Are the zeitgeisters still truthers, or did they tone that down in the latest movie?
I agree. The Zeitgeist Movement needs to be addressed. I see enthusiastic support for it exploding on popular internet forums.
The Zeitgeist movies appeal to kids because they have been trained by twelve years of government school indoctrination to be emotional and anti-intellectual, not rational.
The somewhat valid criticisms of our current system in the Zeitgeist 3 movie fire them up so vigorously that they start promoting the “Resource-Based Economy” with religious ferver without bothering to critically examine it.
It scares me.
Actually, there’s really no arguing with them. I didn’t know they were “truthers”.
Nonetheless, they’re very, dogmatic.. I think. Not sure if it’s the right word to describe them..
Peter Joseph is a very weird character. He becomes very emotional and he pretty much hates every aspect of life.
I’ve listened to his interview where he states that : " the society we live in is a CONSUMER society, we consume with disregard to nature. In Anthropology, we learn that people only took what they needed from nature and lived modest lifes"" People think economics is not a science, it’s not, you see vast complicated equations and all that. But it’s not really a science. I’ve read most of they’re works."
We must live in desperate times, I’ve been searching some things online and people believe all sorts of silly things.
Did you knwo that there’s millions of people who follow conspiracy theories and all that. Some actually believe the world is ruled by reptilians, and some wear tin foil hats. I thought this was a joke, yet they really believe in this…LOL!!!
The problem is that the “movement” presents itself as rational, scientific and modern, with revolutionary and entirely novel ideas about how society “really operates,” and how it should operate. Peter Joseph’s revelations can’t be invalidated by the logic of economics, which is, after all, just “a tool of the oppressive monetary system.” This makes rational discourse impossible.
But if you look at the structure of Zeitgeist 1 you’ll see that he’s actually quite brilliant. The first part (introduction), which was merely an attack on religion, gave him instant credibility amongst 20 year-old pseudo intellectuals (many of which are hardcore militant atheists).
His arguments were similar to Marx’s in many respects (product of the superstructure, the opiate of the masses, etc), but it went even further. He didn’t just argue that God wasn’t real (the old and boring argument), but rather that Jesus wasn’t real (not that he wasn’t the son of God, but rather that he never existed at all). Part 2 and part 3 didn’t really matter at that point; he could have said anything and people would have followed (part 2 just plagiarizes “Loose Change,” and part 3 is just Utopian Socialism).
I’m quite sure that the Zeitgeist “movement” would be much smaller today, if it existed at all, if it wasn’t for the spurious argument made in part 1. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to see how a 28 year-old college dropout/musician can get millions of people to follow him. He should have went into politics.
I have seen the original Zeitgeist and I actually think most on the Mises boards would agree with their portrayal of the founding of the Federal Reserve. Even though absoultey nothing was sourced, there wasn’t any outlandish instance of misinformation that I can recall. Their segments on the NWO, 9/11 Truth, and the plagarism of the Christian religion I don’t think are accurate at all.
- Actually, there’s really no arguing with them. I didn’t know they were “truthers”.
Once again, it’s not really about arguing with the hardcore zealots, but rather just adressing their claims in an open forum. I’ve been scanning thier forums and Stefans two videos, which at best touch on the criticisms in a cursory manner (ie. not delving into explaining the whole ECP), already had a few of them doubting. You won’t change the fundies, but you’ll keep the fundies from getting any followers. Plus we might convert a few, considering that, despite the utopian futurism and lack of sound economics, the Zietgiesters do share some goals with austro-libertarians. Show them we’re they’re going wrong, and congratulate them when they’re going right.
I don’t quite remember Part 1 of the first Zeitgeist movie, but I do know that the comparisons made between Jesus and Christianity to other religions were pretty solid, and takes the “this is an original religion” aspect away from Christianity.
If there were blatantly false claims made, I don’t remember them. I’m also not going to watch that awful movie again lol.
Not even close to solid. The comparisons between Jesus and pagan deities are spurious, at best.
- Mithra is made of stone, has 1000 ears, 1000 eyes, and lives in a cave. He is protector of cattle, wide pastures, and the guardian of water.
- Horus is the god of war and hunting who takes the form of a falcon, and was said to be the sky. The sun is his right eye and the moon is his left eye. "Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[5][6] and used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus."
All the other comparisons are just as ridiculous. Additionally, that part of the documentary cites 5 different sources, but merely repeats the sources multiple times in order to make it seem more credible/authoritative.
Wasn’t Mithra born on Dec. 25th, had 12 followers (apostles?), performed miracles, etc? I think there are similar parallels between Horus and Jesus as well, though I don’t remember them.
I don’t recall if such comparisons were made in the movie, so maybe I was mistaken in attributing them to it.
These are the claims made in the movie but I’ve never seen them substantiated.
But first of all, Jesus was not born on December 25th.This was something created by the church around the 5th century in order to appeal to the pagan populations. Next,why would a falcon and a stone monster, which lives in a cave, have 12 apostles? Either way, there’s no evidence supporting such assertions.
Peter Joeseph is basically a liar in every way.
Check this website out: http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/mithra.html
I had to turn off Religulous when Bill Marr cited the Horus story as being another Jesus. Pure rubbish.
It’s quite brilliant numerology, actually. You take a bunch of facts about two unrelated events/objects/people and comb through them, and just by coincidence there will be a bunch of them that match. Then you only mention those in a row, and add a little bs and a story that explains why they are “connected”, and it will seem utterly convincing that it’s “too much to be coincidence”. That’s what the first zeitgeist movie does with Christianity to show that it’s metaphysized astronomy. It’s like the Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences thing. The trick is that while it is unlikely that a particular fact about an event/object/person is the same as that of another unrelated one, it is actually very likely that some of the facts about them are the same. You can try this at home. You just take a few facts about your life (birthday, fathers employment, etc.) and compare them to the facts of Ludwig van Mises’ life. And as long as you have enough data, there’s going to be a bunch of them that match. Then you only mention those, and the conclusion is clear: You and Ludwig van Mises are magic soulmates! Once you mention all the facts that aren’t the same, it becomes less astounding. So the Zeitgeist movie merely exploits a statistical trick.
It’s the same thing with the “Bible Code.” You can get similar results using the same criteria for Moby Dick.
Speaking of that (off-topic), the History Channel is absolutely ridiculous now. Especially their most recent fetish–the Ancient Astronaut theory.
Here is the next episodein the debate between Stefan Molyneux and the Venus Project people.
I stopped listening after the kid said that poor people live happier lives relative to wealthy people, and that capitalism can’t work because we have finite resources.
waaaat are you serious? They went so low into such myths even? Wow. They really are cahsing for ratings only…
Indeed, the History Channel is run by a bunch of sellouts. This is just one episode, I think they’ve got a whole series devoted to this:
I can’t bring myself to watch the video. Does molyneux do well? Do they troll/abuse him? 
Ahh I did watch it. “Efficiency is not subjective it is scientific”
[edit1] Gaaawd its so long and Molyneux is a good speaker, has good knowledge of mainstream AE, but a mediocre debater. Really. Come on our guys…
Step 1) Reduce their silly lefty objection into its purest form. For example, when someone asks walter block what will happen to poor people under private roads, that isn’t a direct objection to private roads. It falls under a general need for wealth redistribution. So tell them that. Tell them what they’re arguing and what they’re thinking, cus they don’t have a clue. Otherwise they’ll think that wealth redistro arguments disprove price-allocation of capital.
Step 2) If it is non-topical, tell them to get to it later so you don’t get thrown off course. If it is not non-topical, address their argument in its GENERAL FORM so you don’t keep coming back to the same issue over and over again.
Step 3) When you are done explaining it, make sure you have a little QED line so they don’t get caught up in all the little logical steps you used to own them.
Well, you’ve watched it now, so I guess this doesn’t matter. But I thought both sides did pretty well respect-wise. I think Molyneux won the debate, but there wasn’t any trolling or abuse, which was good to see. I don’t think I would be able to say the same if it was Molyneux vs. Peter Joseph.