout the "facts" back verbatim to anyone who'll listen without actually checking that any of it's actually true.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby TheAmazingRando » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:45 am UTC

iantendo wrote:The problem with things like this is that "armchair activists" (as I like to call them) watch these videos then spout the "facts" back verbatim to anyone who'll listen without actually checking that any of it's actually true.

Plus half the time the posts are something like "You should really watch Zeitgeist. I'm not going to say it's right or wrong, but it gives you something to think about, doesn't it?" (not saying this post is like that). You can't even argue against them, since they feign neutrality.

And, while I didn't mention it in my last post, the comparison to Star Wars is completely off. Good directors can put out bad work, and bad directors can put out good work. The value of one work does not have much of an influence on the next.

However, with something like Zeitgeist, the creator has shown himself to be unreliable. It isn't illogical to instinctively distrust, at face value, the words of an unreliable person. This is very different than an artistic creation.

Matsi
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:22 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Matsi » Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:50 am UTC

You put it a lot better than I could, TheAmazingRando.

I was in fact ignorant to the lack of trustworthiness of the creators of Zeitgeist, it's just that the whole thing looked a bit off to me on an instinctive level. Like i said before, I felt it was very one-sided, and paranoid to boot. And i don't expect Zeitgeist 2 to be any different. But I'll probably wind up seeing it sooner or later.

drunken
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:14 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby drunken » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:39 am UTC

I agree that the credibility of the documentary is a bit iffy... in fact, does nayone here have +10 or more to lawyer skill?
There were two "facts" one in each movie that I am interested in. The first one said that someone successfully won a court case against income tax and in the second movie someone won a court case against bank forclosure. Someone who knows how and has access to the relevant databases should be able to verify these facts without too much effort. If these cases were misrepresented that would pretty much put the final nails in the coffin for the movie. On the other hand if they are shown to be true then that means there was at least one relevant, interesting and new (to me) point in each movie which makes them worthwhile.

I'll say it once more though: watch Pilger. He is a real journalist, except with integrity :-p

Also about conspiracy theories once more:
I consider it a fact that your government is lying to you. I am a New Zealander living in Berlin and I believe if I went out into the street in this or my home city and asked 100 random people politely the question "do you think the US government sometimes lies to it's people" I reckon (numbers pulled from rectal area) that 80% would say "yes of course" and 20% would say "quit bugging me"

It is also well documented that the US has been involved in terrorist attacks and false flag terrorist attacks against it's own country.

It is also a fact that more people died in 2001 in the US from food poisoning than from terrorist attacks.

Only one of these facts is a conspiracy: "a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act" is the first google definition.
The governments lies are no secret, they just lie so loudly and often that they don't need to keep it secret. Also it is not unlawful in many cases.
The statistics on food poisoning are also not secret, not based on any agreements between people and not unlawful.
Government agents being involved in terror attacks both against their own people and foreign powers is a conspiracy though.
***This post is my own opinion and no claim is being made that it is in any way scientific nor intended to be construed as such by any reader***

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby quintopia » Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:17 pm UTC

I just finally finished it. I must say that I have confirmation from a public policy major here at Georgia Tech that the description of the partial reserve system is completely accurate, especially:
-Currency represents debt
-Interest rates and inflation are necessary parts of a healthy economy under the fiat system because without constantly increasing debt, there would be no value to money (which is backed by debt).
-For the most part, this system makes the creation and maintenance of wage slavery possible (or at least easier)

On the other hand:
-Economy can grow and improve a lot faster under the fiat system than alternatives.


This movie mentions many things I have thought about before and the top item on my mind right now is the basis of capitalism in scarcity. Scarcity created by control of resources. A type of control that conveys the worst kind of power.

And the top resource that is held under control in this way, the one that if freed could free all the others? Information.

I'll ask this question here, since there seems to be no other interesting SB-type discussion in this thread:

How can we bring about the freedom and abundance of information? What are the impediments in the current system to getting information from the hands of those that exploit their monopoly over it to those that are exploited because they lack it?

In my mind this is the most important question to answer for a modern revolution to occur, and I know that the answer is connected to the internet and ubiquitous computing, but I lack the information about circumstances to guess at the specifics. Any ideas?

User avatar
Mabus_Zero
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:30 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Mabus_Zero » Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:51 pm UTC

I recently watched this, and am forced to agree with the OP that it is indeed much better then the original, which invested more time into debunking religion then religion is worth.
Image

Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

icarii
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:15 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby icarii » Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:28 am UTC

They are taking an complicated system like the u.s. economy and its economics policy and selectively takes facts from economic theory about money policy fractional banking, interest rate adjustments etc to provide an one sided argument that cements all the incongruities with an ominous "absurdity" label accompanied by equally menacing music in the background.

Of course with the current economic crisis, no doubt, it will drive fear into the unsuspecting individuals who watches this. okay why don't we all just go into crazy survivalist mode until the apocalypse comes! cash your savings and start purchasing CANNED TUNA as the only real currency that will work in the not too distant future of post economic meltdown.

circumlocuted
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:17 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby circumlocuted » Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:51 pm UTC

The first movie was a steaming pile of crap, and referenced 9/11 conspiracy lore which was provably false.

If you want to promote this movie, it's probably best not to open by apologizing for the first movie's inaccuracies "They only talk about 9/11 for like five seconds..."

If I may paraphrase:
Yes, much of the first movie was blatantly false and totally stupid, but this time it's better, I PROMISE.

No thanks.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Ixtellor » Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:02 pm UTC

All the conspiracy movies, website, and followers follow the exact same patterns.

It starts with 9/11 and ALWAYS ends with Jewish Bankers.

They have to get through fiat currency, fractional lending, and central banking, but they ALWAYS end with the Rothschilds or some other group of Jews who are into banking.

Its an ugly path full of misconseptions, lies, and oversimplifications.

If you don't like fiat currency or central banking, you dont' understand either.

Ixtellor

P.S. I am not going to watch another conspiracy flick, but do they mention tallot sticks or Rothschilds in this movie? If so, its like all the others.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

apeman5291
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:19 am UTC
Location: Columbia, SC, USA
Contact:

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby apeman5291 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:02 am UTC

Consipiracy theories of similar nature to the ones presented in Zeitgeist have one thing in common: they hinge upon the idea that tens or hundreds of wealthy, powerful, greed-motivated people (usually Jews) can cooperate and work in flawless concert to control world politics, economics, or the like. This simply is not possible. People with enough greed-based motives to come up with such a thing would not be able to work with dozens of other similarly natured people, and yet there needs to be lots of co-conspirators to be able to execute such a master plan and sufficiently cover the tracks. Every conspiracy theory I've been presented with has fallen into this sad, predictable pattern.
What you don't understand, you can make mean anything.

JullePetersson
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:30 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby JullePetersson » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:35 am UTC

apeman5291 wrote:Consipiracy theories of similar nature to the ones presented in Zeitgeist have one thing in common: they hinge upon the idea that tens or hundreds of wealthy, powerful, greed-motivated people (usually Jews) can cooperate and work in flawless concert to control world politics, economics, or the like. This simply is not possible. People with enough greed-based motives to come up with such a thing would not be able to work with dozens of other similarly natured people, and yet there needs to be lots of co-conspirators to be able to execute such a master plan and sufficiently cover the tracks. Every conspiracy theory I've been presented with has fallen into this sad, predictable pattern.


Well, Zeitgeist 2 actually has a decent explanation to how the coporate elite can control the world politics and economics. The idea is that there is no conspiracy, it's just a byproduct of the for-profit-based system.

User avatar
Sicarius Barritus
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:56 am UTC
Location: Winnipeg, MB, Mooseland
Contact:

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Sicarius Barritus » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:39 am UTC

coporate elite can control the world politics and economics.


Sounds like the same old conspiracy theory to me...

User avatar
TheBeeCeeEmm
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:13 am UTC
Location: Here and there.
Contact:

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby TheBeeCeeEmm » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:34 am UTC

It's funny how people can refuse to open their minds to unpopular ideas and not be called close-minded idiots.

"The first one was bad, QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ I'm not gonna watch this one, QQ"
There is no certainty, only opportunity.
http://www.counterorder.com
Belial wrote:You're basically saying that my computer is nonfunctional because it doesn't make waffles.

Avatar is Copyright of Freydis.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby TheAmazingRando » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:58 am UTC

This isn't being close minded. The creator proved himself to be completely untrustworthy, therefore, I don't care what he says. This is being a judge of who is and is not a good source. This guy is not a good source. You'd be an idiot to ignore his record and take what he says at face value. The guy released something with zero fact checking and called it a documentary, so I personally refuse to give him the time of day.

Though I guess if you replace it all with "QQ" and ignore my actual fucking argument, yeah, it's close-mindedness. Paying close attention to what every idiot says because there might accidentally be some truth in there isn't being open-minded, it's showing poor judgement.

User avatar
Sicarius Barritus
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:56 am UTC
Location: Winnipeg, MB, Mooseland
Contact:

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Sicarius Barritus » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:06 am UTC

I also don't "open my mind" repeatedly to things like holocaust denial, or moon landing conspiracies, no matter how slick the production values are on the sequel.
Because it's all the same bunk.
Problem with you "open minded" folks is that your brains fall out of that airy noggin.

User avatar
TheBeeCeeEmm
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:13 am UTC
Location: Here and there.
Contact:

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby TheBeeCeeEmm » Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:17 am UTC

If you can show me a link to where all the errors in Zeitgeist 1 are proven (and those rebuttals are cited, I've seen tons of sites where they claim Zeitgeist is wrong and don't back it up) wrong or half-truths, I'll believe it. I don't take anything in the entire world at face value, I'm an extreme skeptic. That also means nothing is sacred, and the idea that the government could easily be plotting to kill thousands of Americans right now is as possible as the idea that my neighbor could be watching the news. They could also be completely 100% awesome and have never done anything to hurt the American people, ever. It's all possible. Dismissing the chance to learn about a possible alternative (Zeitgeist 1) is foolish enough, but to dismiss the second movie when it's widely known to be better, on the basis that you didn't like the first one, is beyond ridiculous. If you're a butthurt Christian or nationalist, I can understand, but if you're not, you're just being silly. I'm sure that there are tons of other things that you do or condone that are a lot worse than misrepresenting facts in one movie, so you must have either heard something you didn't like in the first one, or you're an incredibly idealistic saint who doesn't pirate anything, has never lied, or never gives anyone a second chance to redeem themselves because you are perfect.

Or, there's the other possibility that you're just too lazy to spend 2 hours to watch something, which I'd bet is the real reason. Don't give me these bullshit moral codes you believe directors should follow. Puh-lease.

Edit: Oh, and claiming that the 9/11 conspiracy is on the same level as denying that the Holocaust happened is like comparing apples to dynamite. (Not that I'm discounting that the Holocaust could have been faked or something, extreme skeptic and all that. I don't think it's very likely, though. About on the same level as a god existing.)
There is no certainty, only opportunity.
http://www.counterorder.com
Belial wrote:You're basically saying that my computer is nonfunctional because it doesn't make waffles.

Avatar is Copyright of Freydis.

Falmarri
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:21 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Falmarri » Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:47 am UTC

The inane ramblings of a conspiracy theorist... All theories are equal until proven false, even if those presenting the theories has a history of distorting the facts, outright lieing, and at best being a bad journalist. So you don't subscribe to fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, sham on you? Zeitgeist tried to fool people the first time, anyone buying into zeitgeist 2 is a fool. And since I've done worse things than misrepresent facts, I should ignore the fact that he misrepresented facts before when presenting me with new facts? What kind of crazy logic is that?

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby TheAmazingRando » Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:02 am UTC

Part of it is that I'm too busy to spend 2 hours watching something produced by a person I believe lacks credibility. How, exactly, is this a fault? If it was a lot shorter, I might give it some time.

It would be great if I could remember where I read my rebuttals of the religious statements mentioned in Zeitgeist, but it's hard to find because they were written long before the film came out, and they were primarily through message boards. As I recall, though, the primary objections were actually from pagans who were upset at the mischaracterization of Egyptian mythology, as most of the information he used was traced back to a single source by a single controversial translation. Could it be correct? Maybe. But it's the whole picking-and-choosing, who cares about the controversy as long as it *might* have a shred of truth in it, that I had a problem with. I started watching the film and was barraged with a bunch of stuff I had already heard. It was hardly new information, and it was hardly well-accepted, or even mostly-accepted, fact. And some of the stuff was obviously inconsequential shit thrown in to give his points more credence. Short examples:

- Christ's birthday as the 25th of December is a modern tradition which developed well after the the story of Christ originated, and most Christians don't honestly believe that it was his birthday, and it's certainly not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. It's a well accepted fact in Christian circles that the date was chosen to coincide with existing pagan celebrations, so the similarity in no way ties the origins of the story to existing mythology.

- "Son" and "Sun" as homonyms. The translation of the Bible into English is a recent thing. The Hebrew words for "son" and "sun" are not homonyms, or anything approaching homonyms. This in no way lends any credence to the origins of Christ as a sun god, because the comparison wouldn't have even been seen until over a thousand years after it originated. There is no way that those words as English homonyms could have had anything to do with its origins.

So there are two examples where even the simplest fact checking would have shown them to be entirely baseless as far as the origins of the story are concerned. Could the rest of the film be flawlessly accurate? I suppose it's possible. But if such simple errors exist in the easiest section of the documentary to verify, how am I supposed to trust that the rest of the claims he makes are in any way accurate? Throwing in anything, so long as it makes your point, does not a good documentary make. It means that nothing can be taken at face value with any amount of intellectual honesty.

There are worse things than misrepresenting the facts in one movie, true. I would give him a second chance if he showed any indication that he is more credible, but he hasn't even acknowledged the errors he made the first time around. Why should I spend two more hours taking his word for it?

Besides all that, according to wikipedia, all of Zeitgeist: Addendum is sourced to three books. If I'm really interested in the topic, I'll skip any potential bullshit from him (because I highly doubt that all the information in the documentary is contained therein, which leaves the rest uncited) and just go straight to the source.

User avatar
theferrymantune
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 1:47 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby theferrymantune » Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:21 am UTC

This film is tendencious, biased and arogant. Maybe less so then the first one...rather... it picks up where "From Freedom to Fasism" ended. Refreshingly this time the creators also picked a team.
It does touch interesting topics and in the flow of it all makes people think about present day and their artificial cages.

What I like most about this new one is a notion of the emergent nature of reality and the symbiotic nature of life that is brought forward.

What I liked the least was was when the media creators started about mobilizing a movement by signing up. I don't mind they like people to sign up but it was totaly out of context.

It doesn't take a genius to see how power corrupts and our present systems are not bringing a sustainable future for humans. How devolpment in all senses is hold back by a system that primiarly provides protection of the most corrupting ellements. But well even though this piece of media itself is tendencious these things are good to have thoughts and even feelings about. And that is what it provokes. So if that was the setup it's not a total failure.


(this clip can be seen as a nice comment on these zeitgeist things. :P )
Did you mean to search for: spidurs

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Telchar » Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:27 am UTC

I got about halfway through the "Debt=death" part of it, and couldn't take it anymore.

It not only really bad information, but it's also presented in a way that isn't exactly "bias-neutral." He starts out by talking about how money is created through debt. And later, after talking about interest works, comes back to that same topic and plays really ominous music. Really?

Why is money being created from debt bad? What would you rather money be created from? Even interpersonal relationships rely on a kind of fiat system. You do something for me, so I owe you. It's really basic, yet this is the cornerstone of the "wage slave corporate greeed" pity orgy that seems to be going on the entire first part of them film. I didn't watch the other parts, I guess there was something about religion? I just couldn't take it.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Tronald
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Tronald » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:41 pm UTC

hey, i was about to make this thread :P But yea, We really should switch the a diffrent style of economy, because stuff just isnt working out.
There is no good or evil just better or worst.
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Smiling Hobo
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:55 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Smiling Hobo » Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:44 pm UTC

Tronald wrote:hey, i was about to make this thread :P But yea, We really should switch the a diffrent style of economy, because stuff just isnt working out.
And what do you propose we switch to?

*Nibbles on kitten*
Eat a kitten, save a cow!

Tronald
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Tronald » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:10 pm UTC

What the video said, a resource Economy WWOuld seem to work.
There is no good or evil just better or worst.
Spoiler:
Image

NuclearWarfare
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:26 pm UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby NuclearWarfare » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:33 pm UTC

Stolen from http://www.new.facebook.com/board.php?u ... topic=5928 , the following is a list/rant about Zeitgeist, Part I, and the inaccuracies it contains:

1. “This is the cross of the Zodiac”, 1:38. It’s actually the Greek Zodiac Wheel, but admittedly a minor error. Nonetheless, it implies a word that makes it seem more related to Christianity.
2. “Horus…the Solar Messiah”, 2:57. The Ancient Egyptians did not have the word or concept of a Savior or Messiah…the movie simply adds that word on for later relationship to Jesus.
3. “Metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set, while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld.” 3:10. This is not Ancient Egyptian mythology, but rather the product of Zeitgeist’s writers. Horus and Set were enemies, but there was no myth stating their battles were the daily cause of daylight and nighttime. “Metaphorically speaking” is the very nice way of saying this.
4. “Horus was born on December 25th…” 3:33. Incorrect. Horus’ birth was during the Egyptian month of “Khoiak”, which falls in what is now October and November.
5. “…of the virgin Isis Mary…” 3:36. Incorrect on both the name and her virginity status. In truth, Horus was born to Isis (the “Mary” seems to be added by Zeitgeist writers to make it sound like Jesus’ birth), the widow of Osiris. She used her deceased husband’s phallus and sperm to conceive Horus, but there is absolutely nothing about her being a virgin; her formerly being married to Osiris shows otherwise.
6. “…three kings followed to adorn the newborn Savior” 3:42. There is no evidence in any of the birth stories I’ve found for any kings visiting or adorning the child; in fact, Horus is born as a falcon and flies away. As we all know, it’s hard to catch a falcon to adorn it. It’s also worthy to point out…again…that the concept of a “Savior” was not part of Egyptian Mythology.
7. “…at the age of 12 he was a prodigal child teacher…” 3:47. He was quite a kid but I have found nothing about Horus as a “teacher” of anything, let alone at age 12.
8. “…at the age of 30 he was baptized…” 3:50. The Egyptians did not “Baptise” anyone. That term is obviously Christian and it’s application to Egyptian mythology is grossly misled. All of the information I can find about this also cites some of the above facts I’ve debunked as true, and I’ve found nothing to indicate Horus was dunked in water of any kind from any actual reputable source.
9. “…Horus had 12 disciples…”3:53. Horus had four disciples/ followers, not 12. They were called the “Heru-Shemsu” if you want to look it up.
10. “…(Horus) walked on water…” 3:57. Horus never walked on water. This appears to be nothing short of a Zeitgeist made piece of fiction.
11-15.“…known by many…names, such as ‘The Truth’, ‘The Light’, ‘God’s Anointed Son’, ‘The Good Shepherd’, ‘The Lamb of God’,…” 4:03. There is nothing in support of this anywhere. The Egyptians did not even have a “God” in the sense of a single god known by that title.
16. “…Horus was crucified…” 4:09. There was no such thing in Ancient Egypt. The civilization pre-dates crucifixion by over 1,500 years.
17. “…buried for 3 days and thus resurrected…” 4:11. Once again, there is no evidence for this claim. His father, Osiris, is resurrected by Horus’ actions in some myths, but Horus himself does not undergo this. Again, all online sources that support the Zeitgeist seem to have gotten their information from the movie.
18-19. “…Attis, born of a virgin (Nana) on December 25th…” 4:28. Nana is a nymph and conceives children by holding an acorn to her breast, and there is nothing indicating it happened on December 25th. Attis is associated with springtime, not the winter or the solstice.
20. “…(Attis is) crucified…” 4:30. Attis castrates himself under a pine tree; he is not nailed to a piece of a tree by other people like Jesus was.
21. “…(Attis is) resurrected…” 4:31. Attis never comes back to life. Requests by others to resurrect him are actually denied; Attis eventually becomes a pine tree. Zeitgeist fabricated this “fact” apparently…seems to be a pattern emerging…
22. “…(Attis is) placed in a tomb…” 4:31. See above…there is no tomb for poor Attis.
23. “Krishna, born of a virgin…” 4:37. Krishna’s parents had seven children before Krishna. They apparently were fond of intercourse, actually.
24. “…Star in the East…” 4:40. Again, there is absolutely nothing to this anywhere. Appears to be Zeitgeist nonsense again.
25. “…Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin…” 4:50. Zeus impregnates either a mortal woman (Semele), or Persephone; either way, he impregnates them with his god stick, not a divine touch. Virgin birth was never an element of Dionysus.
26. “…on December 25th…” 4:52. There is nothing anywhere in the Dionysus myth mentioning this day, the winter solstice, or a birthday of any kind. Like Attis, Dionysus is associated with spring, not winter.
27. “…travelling teacher…” 4:53. Dionysus did travel, but virtually all of his “teaching” was about wine making and he taught nothing spiritual.
28. “…such as turning water into wine…” 4:55. One of my law professors once told me, “lawyers don’t lie, they interpret the truth.” This movie is about two steps closer to lying than a lawyer apparently. Dionysus was the god of wine and gave people the power to turn things they touched into wine, and he also filled empty vessels with it. Oddly enough, none of these stories contains him or anyone with his powers turning water into wine.
28-30. “…he was referred to as the ‘King of Kings’, ‘God’s only begotten Son’, ‘The Alpha and Omega’…” 5:00. All false, of course. Dionysus was never the highest ranking god, never a king, had many, many half siblings (Zeus got around), and had a very well defined beginning.
31. “…Mithra, born of a virgin…” 5:07. Mithra actually sprang out of a rock in some traditions and ancient artworks, and none of the other myths provide any details of birth.
32. “…he had twelve disciples…” 5:09. Mithra was occasionally shown surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac, which, as one might guess, are not actually disciples.
33-34. “…and upon his death was buried for three days and thus resurrected…” 5:11. Mithra never actually dies in any myth, and so was also never buried. The living don’t need resurrections either.
35-37. “…called ‘The Way’, ‘The Truth’, ‘The Light’…” 5:16. He was called “the warrior angel of light” in Iran, but that’s actually a completely different Mithra from the Roman one pictured in the movie and referenced with the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Go figure.
38-40+. “…the fact of the matter is there are different Saviors from different periods from all over the world which subscribe to these general characteristics…” 5:25 A list of about 20 ancient gods are presented, some of which I can’t even find. The ones I know off of the top of my head are ridiculous to place in such a category…and some are even synonymous with before presented gods. Osiris of Egypt? Zoroaster from Iran? Thor? Quexalcote (who is from the New World and would have been completely unknown to the Jews of 20 CE)? They bare virtually nothing in common with Jesus (that IS what this is going for after all), and are not “saviors”. Remember that it is a Christian word and concept. Assigning this section as 3 errors is letting the movie off very easy.
41. “…let’s examine the most recent of the solar messiahs…” 5:48. This is a misleading/ wrong statement for a number of reasons. Jesus is the only “Messiah”, to start with, and if the previous gods are supposed to be other solar messiahs, then this is still wrong, since some of them actually are more recent than Jesus.
***42. “Jesus Christ…was born on December 25th…”*** 5: 53 *This is perhaps the biggest error in the entire section 1, and undermines the next fifteen minutes as completely moot.*
The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John- the books that are supposed to be a historical reflection of Jesus and contain his birth story(s) ) were written down between 58 and 110 CE, with John being the last. The celebration of Christ’s birth as December 25th is not within the Gospels, and the date actually appears nowhere within them with reference to anything. Originally, the day appointed to mark Jesus’ birth was March 25th, the start of spring, and the same day the early Christians believed Jesus was crucified (they believed prophets died on their birthdays, as they were set to live a specific number of years). It was not until the year 354 CE, 240+ years after the last pen drop of the Book of John was finished, that “Christmas” was created and placed on December 25th. The primary reason for this day was to replace old Roman Pagan solstice festivals with a Christian one.
Furthermore, the evidence within the Gospels themselves virtually forces Jesus to be a spring birth (and adds solidity to March 25th being more accurate). The Palestinian winters are quite cold, and shepherds would not have been tending their flocks in the fields in late December, as the lambs would die of hypothermia. Basing Jesus’ birth story on the Astrology of December 25th is ridiculous and 101% baseless. If you don’t understand why, here’s an easy analogy:
I write a book about a hero named Bob tomorrow, and set the story in the summer of 2008. In the year 2307, people like my story about Bob so much that they make a holiday for Bob, Bobmas, and assign it to November 16th. In the year 2960, some historians reconstruct my story about Bob, and publish a paper showing how I wrote the story based upon the Astrology of November 16th, though my book neither took place on that date, nor did I even mention it. It’s tantamount to trying to explain the 4th Season of “Seinfeld” based upon the movement of a comet. It’s just loony and makes no sense when you actually look at the facts.
43. “…The star in the East is Sirius, which, on December 24th, aligns with…Orion’s Belt…” 6:45. Sirius is well away from Orion’s belt and does not move in the night sky with relation to other stars; no stars do. Only planets move in relation to the stars (the stars do move, technically, but it takes many hundreds of years before even slight changes can be noticed).
44. “The three brightest stars are called today what they were called in Ancient times- the ‘Three Kings’…” 6:52. Yes, they were called that…in South Africa. In Greece, Rome, and the Middle East, they were Orion’s belt. The Sahara Desert kept the folklore of South Africa down there quite effectively, and the “The Kings” reference does not begin showing up in Aramaic Texts until 300 CE.
45. “…all point to where the sun rises on December 25th…in order to locate the sunrise; the birth of the son…” 7:07. This is incredibly misleading. All stars move east to west like the sun, and any set of stars in the sky could have been picked as “pointing back to the sunrise”. Next, the implied connection between “sun” and “son” is a play on words in English; no one spoke English when all of these events took place, obviously.
46. “…This is why other virgin mothers, like (Myrra’s and Buddha’s mother’s) names start with an “M”…” 7:32 Buddha was born to Maya, who had been married for 20 years before his birth. There is no indication of her being a virgin in any Buddhist traditions. In addition, the only sites I can find claiming Myrra had anything to do with virgin birth are “Greatest Story Ever Told” sites that read virtually identically to the Zeitgeist. Based upon the Zeitgeist’s merits, I can say that I would be highly skeptical of those sources.
47. “…Bethlehem is thus a reference to a place in the sky, not on earth…” 7:56. This statement is based upon the contellation Virgo’s being called “The House of Bread”, and Bethlehem literally translating in Hebrew to “House of Bread”. However, these two things were independently named in different languages. The Zeitgeist implies Bethlehem took it’s name from the Constellation…the people that still live there might tell the writers it’s the opposite. Point: two places with a common name =/= direct associations.
48. “The sun died on a cross (the “Southern Cross Contellation”), was dead for three days (December 22-24 the sun is at its lowest), only to be born again on December 25th…” 9:10. That’s fine and dandy, but this is a combination of two inaccuracies already pointed out; the “sun” and “son” were not word-playable words back then, and Jesus WAS NOT born on December 25th. All of this astrology explaining this cycle is meaningless and implies something that is wholly inaccurate; see fact error 42.
49-51. “…this is why Jesus and other sun gods share the crucifixion, three day death, and resurrection…” 9:18. None of the gods pictured or previously talked about were crucified, dead for three days, or resurrected. This is redundant, yes, but it’s pissing me off and if they want to use bad information more than once, I’ll write it down more than once.
52. “…it is a Pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac…” 10:47. The Pagan Zodiac is balanced, with all four parts of the “cross” equal in length. The Christian cross is not balanced, but resembles the letter “t”. Forget that crucifixion on a cross was the method of execution by the Romans too…
53. “crown of thorns, or sunrays…” 11:32. I need something behind this. It’s a matter of conjecture, but not one I can find supported anywhere outside of the Zeitgeist.


I think that is all the author got to, but seriously, an error every 13 seconds? In the edited version?
I find no reason to take the second one seriously if this is the bullshit they put in the first one.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby JoshuaZ » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:59 pm UTC

NuclearWarfare wrote:I think that is all the author got to, but seriously, an error every 13 seconds? In the edited version?
I find no reason to take the second one seriously if this is the bullshit they put in the first one.


In fairness to Zeitgeist I suspect they didn't make up most of this crap. A lot of this has been claimed by Acharya S with no backing at all and is widely circulated around the internet. Bill Maher repeated much of the same junk. But it does demonstrate a complete lack of ability to do research or fact check (and in fact it looks from the above list like they've made claims that even Archarya does not such as calling Isis "Isis Mary").

drunken
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:14 am UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby drunken » Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:25 am UTC

While I agree with all the arguments against Zeitgeist 1 and the innacuracies, there is in fact a Zeitgeist 1 thread. This is not it. Please stay on topic. Zeitgeist 2 was about the economy. Can we talk about the economy in relation to this movie please? That would be nice. The view "The first movie lacked credibility and I am not interested in seeing anything else made by the same people" is a reasonable and understandable position. It has however been voiced and documented as a common view in this thread. Can those posters who have nothing new now to add leave the thread a bit less cluttered for those that DID watch the movie that this thread is about. Thankyou.

Telchar wrote:I got about halfway through the "Debt=death" part of it, and couldn't take it anymore.

It not only really bad information, but it's also presented in a way that isn't exactly "bias-neutral." He starts out by talking about how money is created through debt. And later, after talking about interest works, comes back to that same topic and plays really ominous music. Really?

Why is money being created from debt bad? What would you rather money be created from? Even interpersonal relationships rely on a kind of fiat system. You do something for me, so I owe you. It's really basic, yet this is the cornerstone of the "wage slave corporate greeed" pity orgy that seems to be going on the entire first part of them film. I didn't watch the other parts, I guess there was something about religion? I just couldn't take it.


I must say my interpersonal relationships are not based on any kind of fiat system. Fiat money is a very new economic idea and every system before very recently used other systems, proving that other systems are possible and workable, a point that you seem to be disagreeing with.

"Why is money created from debt bad?" This is a very good question, and one that I don't think was really covered by this film in a way to make it obvious. I am not even sure that I am able to explain exactly why I believe it is bad either but I will give it a go:

All economic policy; all regulations about how money is spent, borrowed, loaned, held; all tax laws, trade agreements, and anti-trust laws (I am sure there is a collective term for money rules but I don't know it) are designed to achieve a certain distribution of wealth and a certain quality of life for one or more people based on that distribution. The current system we have achieves (and seems to me to be designed to acheive) what I consider to be an unfair distribution of wealth. I cannot say for sure wether that unfairness is the result of the system being based on debt or not. But I can say that I don't like the system. Given that creating money from debt is a major element of the system it is, in my mind, an area where a change in the system might be implemented. Changing only the debt element of the current system seems unlikely to me to be enough though and I think a complete rethink is in order. That is the limit of my expertise as far as "Fiat money" goes.

Debt in general however offers a few more examples. I don't wish to claim that the existence of several forms of debt that are detrimental to the human race proves that all debt is bad, but the systems in general seem to have a lot in common. The motivation for them and the system of values that they are based on are the same pretty much across the board and the implication is certainly there that at least the motivation for using debt extensively in an economic system is not especially philanthropic. The first example I am reffering to is that of third world debt enabling the control of the indebted countries by the owners of the world banking organisations. A second good example is the policy on a much smaller scale of private lending institutions, I have heard it said from the owner of a large second hand car firm in my country that provides it's own finance: "We choose to lend to people with bad credit records as a preference" He said it with a racial slur in place of the words 'people with bad credit records' but I think that was what he meant. The reason why it makes sense for this man to lend to poor people who aren't going to be able to afford the debt is that after they try to pay the debt, giving up hundreds or thousands of dollars to him, they eventually fail to make their payments. This enables the lender to reposess the vehicle, and sell it again. This makes a business model where the costs are very low, an incredibly expensive car rental firm. The main reason these people have bad credit records in the first place is not because of the colour of their skin but because of a lack of understanding of predatory lending policies like this.
It seems to me that while I cannot show conclusively that debt is bad, I can show that debt is useable as a tool to create opression and a form of slavery. I do not believe that every time debt occurs it results in oppression of people but I know that a huge amount of suffering in the world is caused by it.

Debt quite often = Death, for millions of people, just not me or you.
***This post is my own opinion and no claim is being made that it is in any way scientific nor intended to be construed as such by any reader***

FrankDemola
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:08 pm UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby FrankDemola » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:28 am UTC

When positions of power exist long enough to create its own culture, members will find a way to seal themselves in from the larger society and its rules with its own set of justifications, a social organism functioning on its own terms.

Ultimately, being divorced from its point of origin, the larger society, the latter loses its grip on the former, and those meant to serve end up serving their organism and its ideals over the ever increasingly invisible other, the majority.

When people group together, they immediately form new bonds. No two friend groups share all the same rules. No two classrooms are alike. Except at the Mall and inside an In & Out restaurant, where the same person really is behind the register at every location.

The difference is that people in charge have jurisdiction over other groups.

Power doesn't corrupt, so much as redirects your will for the benefit of a newly preferable like-minded few. Which I guess is a type of corruption.

Two year term limits could never have been enough.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Telchar » Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:45 pm UTC

drunken wrote:I must say my interpersonal relationships are not based on any kind of fiat system. Fiat money is a very new economic idea and every system before very recently used other systems, proving that other systems are possible and workable, a point that you seem to be disagreeing with.


I would say you are probably in the minority. If your car broke down and your friend drove across town to pick you up when you asked him, do you not feel as sense of gratitude? Or is this just expected?

All economic policy; all regulations about how money is spent, borrowed, loaned, held; all tax laws, trade agreements, and anti-trust laws (I am sure there is a collective term for money rules but I don't know it) are designed to achieve a certain distribution of wealth and a certain quality of life for one or more people based on that distribution. The current system we have achieves (and seems to me to be designed to acheive) what I consider to be an unfair distribution of wealth. I cannot say for sure wether that unfairness is the result of the system being based on debt or not. But I can say that I don't like the system. Given that creating money from debt is a major element of the system it is, in my mind, an area where a change in the system might be implemented. Changing only the debt element of the current system seems unlikely to me to be enough though and I think a complete rethink is in order. That is the limit of my expertise as far as "Fiat money" goes.


Unfair by what standard and to whom? You say that money is distributed unfairly but give no metric to define what fair is. It's exactly why Zeitgiest gets away with any shred of credability, is because they argue with nebulous terms.

And how do you create money without debt? Do you fix capital based on resources? If we had done that, we would still be living in the dark ages. You wouldn't much scientific advancement. You think the rich stay rich in this system? Compared to a resource based system, fiat is heaven. Less war, less poverty. In general, it's still better. I won't say I like everything about it, but it's better than any alternative.

Debt in general however offers a few more examples. I don't wish to claim that the existence of several forms of debt that are detrimental to the human race proves that all debt is bad, but the systems in general seem to have a lot in common.


We call this noodling. "I really don't want to offend you, but you're really fuckin ugly." You put two things on a table, one thing that is obviously horrible, one thing that looks like it, and then just shrug your shoulders. The implication is there, whether you want it to be or not.

The motivation for them and the system of values that they are based on are the same pretty much across the board and the implication is certainly there that at least the motivation for using debt extensively in an economic system is not especially philanthropic.


Why should this be the case? And what do you mean by philanthropic?

The first example I am reffering to is that of third world debt enabling the control of the indebted countries by the owners of the world banking organisations. A second good example is the policy on a much smaller scale of private lending institutions, I have heard it said from the owner of a large second hand car firm in my country that provides it's own finance: "We choose to lend to people with bad credit records as a preference"


1. Debt can be used as an instrument of oppression. Unfortunately, sometimes it is, but to say that it is completely useless because of that is false.

2. Really? You feel oppressed because of debt personally? I think if you really thought about that for a minute you would understand that's not the case. No one would have money if debt didn't exist. No one. You wouldn't be free to not work, you would be working really hard to find basic neccesities.

3. If that is even true, it is not the norm in any way/shape/form. Banks HATE forclosing/repossessing anything. Most of them will bend over backwards trying to help you stay above the waterline. It's not because they really really really like you. It's because they almost never make money. They arn't in the business of selling cars/houses. They don't want to do that. They are in the business of lending money. Your friend is in a unique position called retail sales finance. I would also argue he doesn't make as much money as he would have you beleive, because, especially on cars, the collateral devalues to quickly. If I buy a car from him, drive it around for 2 years, and then default on the loan, depending on the car and the condition when I bought it, your friend has lost a ton of money. Possible double what he made on my payments. Unless he's turning back odometers I would have a hard time beleiving he actually makes money doing that.

He said it with a racial slur in place of the words 'people with bad credit records' but I think that was what he meant. The reason why it makes sense for this man to lend to poor people who aren't going to be able to afford the debt is that after they try to pay the debt, giving up hundreds or thousands of dollars to him, they eventually fail to make their payments. This enables the lender to reposess the vehicle, and sell it again. This makes a business model where the costs are very low, an incredibly expensive car rental firm. The main reason these people have bad credit records in the first place is not because of the colour of their skin but because of a lack of understanding of predatory lending policies like this.


I've always had a hard time swallowing the "predatory lending" arguement simply because of the way loans are done ( in the US anyway.) You sign a document that states, in actually very explicit terms, exactly how this loan has to be repaid. If you don't read that document, and still sign it....sucks to be you. That may make me calous, but why would someone EVER do that? It makes no sense. I don't have a college degree in business, or accounting, or banking. And even I can understand what my home equity loan docs say. If you don't understand it, there are people out there who can explain it to you. Failure on your part does not constitue "predatory lending" on the part of the banks.

Partially because banks never make money when they repossess your car. They sometimes used to make on forclosures because of mortgage backed securities, but even then the margin of money they made on the security vs you making your loan payments was not in favor of forclosure.

It seems to me that while I cannot show conclusively that debt is bad, I can show that debt is useable as a tool to create opression and a form of slavery. I do not believe that every time debt occurs it results in oppression of people but I know that a huge amount of suffering in the world is caused by it.


In order to come to that conclusion, you also have to ignore everything it has and is doing for everyone.

Debt quite often = Death, for millions of people, just not me or you.


You really need yo balance that equation. It's more like debt=economic prosperity for the vast majority, scientific advancement, freedom from subsistance living, sometimes death.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Zeitgeist 2

Postby Ixtellor » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:30 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:All the conspiracy movies, website, and followers follow the exact same patterns.

It starts with 9/11 and ALWAYS ends with Jewish Bankers.

They have to get through fiat currency, fractional lending, and central banking, but they ALWAYS end with the Rothschilds or some other group of Jews who are into banking.

Its an ugly path full of misconseptions, lies, and oversimplifications.

If you don't like fiat currency or central banking, you dont' understand either.

Ixtellor

P.S. I am not going to watch another conspiracy flick, but do they mention tallot sticks or Rothschilds in this movie? If so, its like all the others.


I see the debate has already turned to Fiat currency, as I predicted it would.

All conspiracy theories lead to jewish bankers at some point. Glad to see that Zeitgist 2 is well on its way.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests