swfchan: 1.swf (info)

Text

Note to viewer: Hi I'm a member of the
zeitgeist movement and I wanted to attempt
to debunk some of the accusations, illogic
and misrepresentations in the movie
Aquarius: The Age of Evil. However the
account you're watching this on is not mine; I
have very limited access to the internet.
It's a privilege that you're able to read this
text. Why? Because human ingenuity has
enabled us this opportunity and will lead us
to greater heights of productivity
if we allow it to flourish.
This will be for the sake of improving lives
and not for the sake of fictional profit. I hope
one day the internet will only be referred to
as an open source project, because
knowledge is and forever will be free.

TIME HAS NO EMOTION
an attempted debunking of
Aquarius: The Age of Evil
By Anonymous
Version zero (there's always room for
improvement).

PART ONE

"Two working hands can do more
than a thousand clasped in prayer."
- Anonymous

Keith Thompson:
The new world order exists. The elite are occultists
who adhere to New Age doctrines and they are
responsible for this new trend of discrediting
Christianity, Jesus Christ and the Christian new
world order researchers. There is a voluminous
amount of data that I have obtained in my research
on this subject. But, after watching this production
do not believe me. Don't believe a word of what I'm
saying. Do your own independent research and
verify this for yourself.

No I don't believe what you're saying. There
are areas of Christianity that deserve to be
identified as shameful and others that
deserve to be praised for their truthfulness.
It's not as simple as black and white, TZM
doesn't encourage Christianity to be rejected
100%.
A prime teaching to be praised is love thy
neighbour/love your enemies. Then anything
that corrupts that teaching should be thrown
in the bin. Like tearing out a valuable page
from a book you don't need anymore.

Keith Thompson:
After studying the occult and the
esoteric in depth I have come to the
conclusion that the Zeitgeist Movement
and the Zeitgeist films are based on
Theosophy, Freemasonry and the New
Age. For those who are unfamiliar: in
2007 a man named Peter Joseph
released a film called Zeitgeist.
This film received millions of views on
the internet and became very popular.
Then in 2008 Zeitgeist Addendum, the
sequel came out. From there Peter
Joseph established the Zeitgeist
Movement.

The dictionary describes the word
Theosophy as;
1. A system of belief based on mystical
insight into the nature of God and the soul
The dictionary describes the word
Freemason as;
1. A member of a widespread secret
fraternal order pledged to mutual assistance
and brotherly love

The term zeitgeist movement can be
defined as: a call for change from the
current social climate of our time. The
reason the movement came into being was
because people were unsatisfied with the
current social climate and operations that
are currently in place. Although you could
say Peter Joseph founded the movement,
if everyone were satisfied with the current
state of affairs of war, poverty, corruption,
hunger etc, then NO-ONE would join or aid
the direction the zeitgeist movement/the
venus project presents. Over time if a
group doesn't get any support it's likely to
dissolve.

The goal outlined by the movement is to
basically use the best methods for
recognisng how our reality works and to
use a social system aligned with those
laws of nature (resource based economy).
The term that defines how to follow these
laws is the scientific method.

Laws of nature determine basic human
needs:
Breathable air
Food and water
Shelter
Constant need to update knowledge
Effective transportation
Efficient energy
Peaceful environment

It is not a belief/opinion to say a human
being needs food and water, when it
comes to the fundamentals for survival
opinions are useless. What we are looking
to do is to eliminate the need for
belief/opinion in the most critical areas.
To relate the zeitgeist movement to a
group that wants to have mystical beliefs
is incorrect. We don't believe we need to
move into a better direction, we know we
need to move into a better direction. You
don't hear people saying "I believe eating
food is optional". If you have though
they're deluded.

So the question is how can a movement
that wants to do away with the need for
opinions in critical areas of human life be
related to a group that isn't concerned with
doing away with belief but by its basic
definition would want to spread their
system of beliefs?
theosophy's slogan is there is no religion
higher than truth, but really that's an
understatement. To show absolutely no
fear of the truth would be to say that doubt
is higher than truth because what is truth is
only true momentarily. With the constant
update of information we have today, there
is only what is true for the moment.
Although there are fixed laws of nature (or
god, take your pick in terms) how great we
understand them changes.
We don't want to get mystical insight into
the nature of "God" or reality, when you
punch in some numbers into a calculator
and it gives you an answer is the calculator
mystical or magical in a way that's
unexplainable?
Or does the mechanisms inside the device
compare the digits punched in and follows
a method of what to do to those numbers,
addition, subtraction, multiplication,
division, etc.

I don't see how Freemasonry can be
considered strongly similar to TZM. We are
not a men's club that believes a god needs
to be worshipped. The way I would describe
this reality metaphorically is god and satan
twisted together, neutral. That might offend
people with strong religious views because
they come across as they want a definite
difference between the ideas good and evil.
But when we think about what can happen
in this reality (or gatad god and satan as
one word) it simply allows for anything to
happen within its laws. For example,
harmonious organisms live within
equilibriums in nature. At the same time
parasitic cancerous organisms can exist,
where their existence only causes suffering.
No matter how much a person is a sinner or
a saint, the law of gravity will force them to
walk on the ground. What all loving god
allows people to get cancer? That's why we
don't believe in god in the exact same
manner as religions do. However we do
think mutual assistance among people is a
good thing but is it evil or conspiratorial to
think that since freemasons do?

The first Zeitgeist film was divided into
three sections. The second section was
about 9/11 being an inside job. The third
section was about the corruption of the
Federal Reserve. I have no real issue
with the last two sections. But, since the
release of the first Zeitgeist film, Peter
Joseph the creator has distanced
himself from the 9/11 issue altogether.
[Quote:]
"… may be most famous for alleging
that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an
"inside job" perpetrated by a power-
hungry government on its witless
population, a point of view that Mr.
Joseph said he has recently "moved
away from."(9)
[Narration:]
This makes me wonder if the only
reason he spoke about 9/11 in the first
film was to get the 9/11 truth movement
on board with his agenda.
The first section of the film is what I
have an issue with. Contained in this
section is the modern belief system of
the New Age Movement, the
Theosophical Society and Freemasonry.

If you pay for video you're being scammed knowledge is free.

The first zeitgeist movie demonstrates the
destructive nature of opinion or faith.
Section 1 the misinterpretations of what
God is and the consequences. Section 2
the consequences of following
people/political tradition rather than
following calculation. Section 3 the
misconception of money as real and how it
is only destructive and dishonest. If you
have a problem with the first part shouldn't
you have a problem with the others? All
revolve around the fact that blind faith
causes destruction and shows absence of
compassion for all people.

The problem Christians seem to have is the
idea that their teacher Jesus Christ may not
have historically existed. So the argument
seems to be that the source of the
information that compares Horus to Jesus
did not come into being through
investigation, but preferably (to them) it
came about through belief by evil groups.

What seems to be missed entirely though is
the question of how relevant is the
existence of these enlightened figures in
history? Apparently one of the teachings in
Christianity is "love thy neighbour", and a
Christian may attribute this wisdom to
Christianity's teacher Jesus Christ. Besides
having conflicting and self-preserving
messages that contradict and corrupt that
teaching, wouldn't that teaching "love thy
neighbour" be more important than who it's
actually credited to? Does the idea of Jesus
not historically existing suddenly make the
idea of respecting your neighbour
worthless? Wouldn't Jesus want to make
that teaching free for anyone to follow?
It seems like the importance of the historical
Jesus is like the glorification of movie and
music stars, like a poster on a teenager's
wall.

Jesus didn't exist? Oh I guess I shouldn't
follow the teaching love thy neighbour and
just hate everyone now. If the teacher was
fictional then that must mean the teaching
is fictional. No!
Since this attempted debunking video is
done anonymously and is not done by
Keith ThompsonTM © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
KEITHTRUTH ENTERPRISES it must not have value.

It should be noted that in the version of
zeitgeist the movie I have, there is no
mention of the name Peter Joseph at all,
which implies the desire was to remain
anonymous.

Consider this; if I say people should
generally respect each other because
conflict reduces productivity, does that
statement have no value since I'm
remaining anonymous? If a teaching like
that is beneficial to everyone and is passed
around, why is the original author so
important?
Do you think if Jesus was here right now he
would have the ego to say "YES! I said love
thy neighbourTM Copyright Christianity Inc.
I'm the author of that and no-one can love
their neighbour unless they get my
bibleTM."? It doesn't seem likely.
In truth there are no authors of anything,
there are only discoveries of combinations,
patterns, trends, indicators etc. What is
most effective can be discovered through
examination. What a character like Jesus
would be concerned about is if you're
following the path of loving your neighbour,
a teaching cannot be copyrighted. What is
the point of life if you're not following that
path? There's almost no point in
memorising the teaching of love thy
neighbour unless it's actually practiced, the
only point of knowing it without practicing it
is probably only in hope that the meaning of
the teaching is realised.

The true path of enlightenment is
recognising that we are students
simultaneously as we are teachers, it is
following logic and reasoning, it isn't
following biased emotional inclinations.
True enlightenment comes from asking
questions leading to logically sound
conclusions. However you never reach
enlightenment; you can only walk on a path
to being enlightened. The minute you say
"Yes! Now I am enlightened and I don't
need to take in anymore information." is
when you become ignorant.

The reason I assume PJ moved away from
the topic of 9/11 is because you can focus
on corruptions in this current social system
forever. Coming up with long-lasting
solutions to our current problems is much
more difficult than investigating the endless
problems with our current situation. The
idea is to raise the level of thinking. The
question is; how do you install preventative
maintenance that disables poverty, hunger,
violence, war, human suffering and other
negative elements of society from coming
into existence, and ensure productivity,
efficiency, and happiness?

Please note as well how it says "to get the
9/11 truth movement on board with his
agenda" as if the information and direction
presented in zeitgeist films is simply all PJ's
fabrication, PJ said this and PJ said that,
pointing to him as if he's the god of the
zeitgeist movement. This tactic indicates
that the creator of the film wants you to
hate/dislike an enemy rather than following
the valued teaching of love your enemies to
reach sound resolutions. This is the type of
cancerous attitude TZM wants to get rid of
because of its harmful nature.

[Resistance Radio with Mark Dice, Peter
Joseph:]
Mark Dice: "Danny in Englewood you're
on the air go ahead." Caller: "Yeah
you're going to take this the wrong way
Peter J. director of Zeitgeist but what
you just said sounds exactly like
Satanism. I'm not saying that you are
Satanic." Peter Joseph: "I don't believe
in Satanism. If you want to use that
word, that's your own idea." Caller: "Do
you know what Satanism is? Atheists -
people who do not believe in a God;
people who believe that man is God.
That's what Satanism is." Peter Joseph:
"Yeah that's correct. You are God."
Caller: "Okay, then you are a Satanist."
(64)
[Quote:]
"… and ye shall be as gods." - Satan,
Genesis 3:5(65)

To debunk the way this clip is used we need
to examine what PJ means by saying "You
are God."
It should be noted that in this clip Keith
emphasizes "You are God" by repeating it
and bending its pitch lower every time it's
repeated. This shows me he wants to
demonise PJ, contradicting the teaching of
love your neighbour/love your enemies.

Dictionary description of god
1. Any supernatural being worshipped as
controlling some part of the world or some
aspect of life or who is the personification of
a force.
1.2. The supernatural being conceived as
the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient
originator and ruler of the universe; the
object of worship in monotheistic religions
1. A man of such superior qualities that he
seems like a deity to other people
"he was a god among men"
2. A material effigy that is worshipped
"money was his god"

I don't think of god (what can be called
gatad) in the same way as Christians, so
you could call me an atheist. I don't think
you can point to a single being that is
depicted as an old wise man with a white
beard and call that god. It's too egotistical
to me to say that a jealous god created this
universe and he looks like a human male
with a white beard.

The idea of people believing they are gods
is like believing you don't have to obey the
laws of nature, say believing you can walk
on walls and disobey gravity. Saying you
don't need to eat and drink to live is just as
insane as saying that you are god and you
control the laws of nature. So how can I
say that and be a member of the zeitgeist
movement if members share a lot of critical
thoughts? Becoming god might also be like
somehow becoming the blanket of time that
shades everything and that is boring. You
would never know of anything new and
you'd be neutral to everything. From the
beauty of a human being to the disgusting
nature of cancer, you'd view it as the same.

I assume what is meant by "You are God" is
he's trying to get people to recognise their
own personal power, humanity's potential
for greatness once you remove egotism or
the opinionated want for authors to be
recognised and respected at a level that
isn't logical anymore.
If you have such a delirious focus on the
importance of authors then you loose sight
of the truth that knowledge is free.
Evidence of this can be clarified at the very
end of zeitgeist the movie's narration.
"If people ever realise the truth of their
relationship to nature and the truth of their
personal power, the entire manufactured
zeitgeist they pray upon will collapse like a
house of cards".

The fact is the human brain which we use
to come up with whatever we like isn't
exactly our brain is it? How can there be
an author of something when the brain that
was used to make it has always been
given to us to use? We say this is my brain
but really it's an extremely advanced piece
of hardware that has been given to us. The
most important choice for us to make right
now is whether to use this hardware that
has been given to us wisely or we will
destroy ourselves.
Labeling people good or evil, satanic or a
saint makes thinking for people less
complex and it breeds hated, which again
is against the teaching of love thy
neighbour. How? Well atheists are hated
by Christians because they don't think of
god exactly the way as Christians do, and
I'd say atheists don't like to feel the
negative energy of hated and would
probably admit that they refuse to adpot
the simplistic view of good vs. evil which is
offensive to a religious view point of view.

Watch part two for
continuation.

Library Items

Symbol 1 Font	Used by:2 20
Symbol 2 Text	Uses:1	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 3 Font	Used by:4 7 41
Symbol 4 Text	Uses:3	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 5 Font	Used by:6
Symbol 6 Text	Uses:5	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 7 Text	Uses:3	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 8 Font	Used by:9 13
Symbol 9 Text	Uses:8	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 10 Font	Used by:11 14 15 16 17 18 19
Symbol 11 Text	Uses:10	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 12 Font	Used by:13
Symbol 13 Text	Uses:8 12	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 14 Text	Uses:10	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 15 Text	Uses:10	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 16 Text	Uses:10	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 17 Text	Uses:10	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 18 Text	Uses:10	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 19 Text	Uses:10	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 20 Text	Uses:1	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 21 Font	Used by:22 33 34
Symbol 22 Text	Uses:21	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 23 Font	Used by:24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40
Symbol 24 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 25 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 26 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 27 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 28 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 29 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 30 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 31 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 32 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 33 Text	Uses:23 21	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 34 Text	Uses:21	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 35 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 36 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 37 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 38 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 39 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 40 Text	Uses:23	Used by:Timeline
Symbol 41 Text	Uses:3	Used by:Timeline
Streaming Sound 1	Used by:Timeline