Zeitgeist- the movie

But that would lead me to stuff he had chosen, rather than me
selecting what I think might be worth looking at to get differing
explanations.

PF

 

Good point, well made.

<fx:thinks>

Umm...how about the links posted by people arguing against him?

 

Yes, but still selective. Meta-google methods have their uses, but
sometimes a quick trawl through the headers of a personally cunningly
constructed original search reaches the parts others cannot. That, of
course, rules out sources not on the interwebby thing. So, all in all,
in some ways it has become more difficult to be *well* informed than
it was years ago.

PF

 

Right, I've watched it now.

The globe, at the end - it's revolving in the wrong direction.

Also, the spelled Disraeli wrong, and kept referring to the U.K. as
England.

What do I win?

 

Leaving aside the 9/11 stuff, what other conclusions are reached
erroneously? I've checked out some blogs and youtubes of detractors
and haven't found anything that convincingly argues against the other
2 sections. THAT is your area of expertise, you freakishly huge
brained goth. Rip it apart!

I hear what you're saying. Des was right all along, there is a clique.

 

My undying adoration. And a coconut, to put it in.

 

Watched the rest of it this morning. Certainly well crafted.
Was it ever?

Given that I enjoyed the first few minutes, unsurprisingly, I liked the
last few as well.

Appropriately somehow, on switching the 'tube' back to the free(ish)view
box tuned to E4, No.6 was in full rant.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

Well the sources are cited in the links, but it's a lot to go through
as you say. But are you saying that the Federal Reserve Bank changing
the amount of money in circulation to control the economy and the
government, and putting their not inconsiderable weight behind the
push for wars since its inception, is unbelievable or just not a
surprise? Are we just accepting that corporations run everything and
if so why do we engage in discussions about prime ministers,
presidents and policies at all? Isn't it all a shadow puppet show to
distract us from the real string pullers? Why do people support club
football teams when the players and coach are simply rented like
mercenaries by some anonymous suits? Wouldn't it make more sense to
peer through the windows at the AGM with a scarf and rattle cheering
the board members on in their investment decisions? Is morality yet
another fabricated device akin to religion to maintain a degree of
servitude in the Great Unwashed? Are the true heroes really those kids
that mow down their sheep-like brethren in universities, as they line
up for corporate-controlled slaughter anyway? Is my spelling ok? I'm
quite drunk.

 

Sure but Labour didn't include that on their manifesto.

Possibly but isn't that purely a soundbite? Surely a hefty imbalance
of it is enough to maintain control.

I-C-P-2: What is the centre that we're leaching power from? If you
take a model where there are evil corporations (there can't be that
many devoted to philanthropy) whose interests reside in making as much
money as possible; governments that ostensibly enact the will of the
people, or act in the interests of the people, while maintaining their
own position from a contribution-based marketing scheme every few
years and, despite this, come and go; a justice system that ostensibly
operates unfettered from financial or political pressure but is
vulnerable to the government and thus the corporations; and the people
that are only ever outraged in small groups and generally content with
gestures in the direction of individual financial flattery but on the
whole are more concerned with The Biggest Loser than global warming
(yawwwwn) or illegal wars that they pay for (double yawwwn); then the
actual will and capacity to manipulate looks heavily weighted in one
direction.
Even if the people could organise themselves to utilise their
potential power, the information has to be available to motivate them
in the first place. Where do we get the information from? Most of the
newspapers reported on the existence of WMDs, including the
broadsheets from erroneous sources. CNN? It seems we have to rely on
less-accepted sources for, if not the reality, then at least an
equally-erroneous alternate perspective such as crazy lefties like Mr
Chomsky, over-emotive psuedo-docos like Zeitgeist.com and other
conspiracy theorists.
As for style over content, politicians have employed the monotone
saying-nothing -while-appearing-to-answer-questions for ages. if they
ramble on for long enough, throwing in enough side-alley
perambulations, interviewers and reporters run out of time. And this
from those who are being held to account. Is the best way to fight
this with equally fillibustering-type rhetoric or enthuse the Big
Brother brainwashed in a more accessible way with moody music and huge
soundbites? Or maybe get people reading the likes of Monbiot via Harry
Potter ("...Takes it to The Man, Old School Style").

 

<snip>

Good to see you back btw.

Why not move away from rhetoric into action?

In order to access something you need the skills, time and inclination
to do so.

Or we could just accept we (generic) have lost, they've won and do the
small things to make individual lives slightly better.

Unless you have a bright idea?

 

A succinct version of the argument that went on until 4.30am last
Saturday.

I can point to why I think we've lost - where's the evidence from the
other side? Seriously.

 

Either.

 

I'm watching reruns of Citizen Smith. Foxy knows what he's talking
about.

 

Is the government really bound by the people? If support for the wars
are due to misinformation from the government via the media, when do
we make the decisions that we want to pay for ithem? The government
doesn't seem particularly bound by anything. If you're saying that,
once voted in, the government is carrying out the will of the people
whatever it does then it seems to stretch the definition of "bound".
And since the government is quite reliant on revenue brought in, in
one way or another, from corporations it seems somewhat of a conflict
of interests for the government to regulate them.

Which is all well and good but governments are far more temporary
institutions than financial corporations. How do we know the extent to
which the government make the decisions or whether they're sock
puppets? And if a war is in the interests of both and the people don't
really get a look in then they may as well be a private company.

 

Where's the dividing line between them and us? I'm sure most of them
feel just the same. There's no sudden initiation where you get handed
your badge and told you're a master of the universe.
--
Champ

ZX10R | GPz750turbo | GSX-R 600 racer
My advice as your attorney is to buy a motorcycle
To email me, neal at my domain should work.

 

Mine came in the post, bit of an anti-climax tbh.

 

The dividing line would be somewhere at the point someone's great
grandfather found out that by controlling the money meant he
controlled everyone's decisions who was reliant on the money,
including governments. When your family has been doing this for a few
generations it probably amasses a good deal of experience in the area.