He’s over the top, but almost always 100% correct. Hardly a tool.
As for Zeitgeist, it’s typical disnfo.
The religious section either misrepresents facts, or outright lies, both the 9/11 section and the FED section sets you on a path of chasing red herrings; the movie represents them as bad but uses flawed reasons for why they are.
Unfortunately part one has been entirely refuted as pure nonsense. Do you want specifics?
Because there’s no hardcore evidence. There are assertions fused with some scientific explanations along with nonsensical fantasy. For example, there are those who believe that the planes were projections.
The movie took loose change, combined it with old illuminati conspiracy theories, and attacked religion. The citations at the end are merely recycled over and over again in order to make it appear legitimate. It’s pure statist Marxian propaganda–the Marxian agenda seeks to destroy civilization and religion. They need to eliminate natural law, and religion has been and can be used against the state.
What country hasn’t been influenced by religion? I’m not a theist and of course by country I believe you to be using the metaphor or shorthand for saying a certain number of individuals in a given geographical area but truly, I’m wondering where these ‘non-religious’ countries exist.
It has been an interesting couple of years since I came to the realization that the term new world order has been used intermittently by many different people in different situations for over a century. If you cherry pick quotes I am sure you will see all sorts of people mentioning it. Hey mom, Hitler said he wanted a new world order! Hey dad, Soros said he wanted a new world order! They must be in collusion! If, however, one looks at everything within the context, you start to see something quite obvious to a scholar of language; the term new world order can apply to any circumstance.
How come no one talks about the OWO? Or the CWO? What are those you say? Oh, they are the Old World Order, and the Current World Order respectively. The Old World Order is a conspiracy of monarchists and feudal lords attempting to return to the ancient regime! The Current World Order is a loose band of parliamentarians trying to keep their grasp on power. The secrecy! The satan worship! -_-
For those who do not get sarcasm: When someone says they want there to be a new world order, let them explain what it is. Mises and Rothbard wanted a new world order also. I want a new world order too, a liberal order. =]
I suppose when you choose not to analyse anything in depth, and ridicule anyone who could possibly use the word ‘conspiracy’, the accident view of history might make sense. Since I’m living in the real world, I’ll place all the accident theories of history where they belong; outside of any proper analysis of government.
As I’ve said, Austrian Economics, Anarcho-Capitalism and “Conspiracy theories” are indelibly intertwined. Want to reject tin foil hat wearing nut heads? You only impair your own analysis.
I’d say that, when compared to the religious zeal of fundamentalist, many individual;ls in a few countries emerge aslittle-touched by religious dogma. comes to mind. My own too, take my word for it.
Organized religion is just another State, although dwindling in importance. it has nothing at all to do with the natural order, or civilization. Thus, religion can be used to fight the state only as much as The US and can be made to fight each-other, in order to fight the State. Hardly feasible.
Also, from a more pragmatic point of view, incentives for organized religion are way bigger when helping the state, not fighting it. (the 4-players rule of thumb is helpful in this respect). Eve if one believes that religion could plausibly be used to fight the State, rest assure that it won’t. That doesn’t mean, of course, that individuals with strong religious opinions can’t fight the State. But the whole shall never.
Austrian economics and conspiracies are not intertwined. Conspiracy theorists remind me of the Historical School and I guess that’s why I see racists with the same world view. It’s always some international Jewry private banking cabal and never the blow back from the state.
edit: reply torwards Seph
Not all CT’s point the finger at “Jewish banking cartels”. A few have emerged holding that the whole “Jewish conspiracy” thing has just been started by the Jesuits, who’re the real power holders. So CT isn’t equal to “Jewish conspiracy theory”. It’s just an unarticulated and poorly informed expression of the distrust towards the State. In this respect I too believe that Libertarianism can’t be said to have nothing to do with CT’s.
Woha woha woha. Just because we are anarcho-capitalist does not infer we must believe that the CIA was on the grassy knoll. We are men and women with a love of intelligence and demand truth, facts, rationality and logic.
So are you saying that these countries are just less religiously orientated or devoid of religion?
I suggest Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, by Murray Rothbard. Religion was once the state’s biggest foe, and remains its potential enemy. Also, I know many Albanians who are religious, in fact, they’re all religious and faced extreme persecution.
Well really all social institutions which do not require the state in order to operate are potential enemies of the state itself. They challenge its power. I may go as far to say that the human mind itself has the greatest potential to be the enemy of the state.
True, my original post overstated the fact. (Far) Less religiously oriented would cut it.
The Jesuits, Catholic scholastics and tomists called for political assassinations. Mariana (whom Rothbard calls the "learned extremist) advocated tyanicide for those rulers who taxed without consent and debased the currency. They also discredited claims to “divine right.” This may explain why the Marxist conspiracies attack them.
What exactly does it matter if the Federal Reserve was created and is operated by well meaning idiots, a cabal of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families, the Freemasons, demonic reptilian spider men from Pluto, or all of the above? It’s economic effects are the same, and it’s far easier to argue against it when you do not burden Austrian Economics and liberalism with the pseudo-religious babble of the tinfoil hat crowd. What good does it do to hurt our growing traction by having our name associated with such folk, any more than we should associate ourselves with Neo-Nazis over free speech, white supremacists over freedom of association, drug dealers over freedom of transaction or Marxists over opposition to corporatism?
While, from a technical perspective, associating with these individuals is not per se unethical, it is certainly a bad move from a pragmatic perspective of public relations and political credibility. It also shuts us out to groups of folk like myself, who are often hesitant to identify themselves publically as such because of the association these terms have with the black helicopter crowd, much as opposition to moral relativism is associated with religious fundamentalism. Now, you can fight these associations, such as the “anti Obama/welfare/rent control people are racist” crowd or the “corporatism=free markets” crowd, but I think that picking one’s battles is a good pragmatic strategy if you want to get the movement going, and getting people hot and sweaty over the supposed European ownership of the Federal Reserve or Barack Obama being the pawn of a Neo-Nazi cabal personally ranks much lower on my list of priorities than getting people to oppose economic interventionism and MSM doublespeak.
I’ll certainly look into that.
Religious? I submit that less that 15% of my conationals go to any kind of church/mosque more often than ONCE a year (I personally accompany my parents to church for Christmas, although I’m supposed to be Moslem), and roughly half of them NEVER set foot in one (my own perception, of course, can’t provide solid figures). Religion is a joke to Albanians, a kind of sport. You have to pick a “religion” just like you pick teams in soccer. Yet, Albanians having emigrated aboard, especially those that did so before 1945 tend to be more religious, as integration would have it. As for religious persecution, that is precisely the point. Had the population been truly religious, they would have overthrown the communist regime for even mentioning the possibility of closing churches and mosques. In fact, no one said a word. The fact that my former regime was the only I know of to have ever considered itself as “atheistic” (not laical) speaks volumen of the religious orientation of Albanians. Thank God!
Well I have never seen Zeitgeist nor do I ever plan to watch it but the reason behind Marxist’s dislike of religion has more to do with class consciousness and not its opposition to the state per say.
A much more sensible statement.
While I’d recommend it, be it even for its entertainment value. But I’m sure an open mind can find much more in there, and even hope to discern the half-truths form the rest.