In looking for images for this post I came across this - I find it hilarious that someone had the time to spend on this... couldn't they have done something more productive? ANYWAYS...The latest buzz-word is viral marketing. Well it got me again and it was intriguing. I've received THIS LINK from a couple people now and I'm posting it here for whomever cares. Zeitgeist Movie is a 2 hour long commentary on things our society has accepted as truths. I watched it on my Wii on the TV with AJ. YAY, Nintendo!
The movie goes in three parts.
Part 1 speaks on Christianity and history as we know it.
Part 2 is about 9/11 and the media. (like a certain Michael Moore movie, but less dramatized)
Part 3 is about the Federal Reserve Bank, steering the public and war for profit.
I don't know if it's right or wrong, but I find it interesting to think about. Some things make sense to me - mostly the idea that one should always question rather than simply accept. It's good to think.
So watch and think.
Tell me what you think.
Tell someone else what you think.
7 comments:
I am not sure about #1 and #2, but supposedly, the Federal Reserve Bank has more to do with maintaining the healthy state of economics than "making money" as has been suggested. In that sense, yes, its purpose is to steer behaviors of the public to act in a way that is economically beneficial to the public at large -- raising/lower rates, lending out funds... etc.
If you think about it, if the economy is overheating, the FRB has the power to raise the rates high enough that some businesses can't afford to take out loans to sustain their businesses. In turn, they are forced to cut back on spending or lay off people as a result. And if there are enough of those businesses doing that, then you see people spending a lot less because they are no longer working, and thus slowing down the economy a little to meet the FRB's objective...
It sounds cruel and impersonal when it comes to speaking in economic terms. Unfortunately, to the FRB, it's just all about numbers and to make sure the economy stays at a stable level so that it serves "greater good"... A lot of good public policies are not implemented because they do not make good economic sense to those who legislate (but sometimes it's just because they are idiots). I have a few good examples if you want to hear about them...
Okay... enough rambling from me today... I look forward to watcing the movie...
Zeitgeist Refuted:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7572663630528394775
Zeitgeist Refuted:
www.beitshalomministries.org
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7572663630528394775
Part one-
Has the baby been thrown out with the bath water? Yes and No depending how you look at it.
Part two- Very interesting, how can this have happened?
Part three- The way it is!
1st off, the 1st part of the zeitgeist movie is complete fictional and made up. It all stems from Ms Murdock, who calls herself Acharya S, which means guru or teacher. There are 100s of references you can search out that discredit her work, but for starters you can check out the following links:
* www.answeringinfidels.com
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHCzQffIUc
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DKN_Vw0kDo
* www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html
* www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
* www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html
* video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7572663630528394775
* www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zeitgeistpartone.shtml
I only need to point out a few facts, which basically make the whole first part of the movie fall apart:
* Jesus was not born on December 25th! This date was assigned by the Roman Catholic Church and is widely known to NOT be the actual date that he was born, and by the way neither were most of the gods that were mentioned in zeitgeist, part 1, not that it would matter anyways since that’s not even when Jesus was born. The only relevance December 25th holds is in Pagan traditions.
* Not one of the gods presented in the zeitgeist movie was ever born of a virgin or crucified. Crucification wasn’t even invented, first of all, until the Roman Empire came into place. Hmm… I guess someone forgot to learn about history… I guess Ms. Murdock and zeitgeist like to dream up their own history when it comes to religion.
* As far as astrology goes, the borders between the constellations are completely 100% modern convention of the International Astronomical Union for the purpose of mapping, and therefore never had any astrological significance in ancient times.
* The Bible absolutely condones the worship of stars, moon, or sun and states that people were to be put to death for such an act in the Old Testament. So it makes absolutely no sense to say that Jesus was a sun god either or that such an act was the theme of the Bible!
* There are plenty of sources outside the bible that point to Jesus actually living and being crucified… There is more physical evidence for Jesus living than any other person in history
* On a final note, all the verses Ms. Murdock quotes in the bible as reference to her claims actually discredit her. One verse she speaks of in the Bible isn’t even there. All other verses she quotes either condone the act of worshiping anything other than God or plainly have nothing to do with what Ms. Murdock states!
I could write more, but what’s the point. If you actually want to learn something, you need to research it yourself to learn something factual and come to your own conclusions based on reality and not someone’s imagination
Thanks for the links, Elliott & anonymous - I will check those out.
As stated in my post - I'm not sure where I fall on the scale of believing this or disbelieving it - but I'm open to new ideas.
Anonymous - you seem pretty upset demanding people come to truth based on fact, but when you say things like "plenty of sources" without actually linking me to those sources... I'm just supposed to believe you?
The 'fact' that you only refute the 1st part of the ZeitGeist Movie is kind of a give away that you are a staunch believer of the Christian faith and any ideas that challenge the ground work of that faith you vehemently attack.
It would help the plausibility of your statements if you knew the difference between "condone" and "condemn". I understood what you meant, though...
Well, now I've got some watching and reading to do! Funny to still be on this some 3+ years later... :)
It also bums me out that you'd post "anonymously". Either I know you personally and you're afraid discussing this will cause some sort of fallout, or you have no spine and prefer to comment-troll anonymously.
OK - you aren't 'trolling' but still, grow a pair and really stand behind your statements/commentary. :)
Post a Comment