Reply With Quote
I gave it two minutes and got nothing in return. Tell Cimino to get to the point next time.
Anybody seen it?
Zietgeist
I gave it two minutes and got nothing in return. Tell Cimino to get to the point next time.
This is the greatest movie ever filmed.
Even better than Loose Change.
All records for viewership are being broken at this time.
Typical crackpot truther/tinfoil hat/John Bircher nonsense. I guess we can rule out your being one of the libertarian Paul supporters. You're one of the nutjobs.
Hey, when the Illuminati suppress Paul's coming landslide win this November, what are you going to do? Will you simply go on playing Xbox in your parents' basement? Will you join a militia? Will you buy thicker foil for your hat? Will you buy special reflective sunglasses so that the elite's attempt to control you mind when you look at a $20 bill is thwarted? Will you stock your bunker for the coming race war?
he he hoo choooooaaaadddddeee!!!!!!!!
Victoriabots, assemble and attack!!
Rofl!
Like the time I found pictures of Smeagol bloated with sperms her her her!!
Rofl!
Do you ride toll roads?
Kyle, I suggest you stop using that crack. It deteriorates the mind and bdy.
north american union and the amero and the NAFTA superhighway are all real.
a tad bit jealous that Zeitgeist is fast becoming the most watched movie of all time?
It's quite easy to make a claim that a movie is the most watched of all time when you have no qualms about fabricating the statistics.
thats a very good point. objectivity needs to rule the day as much as possible.
I've been waiting to somebody to start floating some of the movie's claims about Christianity and other religions, much as a cat anticipates pouncing on its favorite toy. Nobody has stepped up yet.
Religion part
I have yet to see anyone on any board produce links or text or any facts that are inconsistant with whats being reported in the first 40 or so minutes of the movie. I think this is the kind of information thats overlooked by the masses because people refuse to believe that we are here simply to exist within our own existance and nothing more. Too hard to swallow that life itself has no real or "other" meaning or purpose.
9/11
Not much new here but at least its watchable. Some of the information about the drills being done on the same day and so forth have also yet to be debunked. Its obvious that no matter if you're on the side of conspiracy or whats reported you can't simply sit by and feel you're getting the whole story. We act as if our Government or wealthy powers within society haven't manipulated us before.
Feds
I think its a sad realization about whats so unbelievable in real time compared to whats believable years later. Again I have yet to see any links or information debunking whats being reported. Particularly about the actions leading to war and the fact that people with money control us like ants. The facts leading up to the depression was of real interest to me and its more believable than unbelievable that things could really go down that way.
We can sit back today and say "oh richers got over on us all those years ago, damn we should have been smarter". We'd never do that now its too unfathomable.
Is anyone here going to argue that there is no written law pertaining to us paying taxes?
Of course its sensationalized. How else should it be written?
I'll be happy to debunk a claim if you'll actually make one.
I'm not making a claim the do entary did. All I'm saying is that it made sense to me and I'm not shocked by it. Out of curiousity please...
Debunk all the countless religions from centuries past mirroring current views of God.
Debunk the richers controlling the depression
Debunk the correlation of the training drills mirroring Europe's catastrophic event
Debunk North American Union
Debunk anything from the movie you find inconsistant.
Well, for one, there is a notable difference between the nature religions, which claim that God or gods are found in nature, and a religious tradition like the Hebrew one, which proposes a God that transcends nature and is described in historical narrative. The rejection of nature worship is one of the prominent features of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.
The movie lacks any sources versed in the history of any religion, and thus primarily deals in claims which are credible only to the credulous. It's like the atheist version of Creation Science.
For example, the movie makes several statements about the Egyptian god Horus which are blatantly false, such that he was born on December 25th, born of a virgin, that a star in the east appeared when he was born, that he was worshipped by kings, that he was a teacher of 12, that he was called the lamb of God, and that he was crucified. It claims that this non-existent version of the Horus myth was the original one from 3000 BC, which is curious since there are no known sources on Horus from that far back.
It also claims that the 12 disciples represent the 12 signs of the zodiac, as opposed to the 12 tribes of Israel, from the Genesis narrative, which had absolutely nothing to do with astrology.
It claims that A.D. 1 represents some new age under the zodiac, which is fine since Jesus was born around 6 B.C., and the calendar represents an error by a later scholar.
It claims that Christian worship on Sunday is pagan in origin, despite the copious evidence of the debate between church fathers on which day should be the day or worship (Sabbath or the day following?) which has to do with the relationship between the tradition of temple worship and the tradition of the Eucharist. It has nothing to do with sun worship.
It claims that the Christian "fish" symbol is zodiacal, rather than a symbol of a Greek anagram for Jesus (i-ch-th-u-s = Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter).
The movie claims that "Son" of God might actually really mean "Sun" of God, as though the language of Judea or the Roman Empire were modern English.
The whole idea that Christianity from its outset was a tool of the elites to control the people is historically ridiculous, insofar as it was a religion which outside of its stronghold in western Anatolia was a tiny minority religion until the Edict of Milan in 313. It was intermittently persecuted by local rulers (though not systematically throughout the Empire as is often believed), because Christians refused to confess Caesar as Lord and Savior, and therefore were regarded as seditious. There are volumes of writings do enting these first three centuries.
You can't claim the so-called intellectual high ground as a skeptic while believing a movie whose claims about Christianity are devoid of scholarship even to the level of reading Wikipedia entries. Latching onto such tripe betrays one simply as an anti-religious bigot with an axe to grind.
How Napoleon Never Existed, or The Great Error, Source of an Infinite Number of Errors To be Seen in the History of the Nineteenth Century
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Monsieur J.-B.Péres, AOAM, town librarian of Agen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published for the first time in 1827
Napoleon Bonaparte, of whom so much has been written, never even existed. He is simply an allegorical figure. He is a personification of the sun, and this assertion is borne out if we look at how everything that has been published about Napoleon the Great is borrowed from the Great Star.
Let us see, then, in summary, what we are told about this marvellous man.
We are told:
that he was called Napoleon Bonaparte;
that he was born on an island in the Mediterranean;
that his mother was called Le ia;
that he had three sisters and four brothers, three of whom were kings;
that he had two wives, one of whom bore him a son;
that he ended a great revolution;
that he had sixteen imperial marshals under him, twelve of whom were on active service;
that he won victories in the south and was defeated in the north;
that, finally, after a reign of twelve years, which he had begun with an arrival from the East, he went away and disappeared in the western seas.
It remains, then, to ascertain if these different details are borrowed from the sun, and we hope that whoever reads this essay will be convinced.
To begin with, everyone knows that the sun is called Apollon by the poets; now, the difference between Apollon and Napoleon is not great, and it seems even less still if one goes back to the meaning of the names or to their origin.
It is certain that the word Apollon (the Greek form of the name) means 'destroyer': and it seems that this name was given to the sun by the Greeks because of the harm that it did them before Troy, where a section of their army perished in the excessive heat and the resultant illness when Agamemnon committed sacrilege against Chryses, the priest of the sun, as we see at the start of Homer's Iliad, and the brilliant imagination of the Greek poets transformed the rays of the star into flaming arrows which the offended god shot from all directions, and which would have causes complete devastation if Chryseis, daughter of the priest Chryses, had not been freed in order to appease his anger.
It is probably thus and for this reason that the sun was named Apollon. But, whatever the cir stances or causes were for giving such a name to the star, it is certain that it means 'destroyer'.
Now, Apollon is the same word as Apoleon. They come from Apollyo or Apoleo, two Greek verbs which cons ute the same word, and which mean lose, kill, destroy. Therefore, if the alleged hero of our century was called Apoleon, he would have the same name as the sun and he would, moreover, fulfil completely the meaning of this name, for he is presented to us as the greatest destroyer of men who has ever lived. But this figure is called Napoleon and, therefore, there is an initial letter in his name which is not in the name of the sun. Yes, there is an extra letter, even a syllable; for, following the inscription which people have engraved everywhere in the capital, the real name of this alleged hero was Neapoleon or Neapolion. This is what we see, notably, on the column in Vendôme Square.
Now, this extra syllable makes no difference. This syllable is Greek, without doubt, like the rest of the name, and, in Greek, ne or nai is one of the strongest words of affirmation, which we can translate by the word 'truly'. Hence it follows that Napoleon means 'true destroyer', 'true Apollo'. He is, then, 'truly the sun'.
But what does his other name mean? What relationship can the word Bonaparte have with the day-star? It is not at all immediately apparent, but we understand at least that, just as bona parte means 'good part', we have do to here with something which has two parts, one good and one bad, something which, moreover, is linked with the sun Napoleon. Now, nothing is more directly related to the sun than the effects of its daily movement, and these effects are the day and the night, the light and the darkness, the light which its presence produces and the darkness which prevails in its absence. This allegory is borrowed by the Persians: they have the empire of Ahura Mazda and of Ahriman, the empire of the light and of the darkness, the empire of the good and evil spirits. And it is these latters, these spirits of evil and darkness, that people used to invoke in cursing with the expression 'Abi in malam partem'. If by malam partem one understands the darkness, there is no doubt that one must by bona parte mean the light - that is, the day, as opposed to the night. So it cannot be doubted that this name has links with the sun, especially when one sees it associated with Napoleon, who is the sun itself, as we have just demonstrated.
2. According to Greek mythology, Apollo was born on an island in the Mediterranean (the island of Delos); Napoleon's birth too is located on an island in the Mediterranean, and Corsica has been chosen in particular because the position of Corsica relative to France, where people have wanted to locate his reign, is most similar to the position of Delos relative to Greece, where Apollo had his main temples and oracles.
Pausanias, it is true, describes Apollo as an Egyptian deity; but, to be an Egyptian deity, it was not necessary for him to be born in Egypt. It sufficed that he was regarded as a god there, and that is what Pausanias wanted to convey to us: he wanted to tell us that the Egyptians worshipped him, and this further established another link between Napoleon and the son, since it is said that in Egypt Napoleon was regarded as endowed with a supernatural character, as the friend of Muhammad, and that he received veneration there that reached the levels of worship.
3. It is claimed that his mother was called Le ia. But by the name Le ia, which means 'joy', the dawn was meant: the light of the dawning day spreads joy throughout nature. The dawn gives birth to the sun, as the poets put it, by opening to him the gates of the East with her rosy fingers.
It is also remarkable that, according to Greek mythology, the mother of Apollo was called Leto. But if the Romans made 'Latona' from Leto, it was preferable in our century to make 'Le ia' from it, since loe ia is the noun from the verb loetor or the unused loeto, which means 'to inspire joy'.
It is therefore certain that this Le ia is found, like her son, in Greek mythology.
4. According to what we are told, this son of Le ia had three sisters, and it is beyond dispute that these three sisters are the three Graces, who, along with the companions the Muses, were the ornament and charm of the court of their brother Apollo.
5. It is said that this modern Apollo have four brothers. Now, these four brothers are the four seasons of the year, as we shall prove. But first, let us not be surprised to see the seasons represented by men rather than by women. This should not even seem unfamiliar, for only one of the four seasons is feminine in French - that is, autumn - and, moreover, our grammarians are far from agreed on this point. In Latin, however, autumnus is no more feminine that the three other seasons, so there is no difficulty at all in this respect. The four brothers of Napoleon can represent the four seasons of the year, and what follows will prove that they really do represent them.
Of Napoleon's four brothers, three (they say) were kings, and these three kings were Spring, who reigns over the flowers, Summer, who reigns over the harvests, and Autumn, who reigns over the fruits. And just as these three seasons owe everything to the powerful influence of the sun, it is said that the three brothers of Napoleon owed their kingly status to him and reigned only at his pleasure. And when it is added that, of the four brothers of Napoleon, there was one who was not a king, it is because, of the four seasons of the year, there is one which reigns over nothing: Winter.
But if, to weaken our parallel, one claimed that winter does not lack an empire, and one wanted to assign him the sad rule over clouds and frosts, which, in this grim season whiten out countryside, our reply would be ready at hand; this is, we would say, what they wanted to indicate to us by the vain and ridiculous rule which they claim that this brother of Napoleon was invested with after the decline of his whole family, the rule which they have placed over the village of Canino in preference to any other, because canine comes from cani, which means the white hair of cold old age, which recalls winter. For, in the eyes of the poets, the forests which crown our hills are their hair, and when winter covers them with its frosts, they are the white hair of frail nature in the old age of the year: gelidus crescit canis in montibus humor.
So, the alleged prince of Canino is just winter personified: winter, which begins when the pleasant seasons are no more and the sun is furthers from our lands, which are invaded by the passionate children of the North, the name which the poets give tot he winds which, coming from these lands, discolour our countryside and cover it with a horrid whiteness. This provided the subject of the mythical invasion of France by the northern peoples, who got rid of a flag coloured by different hues and replaced it with a white one which supposedly covered the whole country after the departure of the mythical Napoleon. But it would be pointless to repeat what is simply an emblem of the frosts which the winds of the North bring upon us in winter in place of the lovely colours which the sun sustains in our lands, before it departs and leaves us. It is easy to see analogies of all this in the ingenious stories which people have imagined taking place in our century.
6. According to the same stories, Napoleon had two wives, just as people have assigned two to the sun. These two wives of the sun were the Moon and the Earth, the Moon according to the Greeks (it is Plutarch who attests this), and the Earth according to the Egyptians, with this very remarkable difference: from one (the Moon) the Sun had no children, and from the other he had a son, an only son: that is, the younger Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, of the Sun and of the Earth, as one sees in the Story of Heaven, chapter 1 page 61 and following. There is an Egyptian allegory in which Horus, born from the fertile earth to the Sun, represents the fruits of agriculture; and people have placed the birth of the alleged son of Napoleon on 20th March, the spring equinox, because it is in the spring that the produce of agriculture grow greatly.
7. They say that Napoleon put an end to a devastating plague which terrorised France, and which was called the Hydra of the Revolution. Now, a hydra is a serpent - the species is of no importance, especially since we are dealing with a story. It was the serpent Python, an enormous reptile which was the object of extreme fear for Greece, that Apollon got rid of, by killing the monster, which was his first exploit. And this is why Napoleon began his reign by kiling the French revolution, which is just as chimerical as everything else, since we see clearly that 'revolution' is derived from the Latin word revolutus, which signfies a serpent which is coiled up - Python, and nothing more.
8. The famous warrior of the 19th century had, they say, 12 imperial marshals at the head of his armies and 4 inactive ones. Now, the first 12 (as is well understood) are the 12 signs of the zodiac, marching under the orders of the sun Napoleon, and each commanding a division of the innumerable army of the starts, which is called the 'heavenly army' in the Bible, and is divided by us into 12 parts, corresponding to the 12 signs of the zodiac. So much for the 12 marshals who, according to our mythical histories, were on active service under the Emperor Napoleon; and the four others are probably the four cardinal points, immobile in the midst of the general movement, who are very well represented by the non-activity associated with them.
So, all the marshals, the active and inactive ones, are purely symbolic beings, and no more real than their chief.
9. We are told that this leader of so many brilliant armies had triumphantly gone through all the lands of the South, but could not establish himself when he penetrated too deeply into the North. Now, all this perfectly characterises the course of the sun.
The sun, as is well known, holds sovereign domination in the South, as, we are told, did the Emperor Napoleon. But the truly remarkable thing is that after the spring equinox the sun seeks to reach the northern regions by moving further from the equator. But at the end of three months' march towards these lands, it encounters the ?tropical Borealis? which forces it to retreat and retract its steps towards the South, following the sign of Cancer - that is, the crab, a sign given this name (according to Macrobius) in order to express the retreating course of the sun in this area of the sky. And it is on this account that people invented the mythical expedition of Napoleon towards the North, towards Moscow, and the humiliating retreat by which it was allegedly followed.
So, everything which we are told about the successes and reverses of this strange warrior are only diverse allusions regarding the course of the sun.
10. Finally - and this needs no explanation - the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, as everyone knows. But for the watchers situated at the ends of the earth the sun seems to come out of the eastern seas in the morning and plunge into the eastern seas in the evening. So it is, moreover, that the poets depicting it as rising from bed and going to sleep. And it is in these terms that we must understand everything when we are told that Napoleon came from the eastern sea (from Egypt) to reign over France and that he disappeared into the western seas, after a reign of 12 years, which are nothing other than the 12 hours of the day during which the sun shines above the horizon.
He reigned only one day, says the author of the Nouvelles Messéniens in reference to Napoleon, and the manner in which he describes his rise, his decline and his fall prove that this charming poet, like us, saw in Napoleon only an image of the sun. And he is nothing other than this, as is proved by his name, the name of his mother, his three sisters, his four brohters, his two wives, his son, his marshals and his exploits. It is proven by the place of his birth, by the place from which they say he came when he embarked upon his career of domination, by the time that he spent going through it, by the lands where he ruled, by those where he experienced failure, and by the region where he disappeared, pale and uncrowned, after his brilliant course, as the poet Casimir Delavigne puts it.
It is therefore proven that the alleged hero of our century was only an allegorical character, all of whose attributes are borrowed from the sun. And consequently Napoleon Bonaparte, of whom people have said and written so many things, never even existed, and the error before which so many people have bowed their heads comes from a quiproquo - that is, they have taken the mythology of the 19th century for history.
PS - We would also be able to call upon, in support of our thesis, a large number of royal decrees whose certain dates are obviously contradictory to the reign of the alleged emperor; but we have had our reasons for not making use of these.
.....and the North American Union w/o congressional approval or oversight......try and explain that one.
tripe, indeed. nice work, ES.
What point or which side are you trying to prove with the Napoleon post? It would seem proving his lack of existance could easily equate to religious misinformation which is in disagreement with your original post.
Good info nontheless, thanks for posting.
lol @ incovertable I don't know why but it was funny after reading two long rants. I would still be interested in your opinions on the rest of my questions.
The Napoleon post is a satire of half-baked arguments throughout the ages against the historicity of Christ, of which this truther film is just the latest, and far from the best.
Alrighty then...
So, are you saying ES that the similarities between the astrological movements and Judeo-Christianity's tenets are just purely coincidence? Regardless of the other religions mentioned (of which I have even less knowledge of than Christianity) and the similarities in "saviors" or "Christs"?
By no means am I saying youre wrong, but even if I were to eliminate the other religions/saviors mentioned in the do entary, the similarities are there.
(to be quite honest, I dont give a flying- about religion or the religious, the real meat of Zeitgeist for me was the NAU/Federal Reserve stuff. I have shown some folks Zeitgeist and told them "If youre sensitive about religion, skip the first part.")
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
