Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

Let's bring down the system being constructed with our own flesh, blood and being

25 replies [Last post]
memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12

I am feeling sick, but it is not just a cold I'm having or that it's 5 AM.

I thought I was fairly open minded and self-thinking, but I am realizing now that this was not enough. Too much attribution was given to the concept of safety in terms of what to accept as believable, as "not too far out" yet this "safety", being the close proximity to the "universally acceptable" is in fact a very flawed strategy to use for determining the most likely truth. Truth is not learned by comparing a theory to what the majority is believing (where majority adds weight to this belief as a semi-evidence). It is learned by observing all available evidence equally and giving no special treatment to the majority or minority beliefs.

That said, I will plea you not to run away after reading the next sentence. I have just watched Zeitgeist and this post is an expression of my reaction to it.

I always try to have some doubts about all, especially controversial, materials I read and watch, but I have to say that Zeitgeist pretty much passed all my check points. I essentially find myself aligned to it and I'll try to explain why here as briefly as possible, hoping for a good constructive discussion afterwards. Indeed, our freedom is at stake. Everything we do, say or write may be a part of a larger process that will lead to a revolution.

I am not on the fence anymore when it comes to such issues as the formation of the European Union, whether the 9/11 attacks were staged or real and whether there is an ongoing manipulation of public opinion and even public life itself that leads to a pre-defined outcome that only a small minority of humans will actually like.

Yes, in other words, I am an euro-skeptic and against any other union that will be used as a way to bring forth less independence and freedom of common human. I don't believe that 9/11 attacks were real (yes I have gotten convinced that they are staged as part of a bigger ongoing plan). I don't believe in terrorism as a justification for any of the wars we had. I don't believe in justification for war at all. I don't believe what public schools and churches teach us. I don't believe the news on television.

Sadly, I believe that we (including, for a fairly significant part, myself) have been suckered, manipulated, dehumanized, humiliated - brought down to mere pawns.

So to provide some arguments as to why am I suddenly so convinced, I would go back to the "safety" issue from above. When someone goes to say that the 9/11 attacks were staged they are probably immediately going to be categorized as "conspiracy theorists" and often "conspiracy lunatics". But what is even more important to note is that even people who may consider themselves open minded would greatly hesitate to accept theories that they consider to be far out relative to the majority opinion, the default opinion, exactly because it is too "far out" and because it is hence simply safer to stay on the majority side as long as you can find ANY seemingly plausible arguments against the "far out" side of things.

But I think you may be able to see how flawed and skewed this actually is. As said above, we can't determine the truth based on theory's proximity to the default/majority opinion of others. I think this pretty much throws the whole safety system down the toilet and removes the "far out" characterization as a valid way of painting any theory. In essence, there is no such thing as "far out".

The only possible exception may be with regards to what is "far out" to what you are currently convinced about personally, BUT only if that current conviction is actually based on your own observation and thinking rather than peer pressure of the society's default thinking.

I have strived to watch this documentary carefully enough to see if there are any weird inconsistencies, if there are any logical flaws etc. I have to say that Zeitgeist, as far as I can see, doesn't have them and if anyone even finds some I think the overall volume of positive logical arguments coupled with provided evidence is simply too strong to dismiss.

And perhaps the most compelling logical arguments that I think form the axis behind the believability of "Zeitgeist" are these:

-- We often resist suggestions of there being a conspiracy based on the desire for power and wealth yet everyone easily accepts the idea that there indeed exist many power struggles between power hungry people and that power corrupts. Why is it so easy to acknowledge that people CAN and essentially DO get corrupt and yet so hard to accept the possibility that these SAME notions form a foundation for an even deeper power struggle than those we know and usually hear of? Is it really so hard to believe that there can be an elite of wealthy and already fairly powerful humans conspiring to be even wealthier and even more powerful - essentially aspiring to world domination?

It makes me want to shout out "Come on people! Wake up from the god damn dream already! Just because all your peers are too amused or busy to THINK and hence believe anything but the DEFAULT belief (AKA propaganda) doesn't make that same propaganda any more plausible than the "conspiracy theory" you perceive here!"

-- Following on the same theme, why is it so hard to accept that there exist truly secretive communications and activities on the highest level yet so easy to accept the idea that, well, there is SUCH a thing as having a secret or keeping a secret. It is just as plausible for parts of the government or banking entities to have big secrets as it is that YOU sometimes have secrets you want to keep for your own interests. Suggesting otherwise is an indication of actually being TOO trustful of the government. I am hard pressed to find any compelling justification for such trust.

-- Religion is practically defined by having a dogmatic belief. And a dogmatic belief is, of course, an absolute acceptance of a certain theory as absolute truth. I just have to ask.. how more vulnerable can you get really than being willingly accepting towards believing in dogmas? I don't believe, at this point, even this documentary, even Free Software or any of the other things I currently believe in as this sort of religious dogmas. I accept that it can change and if it would I wouldn't call it heresy! I would dare to suggest that religion that weakens your ability to CHANGE your thinking, even about most fundamental things (which religions usually deal with), should be rejected!

-- Entertainment of our brain cells for more than just R&R (Rest and Relaxation) or serious cultural creativity is indeed an excellent way to occupy your brain cells so that they become too busy to process the state and direction of the world and care about it enough to take some action. I would be the last one to suggest that you shouldn't have some fun, but I would raise cause for concern if having good entertainment is actually prioritized to being sensitive to the world issues. In other words, saying "I just want to get over with my work and then have some fun, I don't care about politics, philosophy and all that serious stuff.. let them take care of that" is just not acceptable unless you want to be manipulated. And, who are them after all? If we don't, who exactly are we to expect to care instead of us???

If we don't care, then we will surely be dancing on somebody elses tune, being aware of it or not.

-- Just following the news and being "in on things" is not enough. If you religiously watch 8 o'clock news, regularly vote on elections and have political discussions with peers don't think this actually is getting you anywhere, that you are really making any sort of a difference. I think one of the points Zeitgeist expressed really well is that you are being conquered not so much by force as much as by your own consent. In other words, being deeply involved in world issues and politics doesn't mean you're not being manipulated.

Who are you really working for? Whose ideology are you spreading? Whose war are you fighting? And if I could only ask dead soldiers, what did you really die for? (The answer is in most cases as tragic as it can get, and one of the most engaging emotional arguments Sad ).

Ultimately, if there is anything that should get us to seriously consider the above arguments it is all of the lives that have been lost, and a lot of them even voluntarily lost for a cause that might be a fraud. I am, in fact, at this point, convinced that it is. In the interest of paying human respect to those who died, even if for a fradulent cause, I can just say that they are at least on a personal level heroes for dieing for what they believed in, no matter how was that belief generated. It shows their personal strength.

However, can we let this continue? Can we let the destruction of lives and our planet continue in the name of a cause that is a fraud?


Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 11 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
So far I have watched only

So far I have watched only the first 9 minutes because I had to leave, but...

Those 9 minutes were mostly propaganda imagery and very little content. Looks like the viewer is being prepared to accept a message.
The little bit of content there was, was someone putting down religion as if all of it is nasty-man-in-the-clouds-who-loves-you-please-pay-us christianity.

9 minutes, with only maybe 20 seconds of meaningful content, and I'm already p***** off by that content. Way to go!

And what's this you say about an evil elite and 9/11 being staged? I gotta say I liked the giant vampire lizards better. The previous pope returning from death was cute too. The truth is there is no such thing as that elite. The real elite today is us - more or less everyone with internet access. There is no small group trying to keep everyone else down. Yes, really. Think for a moment: a power-sharing elite made up of people who want more power than others is logically impossible. And hundreds of people keeping a secret that affects the whole world population... that's a "little" more difficult than everyday secret-keeping.

What's more, it makes absolutely no difference whether or not 9/11 was staged or not. In both cases it's terrorism, and in both cases the terrorists want to scare others into doing what the terrorists want. So who do you believe: someone who proudly says he ordered the attacks, or someone who says those were faked by a huge secret society? I'm not a big fan of Occam's razor, but I think it definitely should be applied in this case.

User offline. Last seen 11 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
Comment on part 1: I agree

Comment on part 1: I agree (and already knew) the bible contains a lot of astronomical references. But I have lots of doubts about these comparisons between Jesus and other gods.

User offline. Last seen 11 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
Comments on the rest: Okay,

Comments on the rest:

Okay, looks like I was barking up the wrong forest in my previous posts. It's more about the money than the power (those things are very similar, though). I still don't believe 9/11 was fake, however so many bad things were done with 9/11 as an excuse that the question whether or not it was fake is irrelevant.

It is true we live in a world where money rules and where liberties are disappearing one by one. Maybe those two things are connected. Maybe things are as bad as the documentary suggests. Or maybe not.

Again, it doesn't matter whether things are very bad, or just very bad. Our culture of ownership has brought us lots of trouble (poverty, running out of natural resources, hostility, etc). If the things claimed in the documentary are true, that makes our situation only a little worse than we already know it is.

In the end the problem is not evil people, but a bad meme that has grown so far out of control that we now even think of ideas as things that can be owned. I think that exactly the last thing that became ownable shows how to correct where we went wrong: objects could be private or public instead of "owned", just like thoughts can be private or public, but never owned. I think owning something one never uses (which therefore isn't "private") might be exactly the point where corruption starts.

It's interesting that all the things I don't want to share with others either contain private information, have a high emotional value, or sharing them could be unhygienic. Of course there is also the concern that something borrowed won't be returned: my dislike of the game doesn't mean I don't mind being cheated Sticking out tongue .

User offline. Last seen 10 years 34 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2005-05-29
Do not argue from ignorance
tbuitenh wrote:

Think for a moment: a power-sharing elite made up of people who want more power than others is logically impossible.

Why? Because there is no evidence of their absence?



memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
Taco, in short I find myself

Taco, dude, in short I find myself disagreeing with most of what you say except maybe for some of the things in your last post. Eye

I've already read comments from people who watched only few first minutes and already felt like barking.. well.. that can't convince me of anything. I agree that the first part is perhaps a bit cheesy in terms of attacking religion, but I would say that it has as much to do with authors' desire to kind of just awaken people's common sense as much about humiliating the idea of religion. Without the context provided by the rest of the documentary it really is bad, but after a rather excellent presentation of religion parallels one might not feel as bad about the remarks from the beginning of the movie as initially would.

I don't agree it is irrelevant whether 9/11 was staged or not. Quite the opposite. If it is true that it was staged than it is important for people to know this. Knowing this gives them the incentive to be much more suspicious of the government and other powerful institutions as well as more accepting to alternative ways of looking at history and the present state of the world, much more willing to think for themselves and to question the news. 9/11, as much of a powerful catalyst it was to bring on the "war on terrorism" is just as potentially powerful in finally bringing up the war against being continuously manipulated and led like sheep.

I strongly reject the idea that things like this are irrelevant.

Also, I really don't appreciate the tone I perceive from this:

tbuitenh wrote:

I gotta say I liked the giant vampire lizards better. The previous pope returning from death was cute too.

What you're doing here is exactly what I described here:

libervisco wrote:

When someone goes to say that the 9/11 attacks were staged they are probably immediately going to be categorized as "conspiracy theorists" and often "conspiracy lunatics".

And if I didn't know you better I'd think you just called me a conspiracy lunatic, albeit without actually saying the term.. merely painting the picture so it's quite clear.

Of course, since I kinda know you well enough to know that you aren't that disrespectful I'll just dismiss this as an attempt of being a bit witty (in a humorous sense). Pity I don't feel like laughing. I can only bring myself to wink. Eye Hopefully that'll do.

tbuitenh wrote:

The truth is there is no such thing as that elite. The real elite today is us - more or less everyone with internet access.

Interesting. And there I was writing a post on my blog about needing more money to achieve bigger things and make more of a difference in a world - being realistic about it and all. There is apparently some relation between what can you do in the world and how much money you have. Isn't it logical to assume that if you practically unlimited funds you can do things most other people apparently have trouble imagining and believing? Yes.. ability to conspire to achieve more than anyone dreams off. Of course, apparently in most cases these dreams are corrupt ones relative to certain fundamental human values. But.. nothing to wonder about.. there was an interesting quote near the end of the documentary which you might have noticed:

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Why is it so hard for people to accept the result of this principle as, in fact, real? Oh Bush couldn't possibly be working on killing his own citizens.. Nooooo, no freaking way.. Geez, wake up people! It's not like you've never seen a freaking lunatic before.. why is it so hard to believe we have some of them up there leading our own furry (sheep-like) asses down the wrong path!?

tbuitenh wrote:

Yes, really. Think for a moment: a power-sharing elite made up of people who want more power than others is logically impossible.

I guess you'll simply have to elaborate on that bit. Right now all I see is a failed attempt to create a terminological contradiction (power sharing vs. power accumulation). It is failed because when someone is out for more power he will do anything it takes to get it. If it meant sharing a bit of power for a while that's exactly what they're going to do. Heck, they didn't get to the powerful positions they are at right now if they didn't share at least a little. You're basically saying that the one who wants absolute power will be absolutely closed to the use of sharing as a strategy of attaining it.

You have to invest a bit to gain a bit. Power hungry people know that just as well as you do.

tbuitenh wrote:

So who do you believe: someone who proudly says he ordered the attacks, or someone who says those were faked by a huge secret society? I'm not a big fan of Occam's razor, but I think it definitely should be applied in this case.

Who do I believe? Well, you apparently say it doesn't matter. I say I'll believe the one who appears to be most truthful and I will try to identify the truth of the matter. I don't see how Occam's razor can help here except as one of the methods to try for determining who is right. And I don't really see this particular situation as an ideal one to apply this razor to. If you're however suggesting that it's application would clearly reveal the former as the more likely truth (those who professed to have ordered the attacks really spoke the truth) I'd say down with the damn razor because in this case it is simply too fallible to ignorance and being naive. I think you should go back to the practice of "not being a bit fan of Occam's razor". It'll continue to serve you well.

Oh and let me add a little note about using the argument of "this is propaganda" to justify its dismissal. Yes, you're damn right it's propaganda. What isn't? This discussion perhaps, isn't because it is an open exchange. Open Translation Tools 2007 wasn't. iCommons 2007 however largely WAS. Many Free Software events essentially ARE. My marketing ideas for promoting Free Software ARE. The term "Freedomware" we're pushing IS propaganda as well.

Indeed, even if truthfully, characterizing it as "propaganda" is not necessarily a reason for its dismissal. We're just used to dismissing things that smell like propaganda because the media use it on us EVERY FREAKING DAY AND NIGHT!

I guess we should get to have some propaganda of our own and Zeitgeist is damn right to have some to spread their message too!


Daniel Memenode signature

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
Oh and one more thing on

Oh and one more thing on propaganda. One could say all of the terrible images at the beginning of the documentary are used as propaganda.. but oh.. wait a second.. they're real? They are real?!

Since when have we started taking those images for granted? Since when have we ceased seeing them as incredible, almost unimaginable.. "far out"? Yet they are true. These wars are true. They are actually happening. That child living through incredible agony as he sees his family massacred - that right there is not fiction, not a "conspiracy theory", it is REAL!

So doesn't anyone think that there is SOMETHING somewhere seriously going wrong? Did you authorize that war? Did I authorize that war? Did we come up with it? Who did? Oh right.. our leaders, the ones who do "politics" while we entertain each other, demanding our attention only when they need to be re-elected, upon which they move on with their dirty business.

But nooo.. it can't be.. They can't possibly be that evil, right? Right, then those images must be fiction as well.



Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 10 years 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-09-14
Without reading all comments

Without reading all comments in total (actually I just skipped part of the last one, but I have read the main article yesterday) I also want to put my mustard on this sausage.

Yes, I do think that power corrupts. Why? People are bad. It's in all of us, and we can't deny it. Given a good chance to do something for our personal gain without anybody being able to blame us most of us would do it without a thought.
Human beings always strive for a better life, which is understandable and I support this, to a certain degree. The problem is that "good" is an absolutely subjective term.
Let's pick a few examples:
For a really poor family somewhere in Africa a good life might be getting enough to eat and clean water to drink every single day.
For a german family a good life might mean having a nice little house, a car or two, a big-screen TV and a nice holiday in some sunny place once or maybe even twice a year.
For some hollywood-star a good life might be having two or three luxurious houses, ten Ferraris and always having a girlfriend that's younger than 26.

You see, there's a huge difference in what people define as "good". And once you get used to something, what people easily do if it's something good (but they have big big trouble getting used to bad things), you don't want to miss it again.
We wouldn't be happy if somebody suddenly took away our internet-connection, right? Why, because it's become a part of our life, a part of what makes our life good.
So, you get used to things, and maybe you work hard or you're just lucky that your standard of life improves. You also get used to your new standard of life and suddenly cannot imagine how you could have ever been happy (for the last 20-something years) without having some kickass 32" flat-screen-TV hanging on your wall.

Since people get used to things and since they always compare themselves with others (which is one of the biggest problems here) they always strive for more, it's never enough. Your neighbor just got a bigger, better TV; you also got to have one!
The media, in this particular case the commercials, support this in every way. Everything new praised as so much better, and that the old stuff should be disposed right away and replaced with that hot new whatever-it-is. And since the TV, convenient replacement for many things, like god, taking care of your children, friends, ..., would never lie to you, many people easily get manipulated, by commercials, but more importantly and severely, by news. (I'm getting closer to the point).
Before getting to the point of what I think I really want to say (I actually don't know yet where this is going to lead me) I want to get back to the fact that people can never get enough.
There's a nice little sketch by Monty Python, about a Robin-Hood-like guy called Dennis Moore. In the beginning it's not very much of a support of what I'm saying, but in the end you see a good example that people simply can't get enough and always want more. Also it's a good thing to watch if you like a nice laugh (if you like the Monty Python way of humor).
You can see it here (Part 1 - Right at the beginning after the boxing-sketch and the intro) and here (Part 2,3 & 4 - Part 2 is also right at the beginning, part 3 is pretty much in the middle, after a sketch in a wine-shop, this part is more important for my point, but for pure enjoyment I suggest watching all parts, and near the end is part 4).

Okay, after all this talking without saying much (wouldn't I make a great politician? ;-) )

Now let's try to get to the point.
As I pointed out with so many words people can't get enough. That is not only limited to property, that's not all people want for a "good" life. It's also influence. Influence can be what we are trying to achieve by making a difference, and by trying to make people think about freedom in computing. The direct superior to influence is power, and if you have enough influence it becomes power.
As I said before people will do bad things for personail gain if they see a chance to do it without being blamed, or if they have a chance of plausible deniability.

And yes, people with more money/influence/power have it easier to do such things, because they already have money/influence/power. And since people simply can't get enough they want more.

But: I think there's no such things as absolutey power! At least not globally, which would be the only thing that could rightfully be called absolute power. Of course you can "absolute" power within a certain scope. libervisco for example has "absolute" power of this site. He could just shut it down and move on to do something else, letting us stay out in the dark and cold world with nowhere to go (to exaggerate it a bit).

Also what Taco mentioned about an elite of powerful people working together to get more power. I think what he meant there is that it's contradiction that powerful people would work together to get more power. I think, up to a certain point that would be possible, but then I guess they would start fighting each other about who among them is the boss, meaning has more power than the others.

Okay, so now we get to the question of what we can do. Sadly I think there's not much we can do about this. As technology progresses people more and more rely on machines to think for them. And if it's not machines it's also okay if other people think for them, as long as they don't need to think by themselves. TV tells people what to believe. A song by Sirius B. and Hardy Hard called it quite fittingly Tellievision. Even if you don't happen like electronic music I suggest to watch the video and check out the lyrics. ;-) Another song fit for this topic would be Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul.
So, people are happy when they don't need to think for themselves, which makes it pretty easy for people that to think about things, and especially for those who think about how to sheer these blindly following sheep for their gain.
We can only hope that people today are pissed off enough so that future generations of leaders do it better. But won't they be as easily corrupted once they get more and more influence/power? Who knows.

I believe that there is a lot of evil in mankind. It seems to be proven over and over every day, but I do think that there are people who are different, but I also think that it's not easy for them to make a difference.
Maybe because society doesn't like people that are different. You can already see it in schools. When you're different you have a hard time.

I'm proud to be different, I don't like to be like everybody else. So, we should all together stand up and say We are different, and we're fucking proud of it! Let's show them that we don't blindly follow the masses, that we think for ourselves, that we are still able and willing to choose and to distinguish between good and evil.

Finally I want to say a bit about religion, since it's been mentioned already.
I do see a lot of problems in religions. No matter which of the big religions you pick, you can always find evil. There has been so much killing in the name of . I truely believe that the world would have a load of less problems if there were no religions, but how to get rid of them? I don't think that's possible.

Maybe we should buy our own island and found our own Sonic Empire, with Soundtropolis as our capitol city, where we can be truely great.

Well, I think I've said enough for now. Enjoy the music.

User offline. Last seen 11 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
Dudes ( ), why do you have

Dudes ( Smiling ), why do you have to write such long posts with many links?

I already said that in my first posts I was barking up the wrong forest.

I stand by my point a power sharing group of people who want more power than others, the kind of thing you find in many conspiracy theories, especially religion related ones, is impossible By the time any of them gets significant power, the others will start betraying that one to get more power for themselves. However in this particular "conspiracy theory", the motivation is not power but money. In so far, it is not a conspiracy theory at all, it is common knowledge.

The first part, about religion, really pulls down the quality of the whole documentary. The comparisons between Jesus and other gods make my crap detector glow bright brown. I'm no big expert on ancient religion, so I can't tell the difference between bold claims and lies, but I dare to bet some of the claims in the comparisons simply are not true.
On the other hand, the astronomy/astrology bit does seem to make some sense, although I do want to verify its correctness.

But what really is the purpose of this first part? It's a damn long way of saying religion can be used to keep people stupid. Wow, big news! What it fails to do is to show a connection between religious institutions and the bankers who are pointed out as evildoers by the rest of the documentary. It may get some sympathy for the next part from angry atheists, but for me it looks more like a warning that the makers of the documentary have little respect for truth.

Now, could the USA government have faked the 9/11 attacks? It could. Things like that sometimes happen. But anyone calling anyone a mass murderer should have some damn good evidence to back up that claim. I didn't see that. What I did see was not even a selective choice of facts, but a selective choice of opinions.

Let's not forget there is conclusive evidence some people did fly airplanes into at least two buildings. If those people weren't religious nuts, they probably didn't want to die. So did they use remote control? If so, wouldn't that have been noticed (planes do get thoroughly checked for anything that doesn't belong)? Or were they actually on the plane but somehow forced? In that case, why didn't they hijack it and do something else than was asked from them? It doesn't make any sense.

Even in mainstream media, evidence has been shown the 9/11 attacks were no surprise, but all evidence for preparations of those was ignored. Perhaps it was ignored on purpose, or perhaps the US intelligence people are incompetent. In any case - fake attack, allowed attack, surprise attack because of incompetency - the 9/11 events don't matter much in comparison to what happened next. Faking and allowing are equally evil, and abusing a surprise attack to do things voters wouldn't allow without that attack is only a tiny little less evil.

About the propaganda style of this documentary: of course those images of war at the beginning are real. But they have been selected to show a certain unbalanced message ("the USA attacks using excessive violence"). Furthermore I dare to bet the movie actually contains quite a few lies and half-truths - but this is a bet based on its style and not a proper accusation based on my own knowledge. To put it in more colorful language, the whole thing just smells of bullshit to me.

At the highest level, I agree with the message of the movie: we are ruled by people who are more interested in money than in anything else, and we should try to change that. In the details, I think it's doing a terrible job at promoting the message.

By the way, libervisco, with my vampire lizards reference I am bluntly pointing out you are very willing to believe conspiracy theories. No humor intended. Go ahead and feel insulted.

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
In this discussion I don't

In this discussion I don't really see the issues presented being addressed directly, just a lot of marginal points that somehow tie in to the movie. That kind of makes me doubt whether this community is really willing enough to give something that does jump off the usual agree-wagon a real chance.

In other words, what I see happening is basically a dismissal of something because it sounds too far out. I knew that this could happen and that's why I wrote in the original post about exactly that.

Taco, you may say I am too willing to believe conspiracy theories, but I'd say that I am at a point at which I am almost less likely to trust the "majority" than the minority, authority than myself and my peers. Free Software, Free Culture people, again, are still a minority. People who care about certain issues are usually in a minority. A large mass of people simply follows the default truth being told to them and don't question it. Well I do, and increasingly so.

Tell me what is going on in the world, where are we going? Look at everything that is happening and connect the dots. There is a great chance that what you will come up with will in minds of many be considered a conspiracy theory. And then they will use that argument "too willing to believe conspiracy theories" as essentially a way to ignore or even shut you up.

I mean, try to put yourself in that position. I don't see myself as too gullible the way you apparently wish to portray me. I didn't see any really good arguments from any of you which would directly invalidate the claims made in the movie yet I am already being dismissed as a conspiracy sucker or something. What am I supposed to think or do? I am not backing down. I can't back down.

Talking about evidence being opinions, I'm not sure which documentary did you watch, but the one I did watch there were plenty of video references and real life quotes that you can check for yourself. If you would argue that videos can be faked then what makes you think videos shown to the public to back down the official theory of what happened aren't faked as well?? You can't win this way. You have to evaluate the bigger context, look at your own logic. Still, many of the videos shown are exactly the same to those that mainstream has been shown, but the mainstream, being caught in the bubble of propaganda spread by the media and also mostly being noobs to the process of building collapse sees a completely different picture of what happened than what Zeitgeist tries to show and what may as well be true.

Something tells me that you didn't really watch it carefully enough. Inspired by the initial dismissal from the first 9 minutes, perhaps you just went on to skim the rest with an already formed supposition waiting in your mind - it "smells like bullshit".

So tell me then, what doesn't smell like bullshit? The official story heard in the media doesn't smell like bullshit? Oh right, you don't really care who's right.

I really find myself wondering what the hell are we here on for if we don't care about the truth of matters which influence so many lives. If you think this topic doesn't have much to do with maybe you should be reminded that, as it says on the homepage "is a place where digital technology meets the people, those willing to explore and discuss social and ethical challenges that it imposes. We promote awareness on issues we find important in an increasingly digital and interconnected world"

I don't see ignorance of the 9/11 truth for one, or ignorance of truths about any other subject which has larger implications even on the ways technology (and digital technology as well) is going to be used as "promoting awareness". What about social and ethical challenges? Well, what about RFID chips for just one vivid example? Sure we've been opposed to negative and restrictive uses of technology before as well, but I believe we will be more powerful in fighting against such uses if we better knew the bigger picture regarding the state of the world, and this big picture simply must include the truth about such "little" details as 9/11, how it was used to bring on the worst possible uses of technology and how it may be used for the same purpose in the near future.

Of course I don't want to be centric to 9/11 only though. The, by you yet un-disproved, Zeitgeist movie (which in fact feeds on many real sources) talks about so much more than just 9/11 which should easily provide the bigger picture of what is or may well be happening. For example, "war as a business" theory throws the idea that America is "failing" in Iraq down the toilet. If it is their goal to sustain the instability in order to feed off the war then they're in fact quite successful. Same goes for any other of their wars. I am hard pressed by now to believe the official explanations of why these wars happened and why did USA participate the way it did (WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq etc.).

Oh and one more note about me being a conspiracy nut.. David Icke's whole Lizard theory is clearly not what I'm accepting because that much is probably a lot harder to prove with a straight face than any of the other things constructed more or less with what are in fact well known memes. David Icke is mostly on the same page with Zeitgeist except for that one big differentiator, the whole Lizard theory, him being a prophet and all that. I think it is simply interesting that there is a whole slew of people the mainstream dismisses as "conspiracy theorists" or more kindly "conspiracy lunatics" which talk about the creation of a one world government, of increased centralization of world power and of the world being manipulated by the media.

And looking at the formation of EU, the existence of other unions around the world including apparently even the North American Union it does fit the picture. It does call for suspicions. Basically, there is so little that I can see in the world which really compellingly disproves these theories (the Zeitgeist one being the most plausible so far) yet quite a few things that actually back it up. So how am I not to give them a serious consideration?

If you'll dismiss me as a conspiracy nut for that, well so be it, but indeed, I'd be disappointed.. for I expected more from Libervisians.

Thank you


Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 11 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
Oh dear, now you're telling

Oh dear, now you're telling me the equivalent of "RTFA". For your information, I viewed the movie with full attention.

I have two issues with it:

1) Its arguments about equivalences between religions are very shaky at best, and totally unnecessary to make the point about American style Christianity it wants to make.

2) All it says about 9/11 is a VERY selective choice from the hundreds of different things people have said about those events, and it presents that selective choice as the absolute truth. Again "proving" who is at fault for 9/11 is irrelevant. I guess others will hate me for saying this, but 9/11 was just a minor event in comparison to the processes it is part of, which were already going on long before it. In comparison to how much I care about all the deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq (how did that become related to 9/11 by the way?), and how much I care about everyone in the western world losing liberties, I don't care much whether the poor excuse for all of that was fake or real. I also know that anyone claiming with certainty it was fake (or not fake, for that matter) is talking nonsense.

So, it's using poor arguments (conspiracy nonsense style arguments even) to get to a correct (although maybe overexaggerated) conclusion.

I agree that the erosion of liberties should be discussed on libervis. But please use real arguments instead of this one-sided fear mongering propaganda crap that will only drive the unconvinced away from what IS the right conclusion.

EDIT/ADDITION: The documentary implying who killed JFK doesn't help, it makes it look even more like conspiracy nonsense.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.