Back after long hiatus

After the longest time of not doing any posts and finally remembering this blog, I am finally back. A couple of points need to be made first and foremost.

1. I will have to reinstall my operating system as it has been at least two years since I got this computer, so after the reinstall is finished and the all day set up finally done and over with, I will be doing new articles examining some rather old conspiracy theories about The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project.

2. Because of the development’s regarding the organizational relationship between TZM and TVP since my last article, I must make it obvious that these organization are no longer tandem between one another. There was a split and I would rather not go on about who’s side I’m on in the split since it has been almost 2 years since it happened. If you wish to know what my thoughts were on the subject then here they are.

3. Because the forum’s going down some of the information I provided and the sources I gave are no longer available and thus it is impossible for me to do my analysis of the Conspiracy Science (now dubbed webskeptics) forum. However, because of my involvement in that forum and because I know they had a password of mine they decided to go ahead and hack that account and post as them. Their reaction is extremely telling and serves to me to they have zero credibility and not even worth the time of response from me or anyone for that matter.

4. I have had to wait for a new Camera (finally got it) and will be making videos that are unrelated to this blog, but may in fact continue the subject. After my original account was hacked and shut down by some anti-TZM trolls, I decided to set it back up again. Please show your support by subscribing and to let you in on a heads up, I will be posting videos on the topics of science, religion, the history of various economic systems and even responding to things I consider propaganda and putting forth faulty data and information mislead the populace. I am deciding whether or not to respond to Lee Doren’s critique’s of the RSA or c0nc0rdance’s video on marijuana.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Long Rant of an article by Muertos

UPDATE: I have now fixed any and all vandalization on this blog.

By Devan Evans

In the past I made a series of statement’s regarding Muertos and his so-called “criticisms” of the Zeitgeist Movement (TZM), during which I decided to check out some of his blog’s just to see what he had to say on other subjects. During which I found out that he has a blog entry about me called Voice of Reason? Responding to More Comments About the Zeitgeist Movement where he made a series of statement’s against a few comments I made that were directed against a blog update of his called The Zeitgeist Movement, Take 2: Conspiracies Are Us (UPDATED!) which initially is trying to create a critique of #6 of the Knowledgebase. Another series of blog’s of his for those interested in his views regarding The Zeitgeist Movement are Seeing Like A State: Why Zeitgeist’s World-Changing Visions Are A Recipe For Disaster and Adventures in Conspiracy-Land: the “Zeitgeist Movement.” UPDATE!; I may respond to some of these other articles but due my current studies and considering I have been busy for the past couple of days trying to work a program that would allow me to rip lectures DVD from The Teaching Company and my current three projects I am juggling it may be awhile (especially as I will need to read one of the sources he puts forth in his blog I will be responding to his current article which supposedly responds to my comment’s about his article.

Peter Joseph A Leader?

In against my statement where I ask “at the very end of Zeitgeist: Addendum the message of J. Krishnamurti that where he says people need to become their own leader. So if he is a leader, why is he stating quite obviously that he is not?” His response was as follows:

What Merola says about his leadership role is totally at odds with what he does. This is a constant problem with the Zeitgeist Movement: their emphasis on “pay attention to what we say, not what we do.” You’ll see that theme repeated often in this response. From Merola’s actions it’s clear he is in control of the Zeitgeist Movement. He wrote the “Resource Guide,” which is the basic dogma of the Movement. He is the one who decides what goes on the Zeitgeist Movement website. He is the one who decides who is in the movement and who’s not. His control of the movement is unquestionable.

This doesn’t really answer the question I had asked as one can see, neither does this for some reason or another address what I had stated. He doesn’t seem to address the quote by J. Krishnamurti where he says “What we are trying, in all these discussions and the talks here, is to see if we cannot radically bring about a transformation of the mind. Not accept things as they are… but to understand it, to go into it, to examine it; give your heart and your mind with everything that you have find out a way of living differently! But that depends on you and not somebody else. Because in this there is no teacher, no pupil, there’s leader, there’s no guru, there’s no master, no savior. You yourself are the teacher and the pupil, you are the master, you are the guru, you are the leader, YOU ARE EVERYTHING!” at the end of Addendum. So why exactly am I adding emphasis on this, well by his constant insistance that the films are the Movement, then it would follow that the end of this portion of the film is very tantamount to the movement’s mindset, thus nullifying the idea and notion that Peter Joseph is a leader.

Also, you don’t see Peter Joseph directing how the State and Local City/Town Chapters should engage others and what methods to engage them in. In fact, my Local City Chapter Coordinator Arya Rashid recently asked me if I could do a Project for the Zeitgeist Movement which examines the trends of history on how long it took societies beginning from the Neolithic Revolution onward to adopt mode’s and method’s of running a society by instituting a social/political/economic system, the collapse of that system and how long it took for another system to prop up in its place. By doing this project we may be able to project a trend which may indicate how long it may take for us to move into a Resource Based Economy.

Why do I mention this to begin with? Well, if what Muertos is saying is true then we should find that Peter Joseph (PJ) would have in fact not only directed Arya to give this project to me, but also to have it not be a choice. But that is not what we find, I don’t find myself being called by PJ to do this project, I don’t get e-mail’s from PJ saying I have to be active during this time or that time. The entire point of the movement is volunteer basis thus far, I have volunteered to go to my local city chapter’s meeting when I feel (and since I have a lot of free time on my hands I usually do, but I am not required to go as a member, but I am required to be active if I want to be a member… but how I am active is entirely up to me and anyone else).

However when I made a statement saying that “also if he is the leader, where is he giving orders? Can you provide me an instance where he tells people what to do with the movement, how to do it, and forcing others to become more active? If he was a leader where are these statements being put forth?” What he does is very interesting by putting forth this statement as a response:

Yes, I can. Here he is directing the responses of members regarding robots and mechanization. Here he is proclaiming that the movement will not collaborate with other activist organizations

Now at first glance this may have some validity, but only if you don’t check the link’s he gives and this is where one can see Muertos misusing his source (which by the way, casts doubt on the validity of the representation of his other article). Here is what PJ says in his first link:

I wanted to go through two quick things that I keep seeing around the Internet from both people promoting the movement and denying the movement… Stop talking about robots and mechanization as though it is THE defining feature of a resource-based economy.

A resource-based economy in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with mechanization. You will notice that in my second lecture I don’t make any comments about mechanization in detail.

Why? Because the system could work perfectly well without mechanization if the values shifted accordingly. A resource-based economy is about resource management and then the re-organizing of labor to be as optimized as possible once the monetary system is removed — meaning nobody would be forced/enslaved into meaningless occupations which do not have a social role, directly.

So — if you encounter somebody who says the zeitgeist movement/the venus project is about robots doing everything, do not defend mechanization or anything else. Simply state that mechanization has nothing to do with a resource-based economy in and of itself – rather it is a natural consequence of technological evolution to apply mechanization -it is applied efficiency. The resource-based economy simply carries the trend forward in a more liberal way.

As one can see, PJ was not obviously “directing the responses of members regarding robots and mechanization” what he was doing was very obvious: clearing up some misconception on what the defining element of A Resource Based Economy is and stating that you should not fall into this trap as making it about “defining feature of a resource-based economy.”

This seems to be PJ trying to redirect some common misconceptions he sees on both sides, as he clearly has the statement being formed in a way that he is addressing “people promoting the movement and denying the movement.”

The Second source he uses seems to have the same effect, however when you read the source it becomes very apparent, that it is not what PJ is even saying:

People often ask me still why we do not “collaborate” so to speak with other activists/environmental organizations. This is because all of the protocols/traditional approaches of the current activist community, on all levels, are based on an establishment worldview that has and will continue to fail. Mr. Suzuki’s response is a case in point of an individual who holds a tremendous amount of weight and hence established view of social change… and hence any thing that challenges that view is like challenging a religion. Most activist groups act like corporations at this stage.

Now, with regard to David’s exact points it is an immature and irresponsible refutation which makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, the first “chapter” of the orientation guide which I assume he was referring to since the first chapter of the movie is only about the fractional reserve system, only lays out the patterns of the economic system and says nothing about what a resource-based economy is. So from that point alone he obviously has taken zero time to understand anything.
As far as his statement about a “dismissal of knowledge”…Where did he even get that? What does that even mean? If anything, it’s the absolute opposite.

So, I am saddened to see such blind dismissal, especially from people who claim to want real change. No — they do not want real change. They want the change that they assume is correct and since most of the highly revered activists have successfully acquired a great deal of income support for their work, it is a natural propensity for them to think that the monetary system is okay since they are being supported by it by their so-called activist initiatives. This is the paradox. The bottom line is that the change needed will not come from the pre-existing activist establishments. They are detached from any reference to the [holistic] system. This goes for the entire spectrum as I see it. Greenpeace — Michael Moore — Annie Leonard and all the other heavily revered social and environmental activists of our time continue to refuse to look at the system from the broadest perspective and see the fatal flaw… either that or they just don’t understand it. But frankly believe most blinker it out due to their monetary success.

The activism community on this planet is dead. They are locked into the box and do not see beyond it. They are angry puppies neatly kept in their state run kennel. Even more, all activism over the past five decades has failed time after time. nothing has changed in any substantial way. The civil rights movement while helping over all was replaced by an economic form of violence/ segregation. Voting rights for women and minorities was overcome by the propaganda machine of the state and the patterns/values of voting have not changed at all. The environmental community pretends it has progress when it is a fact that every life-support system is (still) in decline on this planet and getting worse.

So, I challenge any activist group to tell me where their true progress is both from a broad social and environmental standpoint long-term. They use the legal system and the legal system is open for perpetual change based on the whims of any new politician. It doesn’t matter how many ships Greenpeace boards — it doesn’t matter how many slave labor camps are shut down — it doesn’t matter how many antiwar protests emerge on the streets of Washington– it is simply a matter of time before new methods of abuse and exploitation and advantage crop up… just like roaches coming out from under a refrigerator because the spoiled food/socioeconomic system is still there.

PJ was apparently putting forth a 3 things in this message.

  1. He was responding to people who keep asking PJ and other movement members “why we do not “collaborate” so to speak with other activists/ environmental organizations.”
  2. Giving a brief response to the Letter by David Suzuki.
  3. Giving a complaint about how current activist groups (for the most part) seem to work only in the box.

Thus not only was PJ not “proclaiming that the movement will not collaborate with other activist organizations” but he was also not “throwing a tantrum that his entreaty to activist David Suzuki was rejected.” However, the very fact of the matter is that Muertos seems to acknowledge him twisting the word’s of PJ by stating that “ironically he does this in the context of throwing a tantrum that his entreaty to activist David Suzuki was rejected.”

One has to wonder how, where and in what way was PJ stating that TZM “will not collaborate with other activist organizations.” It would appear he is reading into a statement that does not exist and an implication that is not there. One would wonder if he is doing this deliberately or if he literally believes that this is what PJ is proclaiming and sees it as such, however such a view I will leave up to the reader.

The Films and it’s relation to TZM

A statement made by myself by pointing out that “if he was a leader, why is the only thing he seems to be able to be in charge of is how people promote his films? Also it doesn’t seem to be mandatory that they promote his films to begin with (at least not the last two anyways).” His response is thus as follows:

Because promotion of the films is the only significant thing the Zeitgeist Movement is actually doing—which means that by your own admission Merola is in charge of the most significant activity of the Zeitgeist Movement. The Movement is remarkably inactive. You are not building cities. You are not making plans. You are not raising money. You are not lobbying politicians. You are not engaging in charity activities. You are not coordinating volunteers. The only things the movement is doing in any systematic way is creating hour after interminable hour of repetitive radio addresses, lectures, and other “get the word out” activities—which are functionally indistinguishable from promoting the films in the first place.

This is only true in regards to the 3rd film thus far (that has been set to release in January). If this is indicated as a means that PJ is a leader, this is a very weak argument. For example, what of VTV decided to make and direct a film that was very much in regards to the promotion of the Movement’s ideals. He is well-known amongst the movement, and very influential. He wants this film to be released in a way where it will be one of the more well-known films right next to the Zeitgeist film series. Thus he asks the movement to commit a lot of time in promoting the film, thus by this indication, VTV would have to be the leader of the movement.

As one can see, the logic of the this statement is self-defeating, if this is all one needs for PJ to be a leader of the movement, then why doesn’t he point out to the notion that people hand out ripped copies of The Corporation, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices, Capitalism: A Love Story amongst others. Why isn’t Michael Moore, Joel Bakan, Mark Achbar, Robert Greenwald, etc… aren’t pointed to as TZM leaders? Because the notion is self-defeating and thus has contradictory elements. Regardless though I did point this out to Muertos on at least twice an occasion and he has yet to ignore the criticism towards his frame and method of logical deduction to declare PJ as a leader.

To address the issue of the notion that we “are not making plans. You are not raising money. You are not lobbying politicians. You are not engaging in charity activities. You are not coordinating volunteers. The only things the movement is doing in any systematic way is creating hour after interminable hour of repetitive radio addresses, lectures, and other “get the word out” activities…”

This statement is very interesting, where do we promote Zeitgeist: The Movie and Zeitgeist: Addendum as apart of the movement in “repetitive radio addresses” and “lectures?” We have the more well-known lecture’s by PJ called Where are we now?, Where are we going? (Part 1 and Part 2) and Social Pathology. There is also the more recent blogtalkradio lecture’s that he has committed to (currently on Hiatus) titled  The Zeitgeist Movement – Internal Structures & Processes, A Resource-Based Economy, The Transition and A Profile of the Collapse. There are also the lecture’s by Ben Mcleish, Douglas Mallette, and the most recent lecture done on behalf of the Canadian Vancouver Chapter called Social Mythology. You also have a number of radio addresses that are too large to name, where do we promote Zeitgeist: The Movie and Zeitgeist: Addendum in those lectures, radio addresses, etc… as being apart of TZM. In fact, a particular movement member on YouTube called Neanderthalcouzin in a video called Zeitgeist the Movie ≠ The Zeitgeist Movement and for those interested parties I would for people to watch the video and see the arguments against the assertion that the films are the movement. His arguments pretty much would some up mine far more eloquently that I might be able to give.

The other statement that “The Movement is remarkably inactive. You are not building cities. You are not making plans. You are not raising money. You are not lobbying politicians. You are not engaging in charity activities. You are not coordinating volunteers,” is largely perceptive and accurate but with one caveat I would add to it as the reason why that is and it is this:

TZM is only 3 years old currently, but we have many people who apparently subscribe to the ideals and notions that TZM puts forth. Thus we have a lot of work to do to get organized while at the same time promoting the movement. These past three years have been dedicated to three things which are

  1. Promoting the ideals and tenants of TZM
  2. Getting our numbers organized enough to be able to plan events on a local scale, thus allowing us experience in planning events in the future on a global scale.
  3. Developing means and methods of local and global communication along with setting up teams that could help with this and more.

This has been the point of TZM for the past 3 years and everything about it is volunteer, yet for some reason these three facts are not even mentioned or the fact that everything TZM members do is completely and absolutely volunteered with little to no direction by PJ. If PJ is a leader, then why do we have these instances where PJ has not dictated anything to me, Arya, or anyone in my local city chapter?

However, the very fact of me mentioning the chapters might in reality be glossed over due to the following statement he has made:

Don’t lecture me about “look at what the individual chapters are doing!” either. The activities of the individual chapters are so slipshod, scattered and uncoordinated that any modest achievements of the chapters are entirely incidental to the movement. It’s rare to find a chapter that’s doing anything more than “getting the word out” anyway.

I wonder what exactly Muertos meant by “the activities of the individual chapters are so slipshod, scattered and uncoordinated that any modest achievements of the chapters are entirely incidental to the movement?” Does he mean that the TZM chapter’s are not being unified as a whole, or are not acting as a whole in an attempt to do activist events? If that is the case then I can state the obvious, we are still trying to get organized. After having lecture’s being delivered by PJ and his radio addresses and other people organization their own lecture’s and blogtalk radio addresses, one can see that by viewing the history of the movement, it took about almost two years for us to get individual state chapters in the U.S. going while possible one year and a half for the International Channels to get set up. This being said, we are still in the process of organizing our numbers.

One example would be the recent  local chapter meeting I attended where we discussed possible future places to set up a regular activist area where we can always be found at, a way of setting up constant communication for each member in case we could engage in a way of contact others to help set up activist events and activist teams. I also proposed a more efficient way of setting up meetings so we can make sure to get the maximum amount of people to attend at one time. So even if what he says about us doing nothing but getting the word out is true, it is not a good idea to dismiss us as “scattered and uncoordinated” is not a fair assessment without even trying to bring attention to people the reason why that is. We are still organization, how long did it take for other world-wide activist organizations to get organized to where they would be able to have an impact Muertos? That’s what I thought.

Legitimate Correlation or Guilt by Association?

Before I go on, allow me to clarify something here… the word Zeitgeist has been used as a way to indicate as a way to put forth a correlation to TZM. In order to understand why this is a bogus correlation, one needs to ascertain the facts. In an interview of PJ by one Charles Robinson he states that “the Zeitgeist Movement was a very difficult decision for me. I could have just made Zeitgeist: Addendum, like other socially conscious film makers do, in the sense that I could have just said ‘Oh here’s a bunch of stuff, here’s a bunch of problems, hey here’s some possible solutions; take what you will with it and just roll with it and see what happens.’ I really was on the fence putting at the very end ‘join the movement, http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com…” That being said, TZM is not at all, in any way shape or form a planned movement. It was apparently a spontaneous decision and one that was a very difficult decision for PJ to make. Likewise we do find PJ clarify, numerous times in fact, on why the Zeitgeist Movement is named the way it is:

The term Zeitgeist is defined as the intellectual, moral, cultural climate of an era. The term Movement, simply implies motion or change. Therefore the Zeitgeist Movement is thus an organization that urges change the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.

It is this reason that PJ obviously picked the name for the movement. Later however he has made a statement that it is a lot easier for people to find this movement if he tacks it on as having the same name as his films, this may be an afterthought realization but that is very interesting. So thus, the films might have a relation in that respect, however as apart of discussion amongst us members, both on teamspeak meetings and local chapter meeting there would be no actual discussion of the things raised in the films. We mainly talk about social problems and way’s of getting around them, organization our local chapters, exchanging how we found the movement, etc…

Now one has to wonder what this all might have to do with Muertos’ article? Well quite simply he state’s that:

…He deliberately blurs the line, by doing things like using the name “Zeitgeist” on the movement that claims to have nothing to do with the films, when in fact it has everything to do with them

This is perhaps the weakest argument ever seen in my entire life to connect the films with the movement. This argument is by all means, nothing more and nothing less than the fallacy of guilt by association. The guilt by association is used by the following example.

  1. Author A cites person B on subject X
  2. Author B believes in conclusion C
  3. Author A must also believe in conclusion C since he/she cites person B.

Can PJ do anything on his own without it being tact TZM material/related?

If this wasn’t the case, why would he have spent the time and effort (and, possibly money) in reissuing Zeitgeist: The Movie with a supposed “companion guide” to refute the debunkers? If his views were so separate from those of the movement, why would this action have gotten so much attention within the movement?

That is correct, Muertos is obviously insinuating that TZM has anything to do with the origin of religion, astrotheology, christ mythology, etc… just because he puts out a companion guide and many members of the movement know about it. This is simply guilt by association yet again and to top it all off however, this would only be true IF TZM was a planned organization which it clearly was not given the above quote.

The insinuation of this being is that anything PJ does with the films, must be regarded as a promotion of the film, and thus anything he says outside the film’s are irrelevant to the goals of the movement. This is basically assuming, a priori, without explaining the reasons behind it (which he has yet to do) as to why the films are the movement. It is also engaging in the act of Circular Reasoning, which goes like this:

  1. Peter Joseph created the movement
  2. Peter Joseph created the movies
  3. TZM must be predicated upon the promotion of the films
  4. How do we know this?
  5. Repeat 1-3 ad nauseam throughout infinity.

This realm of logical thinking only works if you assume a priori without the need of consideration of the aforementioned facts that I just put forth. This, he will simply dismiss as just the practice of repeating rhetoric without examining the evidence, well in order to adequately dismiss he will have to address the obvious circular reasoning of the following argument along with the fact of why Michael Moore, etc… aren’t also leaders since movement members actually do hand out material by them, amongst the aforementioned quote’s.

Absolute control or a projection?

Because it is very clear that his public relations activities are geared toward demonstrating that he is in absolute control of the Zeitgeist Movement’s ideology, orthodoxy and coordination… He’s the one who decides that the Zeitgeist Movement won’t be raising money, won’t be working with this group or that group…

Does he? It would appear that this vacuous statement is without any source’s being offered… thus I am not required to respond to it without due prior assessment. But as far as the portion of saying that PJ is “the one who decides that the Zeitgeist Movement won’t be raising money” is a very interesting one to begin with. I am assuming this comes from a statement PJ said that about when the Zeitgeist Movement will be asking for donations is when we have a project that the movement as a whole is working on. This to me doesn’t seem to like a dictation or a deciding factor… it seems more like an obvious one. When I heard this statement, I didn’t even blink because I had it in my mind that it would be an obvious thing. Besides, how would projects be measured in regards to how well they are related to TZM? Obviously this will be made democratically, thus without any need to PJ saying “no this is not a project that TZM can endorse.”

This is an obvious projection of the control he wants to see PJ have… one has to wonder if he is making this up or if he simply is genuinely thinking PJ has any kind of dictatorship like control over movement members and their decisions in regards to activism.

Because Peter Joseph acts he must be the leader!

Douglas Mallette is doing interviews and videos too, but no one mistakes him for the leader of the Zeitgeist Movement, because it’s obvious he has no control over its direction. Similarly, even Jacque Fresco is not presented as a leader of the movement. What day-to-day control does he have? Indeed, what is he really doing, and what has he done for the last 35 years? Not much. By contrast, Merola is where all the action is. To deny he’s the leader is silly and makes the movement look hypocritical.

My response to this statement would be, so what? All this means is that PJ has more money available to put forth more actions than most movement members. I myself am pursuing my own educational means while I write this blog. I currently have very little amount of income at the moment (this should change sometime soon within the next 2-3 months) so I am currently limited in what I can do for the movement. I will be lucky if I am able to get a single book at about 20 dollar’s a month. However if I had more money, I would try to see about being more active in regards to promoting the movement. In fact, if I had the amount PJ had, I would be as active, if not more than PJ.

Let’s say hypothetically that I would be more active in organization event’s, speeches, etc… than PJ… would this make me the movement’s leader? Of course not,  the only reason why people know of PJ is because, like Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig, he is loud and he is active. Thus by following the logical train of thought Muertos gives, anyone who displays more activity in the movement than PJ in the promotion of its tenants then that makes them the movement leader? This logic is fallacious and makes no sense, thus the steps have to be revised in this train of reasoning.

They have a leader too, therefore you must have it as well!

Every movement has a leader.  The fact that you have one isn’t the problem; it’s the fact that you pretend you don’t, which is obviously false.  Why are you so embarrassed at Merola being your leader?  Could it be because acknowledging that he is the leader of the Zeitgeist Movement makes it harder for you to distance yourselves from his conspiracy theorizing and the bad press it generates?

So because every other movement has a leader that means we have one too? We have coordinator’s that could in fact be loosely connected as a sort of leader, but that is more based on meritocratic rather than a democratic election of said coordinator. I myself would have no problem for PJ being a leader, and I don’t mind the prospect myself, but the fact of the matter is he isn’t. However the fallacious premise of this is again, based on the guilt by association, both the conclusion and the premise to reach said notion is saying that because other groups have it, therefore we must have it as well.

Applying this logic to Judaism and Christianity, one can use Muertos’ own frame of logic by saying Christianity is just Judaism, since they both use the same book (the Old Testament). Yet it is very hard to convince almost anyone of this argument considering in the realm of categorical theology, Judaism is monotheistic and Christianity is obviously henotheistic; thus they are not comparable.

The only reason why PJ is constantly pointed to as the leader is because he is the person who created TZM, yet if one bothers to watch the video by Neanderthalcouzin you will see why this reasoning doesn’t make sense at all. There is no official stance on a lot of the subjects of the film, while in other areas the movement’s stance in other subjects of the films there is an official stance or a semi-official stance. So thus TZM’s stance on the subjects which are created thus have a mixed package of things which we do support and other things which we do not, while other things we have no stance on.

Ignoring the obvious

Me: “It just means he has more resources at his fingertips than anyone else and more time to devote to the cause of promoting the movement and spreading awareness of the movement. How does this qualify him as a leader? I don’t get it… that is like saying if I did the exact same thing, this would qualify me as a leader.”

Muertos: No, it wouldn’t, because as I explained above, no one has any illusions that you have any control over the Zeitgeist Movement’s ideology, orthodoxy or official dogma. You can’t write the “Knowledge Base,” expel people from the movement, determine what arguments will be used against your critics, or tell individual chapters that they shouldn’t be raising money for this project or that project. Only Merola can do those things, and there’s a reason why only he can do them: because he intends to remain in control of the movement.

Despite the fact that this ordeal is unsourced, he is obviously dodging the initial argument being raised. Need I say anymore?

Appointing mods and banning people

If Merola or somebody working with his official imprimatur isn’t appointing moderators on your board, who is?

Is a statement response against mine where I said that “can you substantiate that they are even appointed by him to begin with? Also, from what I remember their policy is to reach a democratic decision on who to ban and for what reason if there needs to be a meeting about such a thing,” which was itself a response to Muertos claiming that “He, and others appointed by him, determine who is in the movement and who will be banned and banished for not being supportive of it.”

Now as one can obviously see this is Muertos attempting to shift the burden of proof off of himself and onto me. I myself do not know how the moderator’s are appointed, neither is it something I care about as it has nothing to do with my own life, my movement activism or anything else as well. Such a thing doesn’t concern me. However, I am not the one who made a positive claim, Muertos was the one claiming this. However I doubt PJ has time to appoint every single moderator at this time in place. Perhaps he did when the movement started, but now it is doubtful to begin with.

However, regardless of the fact, the ability to appoint mods is nothing more than demonstrating PJ has control over the forums, which I do not dispute. He pays for the forum’s, he put’s money into it, therefore he obviously has the right to do whatever he wants with the forum to begin with. However that being said, such an implication does not mean he is the leader… to assume as such is basically to assume that all activist communication for the movement is on the forum’s, which is not the case. Sure it is the place where everyone can obviously see it, but not everything is going to be announced there. But regardless, it is not my job to prove Muertos wrong, it his job to answer the burden of proof, which he so adequately tried and failed to shift onto me.

One will wonder whether or not he is willing to actually answer it, or just skip over it by delivering some kind of non sequitur or red herring in order to not answer it… only his response will tell.

Ed, for example, who was banned for disputing Merola’s conclusions about 9/11.

I thought it was cause Ed contributed literally nothing to the movement other than 99% of his posts being nothing more and nothing than complaints about how much a bane the first movie is to the movement and confronting people about their stances on 9/11 that differ from his.

The next complaint is obviously that the forum to begin with has rules that people must follow along with the notion that PJ has set these rules up. What are these rules?

1. Please treat everyone with respect. Insulting, derogatory and/or any other disrespectful discourse is inappropriate and unacceptable.

2. Please do not engage in personal attacks (arguing with and/or attacking the person instead of addressing the topic) and try not to respond to such attacks, except to redirect the discussion to the topic.

3. Respect the specific category/channel designations within the forum, IRC and Teamspeak and their descriptions. If you cannot find an appropriate category for something and you feel that it relates to The Zeitgeist Movement, submit a reply in the Using the Forum Software category, in the thread New Category Suggestions – Submit Here, suggesting that a new category be created. For IRC and Teamspeak, contact an operator or admin for assistance.

4. Respect a Moderator’s decision to lock a topic, move a topic, delete a topic and/or prohibit further discourse, or request users move a particular discussion to another channel in IRC or Teamspeak. When topics are deleted, a placeholder will typically be left with the same or a modified title and a note stating that it was deleted (if you cannot find a topic, it does not necessarily mean it was deleted).

5. Please do not “bump” threads (replying with the word “bump”, or something similar, merely to move a thread to the top of the list), or repeat posts in IRC or Teamspeak (sometimes referred to as “flooding”). Users check the Recent Discussions because they prefer to view the most recent topics, not the topics that you want them to see. If you feel a topic deserves to remain visible, either post a suggestion in the Using the Forum Software category, or create a page for it in the wiki. Threads that are continuously bumped may be locked. Similarly, try not to duplicate threads (see below – General Advice, #2).

6. Do not post an individual’s contact information unless it is already publicly available (such as for elected officials), or you have been given explicit permission from the person to do so. Also, use discretion before posting your own contact information such as phone numbers. Private messaging is the best way to exchange personal info, if necessary.

7. Do not post anything which is illegal, or violent.  Posts advocating illegal or violent activity will be deleted immediately, and users banned without warning.

Now I have to wonder which he has a problem with more, the fact that we have rules or the fact that it was PJ who probably put them forth?

Leaps of Logic galore

Even the very concept of their being members and non-members contradicts your argument that TZM has no leaders or orthodoxy. If there was no gatekeeping function at all, then anybody could be a member simply by identifying themselves as such, regardless of what they believe or assert. Obviously this isn’t the case. My point is that somebody is making the determination that Belief X or Statement Y either is or is not consistent with the idea of being a member. Who is making that determination? Peter Merola is.

And… this leaping around in logic between point A to B and then skipping to F and then finally to the conclusion works how exactly?

I can’t really follow this garbled form of logic because it defies all methods and meaning’s and explanations as to why this logic would work but let’s go with it shall we?

  1. There are non-members
  2. There are members
  3. A distinction of members vs. non-members must be made
  4. Skip necessary step that would imply step 5
  5. That distinction must set forth by a leader
  6. That leader is PJ
  7. Skip necessary step that would imply the conclusion
  8. Conclusion, PJ is the leader?

However the answer is very simple, a movement member is someone who subscribes to the ideal’s, tenants, goals and directions of the movement and must accept as the basis for its goals at the least a Resource Based Economy. This is the standard procedure, since we are the activist arm of The Venus Project, logic should only follow we should be promoting a Resource Based Economy.

While it was PJ who obviously helped focus the direction of TZM, that does not indicate he is a leader, what it does indicate is that he is very influential over movement members. This is not really surprising considering he is in fact the one who created the movement to begin with, however this in no means should be an indicator as to him being the movement’s so-called faceless leader.

Core Generator of Interest ≠ Integral Part

Before we begin with this portion, let us examine some definitions shall we?

Core:

  1. A central and often foundational part usually distinct from the enveloping part by a difference in nature
  2. A basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity) <the staff had a core of experts> <the core of her beliefs>

Interest:

  1. a: A feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects, b: something that arouses such attention, a: a quality in a thing arousing interest.

Thus it is my contention that Muertos is playing semantics when he says that a core generator of interest equals and can be conflated with an integral part of the movement. Now what reason do I have for this? Well quite simply, a core generator of interest in the movement is the tracking and understanding of our current monetary system in order to point out the obvious flaws in said system. Now is this an integral part of the movement? Yes it is most definitely is, why? Because we see it in the lecture’s, in radio broadcasts, in things designated as official Zeitgeist Movement related and those related to TVP as well.

Let’s take another core generator of interest shall we? The first part of the first film being The Greatest Story Ever Told. Comparative mythology and the overall subjects of this portion of the film has a lot of interest for me personally. I was interested in these subjects before Zeitgeist came along but I digress, now does this mean it is an integral part of TZM? Of course not, not at all… in fact where is the mention of anything in Zeitgeist Movement related blog’s, video’s, lecture’s, radio broadcasts, etc… regarding The Greatest Story Ever Told? No where to be found at all, not even a mention of it. In fact,  you don’t even see it mentioned in the forums after PJ redirected all discussion regarding that portion of the film, is to go to Freethoughtnation.com.

This is again, as is mentioned before a mixed bag of things we do support and don’t support as apart of the movement.

However it is worse than that, he is even assuming that people join TZM because of conspiracy theories and getting upset about them.

People join the Zeitgeist Movement because they’re upset about conspiracies that Merola tells them (erroneously) exist.

This does not apply to me, or the vast majority of the people I know who have joined the movement. I joined the movement because I was sick and tired of living in a world full of inequality, the academic community and research being hindered by means of social-political-religious establishments, along geopolitical corruption running amok. In fact there is a channel on YouTube dedicated to mirroring video’s about why members advocate TZM, none of which involve being upset about Conspiracy Theories.

In fact when I think about TZM, I think about a resource based economy, the possible future we could have if we can enter into a high-rise technologically advance society without the need for a monetary system and without a forced conditioned through cultural processes. Throughout none of my thinking am I ever upset about Conspiracy Theories. Such an assertion needs to be sourced by Muertos and until he does, I will dismiss his statement as just a projection of what he wants to see, rather than what is actually there.

People shouldn’t have their own views while in the movement

It’s very clear that there’s a strong conspiracist bent in the movement, and neither Merola nor anyone else has done anything to eradicate it.  In fact, they invite it; for whatever bizarre reasons you want conspiracy theorists to be heavily involved with this movement, possibly because Merola views them as having “woken up” to “the truth,” and thus their opinions are, in his view, more valuable than those of people who don’t believe the same conspiracies that Merola does.

This statement by Muertos is very telling for obvious reasons, he seems to think that if you are apart of a movement for social change, you shouldn’t have your own personal views about Conspiracy Theories. In other words, I shouldn’t have my own view about it, because my personal view may be detrimental to the goals of the movement. So because we don’t discriminate against others and whatever their point is about Conspiracy Theories, then that must mean we are a conspiracy theory movement? Why is the promotion of said conspiracy theory movement very much lacking from TZM toolkit? Why is some of the recommended documentaries on TZM’s wiki article, that the only conspiracy theory films are The Money Masters, America: Freedom to Fascism, Fall of the Republic, The Obama Deception, 7/7 Ripple Effect and 9/11 Ripple Effect. Since there are one hundred and twenty-eight documentaries/video’s on that particular part of the site, and only 6 of them are conspiracy theory documentaries, one can draw the obvious conclusion that TZM members are not all that interested in conspiracy theories.

In fact, if I may be so bold as to quote my local chapter coordinator Arya about conspiracy theories:

I used to be into conspiracy theories when I found out about Zeitgeist: The Movie along with the things my family is involved in. But since I joined The Zeitgeist Movement, I don’t even care about Conspiracy Theories anymore. When it comes to 9/11… whatever the real truth is with that story, is probably in between the Demolition Theory and the Government’s Theory.

So… what was that about being upset about conspiracy theories being the reason that we join TZM? In fact, the whole reason PJ put forth the creation of TZM is to initiate the solution that a resource based economy.

Lying to promote his preconceived conclusion

This line of questioning assumes that Peter Merola’s lectures are relevant to the main tenets of the Zeitgeist Movement. They’re not. How do we know this? Because the Zeitgeist Movement takes no significant action to advance the ideas Merola talks about in his lectures. There’s no effort to implement the utopia he claims to believe in. Where there is a fundamental disconnect between the goals an organization says it is advancing, and the goals it is actually advancing, one judges that organization by what it is doing, not what it says. Therefore, Merola’s lectures are irrelevant.

As pointed out in the beginning, the lecture’s by Douglas Mallette, Ben McLeish, and other video’s which can be found on YouTube by movement members have done this. However, deliberately ignoring the fact that his lecture’s are found on the front page of TZM is not a compelling mode of argumentation.

The Source Guide

He hasn’t stopped talking about them at all. He talked about them for 220 pages in his “resource guide” released just a few months ago. How does this count as “stopping talking” about it?

Apparently I must have added onto the question “The Zeitgeist Movement” where I asked “Why is it that when TZM came into existence he basically stopped talking about 9/11, Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories, or has even mentioned Economic Hit Men or even John Perkins in his interviews?”

This being said however, he doesn’t promote conspiracy theories throughout the entire source guide, in fact about ninety-four pages of the source guide is dedicated to discussing the notions of The Greatest Story Ever Told, sixty-nine pages are dedicated to All the World’s a Stage, while 49 pages are dedicated to Don’t Mind the Men Behind The Curtain. This would be an obvious indication, that if anything is to be the core thing that TZM promotes, it wouldn’t be conspiracy theories, in fact it would be about Christ Mythology, Pagan Parallel’s and the work of D. M. Murdock. But do we find such promotion? No, of course don’t, not on behalf of TZM or as a promotion of the movement.

Misusing the source yet again

Guilt by association only works when the association is unintended. Merola clearly intends the association between the movement and conspiracy theories. He has said this explicitly on many occasions (here, again).  He wants this association.  You can’t point to a deliberate association by the leader of your movement and claim I’m being unfair by using “guilt by association.” It’s not guilt by association. It’s guilt by direct action.

He does give orders (see my link above where he directs movement members to deploy certain arguments against critics). He does create a standard for movement members, which you admitted by referring to the concept of there being members and non-members—someone is determining whose behavior fits the idea of being a “member” and who isn’t, and it is Merola who is doing that. (Example).  It couldn’t be clearer that he’s the leader.

The first source he gives is a Zeitgeist Movement blog about the U.S. Chapter, which initially has peter saying the following:

The only reason anyone has a problem with Z1 is because they invent it. Anyone semi-intelligent person who has eyes and cerebral cortex can see through the propaganda coming from the anti-z1 community as they try to apply it to the movement. Anyone who can’t think through it isn’t fit to understand the materials at that stage anyway. It is a progression.

I’m sorry to say, but as long as I am here – you have to deal with the bad press. Live with it.

There is no venus project movement. The venus project is and always has been a dataset Jacque never pushed a community agenda. In time, Zeitgeist I propaganda will fade our message is just that strong.

So here we can see, anyone just reading the text is obviously having PJ just answering a complaint about people who associate TZM with Zeitgeist: The Movie. What is he saying other than acknowledging that people are making the connection? Nothing, in fact the statement that “anyone semi-intelligent person who has eyes and cerebral cortex can see through the propaganda coming from the anti-z1 community as they try to apply it to the movement,” can see through the indication of the use of the word “propaganda” would indicate that PJ is not promoting the films “explicitly on many occasions.”

The other example he gives has PJ stating the following:

User “ED”: the long time dweller on 911 and how Z1 is going to destroy the movement, has been suspended until further notice. He has done nothing but complain about 911 for 15 months. He sits in Misc and waits for any break to undermine the movement. He has proven that he does not really care about the movement and does not fit the profile of a “member” by any stretch.

He has been told he can come back if he actually chooses to contribute something in regard to actual movement materials.

How is he ordering a standard? It is obvious that he is indicating banning Ed as simply being non-progressive toward TZM goals and tenants, and in fact in a previous article I indicated that PJ even stepped in to keep people from banning him, yet Muertos obviously doesn’t mention this e-mail for reasons that it would obviously hurt his own point. This constant misuse of sources along with the inability to even comprehend the lack of logic in his arguments seems to permeate the rest of his article and I will not continue with it.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that Muertos is a master at ignoring obvious facts that I have pointed out to him, word manipulation, doesn’t even bother to quote his sources directly and quite regularly misrepresent his own sources, when checked by anyone would prove him wrong, admits to manipulating the meaning of said source but doesn’t even realize it and he also engages in quite the amount of leaps of logical along with logical fallacies.

His article thus far, makes me skeptical of almost anything and everything that is on his blog (even if I were to agree with him) thus one can conclude based on this investigation of his sources and the response given here, that Muertos is not interested in being intellectually honest. He is only interested in summing up his vacuous statements by ignoring everything I say, to set out and promote a preconceived a priori assumption

Posted in Conspiracy Science, Criticisms, Muertos, Response Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

A General Overview of Conspiracy Science

by Devan Evans

Since the inception of the Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) and the Venus Project (TVP there have been many criticisms of it; from the truly paranoid (such as those that insist that we are an agent of the New World Order, Illuminati, Theosophical Society, etc…) to the truly legitimate (such as those who actually put forth concerns as to the transition plan that we may or may not have to some of the sciences that do not support our proposals; and no I am not talking about the debunked human nature crap) to the absolutely irrelevant (such as saying we are a cult group, we essentially are a group of conspiracy theorists promoting conspiracy theories) and to the completely ignorant (human nature, it’s not true free market, Ayn Rand says your wrong, the Zeitgeist Movement present no science to back up their claim).

In this article I will be giving mainly a general overview of some of the claims being made against us from the group people from http://www.conspiracyscience.com/ (CS) that is more along the lines of the irrelevant issues being put forth against us. This post is not really going to address any article in particular published by the group there but will essentially deal more with some of the overall forum posts along with commenting on some of the interesting tactics I have seen on the forum over there along with some of the most frequent things being raised over there in regards to both the TZM and TVP.

For those reading this information, all quotes, information and videos will be relegated to the footnotes as this has been the preferred method of sourcing for me for the past couple of months that I have been writing. So if people wish to see the sources merely look at the footnotes.

People banned for disagreeing with anything regarding TZM

This statement comes in very specific forum posts but the idea and notion is that specific users, have been banned because they essentially disagree with TZM, TVP, the two films and anything Zeitgeist related. It is also suggested that people’s threads are locked or pulled just for disagreeing with the Movement or “causing the slightest of stir” as such the statements go.

What one needs to be taken into consideration are the forum rules:

Conduct:

1. Please treat everyone with respect. Insulting, derogatory and/or any other disrespectful discourse is inappropriate and unacceptable.

2. Please do not engage in personal attacks (arguing with and/or attacking the person instead of addressing the topic) and try not to respond to such attacks, except to redirect the discussion to the topic

3. Respect the specific category/channel designations within the forum, IRC and Teamspeak and their descriptions. If you cannot find an appropriate category for something and you feel that it relates to The Zeitgeist Movement, submit a reply in the Using the Forum Software category, in the thread New Category Suggestions – Submit Here, suggesting that a new category be created. For IRC and Teamspeak, contact an operator or admin for assistance.

4. Respect a Moderator’s decision to lock a topic, move a topic, delete a topic and/or prohibit further discourse, or request users move a particular discussion to another channel in IRC or Teamspeak. When topics are deleted, a placeholder will typically be left with the same or a modified title and a note stating that it was deleted (if you cannot find a topic, it does not necessarily mean it was deleted).

5. Please do not “bump” threads (replying with the word “bump”, or something similar, merely to move a thread to the top of the list), or repeat posts in IRC or Teamspeak (sometimes referred to as “flooding”). Users check the Recent Discussions because they prefer to view the most recent topics, not the topics that you want them to see. If you feel a topic deserves to remain visible, either post a suggestion in the Using the Forum Software category, or create a page for it in the wiki. Threads that are continuously bumped may be locked. Similarly, try not to duplicate threads (see below – General Advice, #2).

6. Do not post an individual’s contact information unless it is already publicly available (such as for elected officials), or you have been given explicit permission from the person to do so. Also, use discretion before posting your own contact information such as phone numbers. Private messaging is the best way to exchange personal info, if necessary.[1]

This being mentioned these are very standard rules that are generally given in most forums whether it is about social issues, technology, politics or different forms of activism as opposed to TZM. So one must ask, did the particular users mentioned violate those particular rules in the forum? Well let us find out.

According to Peter Joseph (PJ) the user Nanos was suspended for “Basic Non-Interest in TZM direction / Constant Personal Attacks on myself / Constant undermining, nonconstructive criticisms,”[2] PJ also adds that “I have endured the slow motion Ad hominem attacks from this person long enough. For the past year I have looked the other way with regard to his overall disinterest in the zeitgeist movement’s actual direction, near constant yet very subtle arrogant attacks on myself, not to mention a basic undermining of our work in general with little real contribution made.”

So let’s take a look through cyberspace to see if Nanos was banned for the reasons PJ says he was shall we? The following are a few of the examples I was able to find that validates PJ’s statement:

“As Peter made money by trading in what was it now, the money markets, perhaps he can provide a helpful guide on how we can make money too from using money!

Or is that a little secret he wants to keep to himself.[3]

I would advise that there are many things you can’t dissent about.[4]

I’m sure someone could earn a little being paid to help pass the test for others..

Oh look at me, I@m talking, shouldn’t be doing that.[5]

So ironically some of the fault lays with eco-hippies intent on saving the environment. (Or at least their backyard if NIMBY’s.)

Then there is all those unecessary car journies we take and fill up with fuel.[6]

Well, Fresco wasn’t doing a good job with PR, so they got Peter in, he did a better job, so whats wrong with suggesting they get someone else in to do a better job, the same thing is happening with mods, they have been upgraded.”[7]

These examples are just a few that validate what PJ had spoken of earlier. Now naturally these are not all posts directed at PJ, but some others are directed at the movement; I myself had no problem with Nanos but being that I had only become recently aware of his banning I decided to look into some of his posts. I would like to state that I cannot go into every single one of his posts considering that if you type his name into the advanced search engine that 233 pages would appear. I did however read over 150 posts, tried my best to determine whether they were or were not what PJ had stated and then move on. If one wishes to merely see what Nanos had posted please then do so.[8] I would like to take this time though to mention is that out of the 150+ posts I had read of Nanos there are more than the 6 instances of him actually doing this, but I decided to only post 6 and move onto to continuing to read if I was perhaps in error; after continuing though I have come to the general conclusion that the reasons mentioned why he was banned is correct.

Another matter also concerns the accusation that Nanos was caught on other forums “where he has been found to also talk down the movement.” This would necessarily be a good reason as well considering most forums that I know of how would do the same.

Doing research on this particular I found out from a Zeitgeist Movement (ZM) admin in stating that “the funny thing is- Peter actually stopped Nanos from being banned about 10 times prior by other mods/admins.” I found this interesting and decided to contact Peter to see exactly what he had to say about this:

“Nanos had put myself and the movement down from the very beginning with direct personal attacks; with no actual reasoning to support any of it – the word would be “undermining.”

I was very, very patient and let it go – over and over again. I assumed he would “come around” – he didn’t. I even intervened at times when he was in heated debates with other mod’s/admin’s.

Yes – some  mod’s wanted him removed as he did not show real support or encourage our direction and made a hobby to attack me. Everything was a blanket criticism of some illusionist incompetency that went undefined.

But I let him stay… until he started to follow me around the forum making snide, deliberately agitating remarks about my “nice apartment” and my “trading” or the DVDs….essentially anything he could ever find to attack or criticize me about; he jumped on it, especially the issue of my supposed financial position and the idea that I am exploitative, etc. Frankly, I think it was rooted in a jealous immaturity. Overall, in the end, it was the fact that Nanos got others to think this way as well with his prolific posting, like a cancer cell and I refuse to let such social pathogens invade and hurt TZM’s growing culture.”[9]

Because of this one can obviously see that the banning of Nanos was not because he “disagreed” with TZM but because he essentially was a troll and began to harass PJ about specific’s that had no relevancy to the content of what he posts. This would be a legitimate banning and anyone in my eyes who has a problem with this needs to present evidence as to why I myself am wrong in my conclusion.

What about others though? Where there is one more I can point to which is a form member known as Ed. According to PJ he suspended Ed for the following reasons:

The long time dweller on 911 and how Z1 is going to destroy the movement, has been suspended until further notice. He has done nothing but complain about 911 for 15 months. He sits in Misc and waits for any break to undermine the movement. He has proven that he does not really care about the movement and does not fit the profile of a “member” by any stretch.

He has been told he can come back if he actually chooses to contribute something in regard to actual movement materials.[10]

In the same e-mail mentioned earlier PJ expanded on his reasons for banning the User known as Ed:

ED was also kept there, in part, by myself as well. Even more mod’s wanted to get rid of him because all he ever talked about was 911. He is an intellectual bigot in this context. An intellectual bigot is a person who forms an overall bias again a person because of something they believe in isolation.

In fact I met him in London after a lecture in passing and the VERY first thing he did was attack me on the 911 issue – this after a 4 hour lecture/talk about TZM… that is all he could come up with… pointless.

So according to PJ; all he ever talked about was the 911 issue along with how much of a bane the first film is to TZM. So the question that needs to be asked here, what did Ed contributed to the forums other than his talk about 911 and the first film AND was it relevant to the directions of the movement?

The problem though when one tries to look for posts by Ed that are relevant to the directions of TZM one quickly gives up due to the amount of posts he has done towards 911. The majority of his posts so far to me seem like they are relegated to the subject of 911 and the first film. If one wishes to verify this simply do so.[11] I however, by reading over 150 posts that were not relegated to 911 or the first film I came to the conclusion that Ed did not give any kind of contribution to the forums at all. This does literally nothing but distract members and people being banned off of a forum that has nothing to do with what is being advocated or the purpose of the forum to begin with is a very common place. One would not go to a forum dedicated to debunking Christianity and started badmouthing Islam; even though they may tolerate it for awhile, it brings the purpose of the forum off topic. So thus, Ed’s banning to me was justified and I share Peter’s view on this.

If Ed has any issue with this conclusion then all he has to do is provide a series of posts he has made regarding his contribution to TZM forums… otherwise he can just suck up and admit that he has some kind of obsession with a subject that has nothing to do with the direction of the movement itself.

There are others that I can mention although I will not in this article, I will dedicate a separate article that examines all of the members that were banned and that are said to have been banned for reasons of disagreements.

Integrity of the CS forums

This portion of the article will mainly be a small portion of another article that I will plan to write in the future, but this will be dedicated into examining the integrity of CS and its forum. This will not be a response article to a variety of those that have appeared there, but it will be responding to a few tidbits here and there; but mainly focus on the forums.

How one usually judges the integrity of a forum or any form of online communication whether it be a blog, an online chat room like those in Stickam.com, Paltalk.com and a few others is relatively simple and provides only 4 words: Honesty, Maturity and Intellectuality.

Honesty

This I believe (and CS would agree with me) is the most important part of any website or forum of communication. It allows for people to decide whether or not the people there are willing to be honest about their claims; however before we do this, one will need to define the word honesty.

Now there are those in the forums of TZM who apparently believe that 911 was an inside job (I do not anymore, but that’s another story altogether) CS will point back and say “but look, your dishonest too!” This is something I do not expect to happen but regardless we need to define what honesty is.

Honesty is usually defined as believing something to be genuinely true without the intent of deceiving others. This definition is possibly accepted by many people, both honest and dishonest people on the internet so therefore we can go with it. The term dishonesty is usually defined as claiming to believe what you do not and spread the belief with the intent to deceive others as a form of agenda. The agenda is usually something in regards to either spreading hate, intolerance (usually something you find intolerant as well) and for the purposes of monetary gain. These I think are sufficient definitions for the purpose of this part of the article.

For the purposes of keeping this relevant I will make sure to keep the posts in regards to TZM instead of anything else.

In a post by That Jerk Matt titled So I watched Future By Design where he states the following:

…This is a conspiracy flick. Oh, the gnashing of teeth and the tearing of hair that will no doubt cause Zeitgeisters who read this. But yeah, the damn thing totally relies on the narrative of evil outside forces somehow always stopping someone from saving the world. Someone always kills Fresco’s dreams. Someone always steals his patents. Nothing is ever Fresco’s fault, but he seems to take credit for everything. Classic CT…

The only tangible contribution Fresco seems to have made that the movie shows is in the area of pre-manufactured homes. It seems Fresco helped pioneer the creation of America’s trailer parks. Thanks, I guess.

If I had not gone into this already being skeptical of Fresco’s real background, I would imagine all these wild claims about why nothing is patented in his name and his intellectual dismissal of Albert Einstein would sound pretty impressive. The passing credit to Fuller also made me chuckle, because he made it sound like he was schooling Fuller rather than simply ripping off Fuller’s ideas.

The segment about the construction of the Venus Project is totally and completely dishonest. It makes it sound like these dome buildings and everything around them are using sustainable energy and food supplies. Well that’s bullshit. The Venus Project uses conventional energy and buys conventional food. Hell, you can see a damn satellite TV dish sticking up out of the ground. This segment did make me understand why Zeitgeisters are obsessed with palm trees and dome buildings. Its part of the dogma…[12]

The term conspiracy gets flung around the forum so much so that it is now becoming obviously clear that the people who state this do not understand what the word conspiracy means and how to apply it correctly. Conspiracy means a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.[13] So does Jacque really put forth CT’s?

A guy named Jack Welch, who was a film producer at the time… I met him at Warner Brothers Studios. He came to see the Trend Home and he was awed by everything fitting together so sensibly. And he said “How do you guys think of these things?” So I began to describe to him how I thought about things… then found me interesting and he said “Hey come on out to the house…” and he said “You think you can make a movie projector that projects 3D images without glasses?” So I said yes, he said “How do you know you can do it? You’ve never done it.” That’s right, but if it’s a physical phenomena, I think I can work it out. “How are you gonna do it?” I don’t know yet.

And what I did, is that I had many different applications… I got 3D imaging different ways and the simplest way was projecting the right and left eye image from behind a screen… Now then if you moved on to the side you lost your image and so Jack wanted technical to go the rest of the way. So he got them to come out and look at it.

They said “How do you do that? It’s very interesting,” I said “We’re not at liberty to discuss disclose that unless your back the next stage.” So they said “Well how do you maintain visual isolation?” I said “I still can’t discuss that with you.” So they look at it, it was super clear; no lines. They said “well that’s the best I’ve seen up to now but it fades some 30 degrees.” I said “Yes it does.”

“And at a distance it fades too, as yah move back.” So they said “Well, can you do anything about that?”

“Yes, that’s why you’re here… to take it to the next stage.”

So they said “Look Jacque, you get rid of the fad and you get rid of the distance problem, then call us.”

So, that died like the Trend Home died.[14]

Basically an incredible invention never got finished due to the fact that the people investing into the invention decided to quit because of other technical experts weren’t willing to back the invention to the next stage. This is not an uncommon theme among inventors, it happens quite regularly. This cannot be viewed as a “Conspiracy” as That Jerk Matt puts it. Jacque does talk about how an invention was made by him and how the patent was taken out in the contractor’s name. This is again, not an unusual event that inventors end up going through. It’s something that happens quite regularly but not because of some kind of complex conspiracy but due to the very nature of the business. People gain credit and notoriety for putting forth inventions, so the need or want to become famous is not an accusation of conspiracy, but is explaining how inventors get their patents stolen; through the want of notoriety (i.e. Greed).

To say this is a “conspiracy flick” is to basically write off any other inventors story of the exact same thing happening to them as calling them conspiracy theorists. This is a very dishonest tactic in and of itself.

The other portion about the notion that the only thing Jacque Fresco even invented that was worthwhile was the Trend Home; which I find very, very dishonest considering that a variety of other inventions were mentioned, such as medical and dental devices, home appliances, etc… It is interesting to note that That Jerk Matt is leaving this information out, I wonder if it has to do with his selective hearing and seeing that may have been created by his own bias.

The story of Albert Einstein was about how Jacque met him and how they discussed things. In his own words Jacque says that Einstein “ didn’t seem to be in that area” that Fresco was more interested in. In other words Fresco was simply saying that while Einstein was brilliant he wasn’t interested in the same things Jacque was. This does not translate at all into Jacque being “dismissal of Albert Einstein,” it just means they were interested in completely different subjects. This is another form of dishonesty, and what’s more is that the only time Jacque referred to Mr. Fuller was when he was talking to him about “social things.” Jacque even stated that “this is years before he even lectured on things,” so to say that Fresco “was schooling Fuller” is also dishonest as well.

The portion about the Jacque’s designing for TVP site is also completely misleading, nowhere in the movie did Fresco, the Narrator or even Roxanne say that they were “using sustainable energy and food supplies,” nor anywhere did they hint at the idea to begin with. Where he got this I have no idea because it doesn’t exist. Those who even bother to watch Future by Design will see that this is a blatant lie and only serves as even more dishonesty within his statement.

One can say that this is just the views of one person, and one person does not constitute to the entire view of the forum being dishonest. One may very well say that this is not a series of lies as they are mistakes. However as the title denotes it basically states that he watched Future by Design and came up with a series of objections to the films that did not exist and made several accusations that were blatantly false.

Another example of of something that is blatantly false and a bit immature at that is the statement that the “narrator sucks. I mean really sucks. He sounds like he weighs 800 pounds and is constantly breathing through his mouth.” One wonders exactly as to where, how and when this was happening, after viewing the film four times just to see what That Jerk Matt was even referring too; I concluded that he was just either making it up or he watched a bad online version of the film. However one could easily go for the former as I am than the latter.

As far as the entire forum goes, about 6 members of the forum (which constitutes about half of the entire forum; especially more so since the users Sky and Ed made posts without trying to correct him on his huge errors in his review; it also seems interesting that a poster known as Edward Scissorhands made a post agreeing with it and he posts regular under the name of anticultist here on Word Press) these people of the main contributors to the forums, so I find it interesting that they are willing and able to allow someone to lie and be blatantly dishonest about a film without correcting the person.

Many people will say that this is one single post and does not constitute the amount of posts being made by the forum as a whole towards TZM, I however beg to differ. A more thorough article will be published later online which will be entitled Integrity of ConspiracyScience.com.

Maturity

Another thing that is needed in any form of internet discussion is the level of maturity that is needed. This basically allows for people to gauge as to whether or not the forum, online chat room, etc… is indeed worth ones time to engage in regards to intellectual discussions. Because of the nature of this article I will, like that of the honesty part of this article I will mainly be examining posts that have to do with TZM or towards ZM members.

In regards to a post made by the very same user known as That Jerk Matt which was mentioned before he basically starts ridiculing a post that franklee had made[15] where later on he states that “IM A COLLECTOR OF FUCKING MORONS. I HAVE ABOUT 100 FIGURINES, AND OTHER COLLECTIBLES SO FAR, AS WELL AS HUNDREDS OF IMAGES ON MY COMPUTER.”[16] However this is again one user and the same user being made… however they do allow and at times encourage his behavior. If you look at all the posts he has made towards TZM you will see that nobody seems to try and direct his attention to the issues being raised in the forum. However these are not the only posts being made that are blatantly immature and trollish in nature. One post which was made towards myself was by Edward Scissorhands saying that “This dumb fuck who makes youtube videos with a blue glow in the dark dildo microphone thinks he can do what scientists havent managed to do for erm a century.”[17]

I find it interesting that the level of immaturity that is allowed to go in the forum as if the entire basis for the forum is simply to ridicule others that they think are in the wrong. Such behaviors warrants that they are not interested in critical thinking; thus by conclusion they cannot by any means actually have a discussion that is critical in thought.

This being seen I don’t think that there is any actual reason for me to continue beyond this point; however, as is said before a future article will be shown to make sense of the people there and to see whether or not they can be viewed as intellectuals rather than trolls as one can see how they particularly act against those they do not like.

Conclusion

I have decided to end this article in order to give a conclusion of my views to Conspiracy Science in order that I may begin work on future articles that I will be doing later on CS and many of the posters there.

My view mainly over viewing the forums for about nearly a week and researching some of these claims that are made by them shows that they are not interested in accuracy, honesty or even consistency. There are a few things left untouched due to the very fact that they will require more in depth amount of discussion and research than this article will allow, and given that this is not meant to be specifically designated towards any particular claim I thought it would be prudent to direct people to the forum and search for their posts on the idea that Human Nature refutes TZM, that our position is in support of the blank slate theory to support our proposals and the articles by anticultist.

These notions from what I have found are mainly strawman statements, and I will be responding to a particular article by Muertos and those made by anticultist in some future posts.

“Don’t take my word for it, think for yourselves!” – KingHeathen


[1] http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=rules

[2]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=60&id=154760&limit=10&limitstart=60#265807

[3]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=264550&limit=10&limitstart=110#265734

[4]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=264550&limit=10&limitstart=30#264892

[5]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=264550&limit=10&limitstart=40#265020

[6]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=235&id=264742#264820

[7]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=3&id=224624&limit=10&limitstart=60#226033

[8]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=advsearch&q=&searchuser=Nanos&exactname=1&childforums=1&limitstart=10

[9] This is an edited version of the actual e-mail, but for those wanting the forwarded e-mail please contact me at voiceofreason467@yahoo.com

[10]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=60&id=154760&limit=10&limitstart=40#242731

[11]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=advsearch&searchuser=Ed&exactname=1&childforums=1

[12]http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/so-i-watched-future-by-design#post-13935

[13] http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1235509#m_en_us1235509

[14] Future by Design, Dir. William Gazecki, Starring Jacque Fresco, DocFlix Corp. 2006

[15]http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=230&id=276446#276581

[16] http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/zeitgeister-reacts-to-brian-dunnings-here-be-dragons#post-14650

[17] http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/no-voice-of-reason-you-cannot-refute-the-human-nature-argument#post-13997, the exact same user created a photoshop image with a caption being Voice of Meth – http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5478/vom.png

Posted in Conspiracy Science, Criticisms | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 31 Comments

Response article or kneejerk reaction?

By Devan Evans

On June 1st 2010 at 1:26am I received a response to one of my articles entitled Responding to Keith Thompson’s “Refutation of Acharya S’s followers at ‘Feethought Nation’”[1] where I attempted to respond to an article called Refutation of Acharya S’s followers at ‘Feethought Nation’ Regarding ‘Aquarius: The Age of Evil.[2] The article is entitled A Zeitologist Attempts to Defend Acharya S’s Followers at ‘Freethought Nation’[3]which may in my own opinion either be a response or some kind of knee jerk reaction. Let’s find out shall we?

Strawman in the title

However as the title of his article suggests one might think that I was going out of my way to defend Acharya. Nowhere throughout my entire article post have I ever made an attempt to paint my position as a defense of Acharya and the article quite clearly states why I made the response in the first place:

“I may also add that the reason this is appearing on this particular blog is due to the fact that Keith has been making a variety of claims within his films since the release of one Zeitgeist Part One Exposed (of which I am working on a response article for that as well) and several of them are geared towards painting to the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus project as being Communist/New Age/Socialism/NOW (New World Order) and attempts to link Acharya to this movement as well. Being that Acharya herself is being accused of these things only due to the fact of the movement coming into creation I thought it would be prudent that a member of the ZGM would respond to some of the disinformation.”

No where have I ever identified myself as trying to defend anyone; this was purely a response to Keith’s accusations against Acharya. Nothing more nothing less, this essentially is a strawman that Keith tries to put forth which he has done to me as well as against people like ChelevSaRa where he stated that “Zeitgeist supporters are now defending Helena Blavatsky in order to maintain credibility;”[4] yet ChelevSaRa himself has stated that he was not doing any such thing and that that he “did not defend Helena Blavatsky! Alright, when I was pointing out that she was not actually a Satan worshipper I wasn’t doing that for purpose of defending her, I was doing that for the purpose of pointing out that Keith is a fucking liar!”[5]

We are not the only people he has done this to; Keith has also tried strawmaning Anton LaVey as a Satan worshipper in his film Exposing the Satan Empire:

“People who are in positions to recognize the elements of Satanism, have noticed the similarities between Satanism and Freemasonry. Anton Szander LaVey the founder of the Church of Satan wrote a book called The Satanic Rituals.”[6]

Keith misrepresents LaVey as being someone who actually worships Satan and believes he founded the Church of Satan to worship an actual being. Of course Keith overlooked something very detrimental to such a statement which is found on the website itself:

“Religion is the most important thing in a person’s life. If electric trains are the most pervasive thing in one’s life, that is his religion. Anything can be a religion if it means a lot. If your present religion isn’t the most important thing in your life, then skip it. Find whatever impels you most and make that your religion.

Religions are easy to invent. Most traditional religions have little or nothing to do with reality, are dependent on obfuscation, interpretation, guilt, and unreasoning faith—some more than others. Since Satanism is essentially a religion of the self, it holds that the individual and his personal needs comes first. If that means playing with trains or spike-heeled shoes or singing in the bathtub, those are its sacraments and devotions. Taking inventory of old comic books is counting beads on a rosary, each book being a station of the cross…

All activity that consumes, therefore, should be recognized as being both religious and fetishistic. A Satanist whose hobby or fetish is Satanism per se, is no more of a Satanist than one who, realizing the indulgence advocated by Satanism, accepts the Name. The difference between the man or woman who’s a practicing Satanist, from an identity Satanist is that the practicing Satanist looks at the picture, while the identity Satanist studies the frame.

Those who disparage and belittle the Church of Satan to an obsessive degree reveal their fetish. In reality and practice, by their consuming interest, they reveal their true religion to be—the Church of Satan. Otherwise, they would turn on their heel, walk away, and refuse to subject themselves to that which they need not. Clearly, they need us. We don’t need them.”[7]

This shows that the Church of Satan endorses a philosophy and not the worship of a red tailed horned imp with a pitch fork. Thus far it should come as no surprise to anyone who thinks that Keith will strawman my own position.

Attacking the character and Calling the Kettle Black

“Normally I would not give pseudo-intellectual internet atheists, who have done nothing to demonstrate that they grasp important issues, a platform to spread disinformation. Devan Evans (AKA voiceofreason467 on youtube) does not write for any respected websites. He has never presented anything meaningful representing his own views (i.e., articles for a respected website, documentary films, books, interviews, debates etc). Therefore one may ask why time would be wasted on this young man’s assertions when there are so many important issues at hand. This person has been shown to literally be an incoherent cowardly racist, racism supporter, who will gladly lie to the faces of the few people who waste time watching his 5 to 10 minute videos on youtube. One can see why I was hesitant to give him a platform to voice his illogic and write an article addressing him. But, because he has deluded himself into thinking he has produced something of substance on his little blog, which he terms “… the official response blog to the accusations, rebuttal’s and logical fallacies made against the Zeitgeist Movement, the Venus Project, along with the two films,” even though Peter Joseph and the Venus project have not endorsed him or his blog as the official anything, I have decided to refute him for his own good and for the good of those deceived by him and others like him.”

This is a very interesting way to start off an article, with a series of personal attacks aimed at my persona instead of an expository of my views, position and what is it I do as he can ascertain. Instead he seems very persistent in attacking my character. He has done this numerous times throughout any bit of dialogue that he and I would go into. He has even called me “a gay scum.”[8] It is not really surprising considering he does this act quite regularly with insulting others. I do not recall myself insulting Keith at all, in fact I remember giving quite an unbiased view of his overall position and what he does:

“Keith is himself a self-proclaimed researcher, debater, film director, Christian and “scholar.” He himself has written many articles, directed/edited/produced four documentaries thus far and went into a series of debates upon the subject. He is also an anti-mason, very anti-catholic and identifies himself as being very patriotic towards the U.S.A. (even though he lives in Canada and not in the states).”

One must wonder why the hostility towards my character is relevant to this article at all. What is also interesting as well is the notion of me being a “racist.” This is very curious why Keith would even bring this up to begin with… what relevance does this have to the article to begin with? I think I should answer that one myself: none. The article is supposed to be a response to mine, not an attack on my character.

Another assumption is that I do “not write for any respected websites.” This is very interesting because he himself is selling his film Aquarius: The Age of Evil on a place where they sell “documentaries” on conspiracies regarding the academic community such as Extreme Human Antiquity,[9] a documentary that talks about the notion of Jesus in America[10] and finally a documentary on Parapsychology.[11] He also writes for a Christian Apologist website called Answering Islam. These I would not consider scholarly websites as they are only both apologist websites and conspiracy theory websites. Also by saying that I “never presented anything meaningful representing his own views (i.e., articles for a respected website, documentary films, books, interviews, debates etc)” is also an interesting double standard considering his films are endorsed only by him (with the exception of the last one but the website itself has very dubious material), the majority of his articles are mainly on his own website (used to be his BlogSpot but now he is claiming to closing his blog) along with an apologist website and his debates are endorsed only by him and not by scholarly websites. This is much like the pot calling the kettle black as well as adding a strawman and an ad hominem to boot.

Deceitful tactics and superiority complexes

Another interesting part within this article is he states that “because he has deluded himself into thinking he has produced something of substance on his little blog, which he terms “… the official response blog to the accusations, rebuttal’s and logical fallacies made against the Zeitgeist Movement, the Venus Project, along with the two films,” even though Peter Joseph and the Venus project have not endorsed him or his blog as the official anything, I have decided to refute him for his own good and for the good of those deceived by him and others like him.” This is a very deceitful tactic in and of itself to begin an article like this. It gives the psychological effect that nobody should even bother reading my article to begin because he says it is trash.  Interestingly enough I myself did not actually do this, I dealt within the accusations first and then afterword’s I made a conclusion along with a few points here and there after I made my original argument.

I would also like to respond to the assumption that anyone in the movement needs endorsement to do anything via Peter Joseph (PJ) and/or Jacque Fresco (JF) in order to make something like this. This goes on the assumption that both of which are leaders of the Zeitgeist Movement, this is not the case. PJ considers himself as a spokesman for the movement (or lead spokesman if you would like the term), which is not the same as a leader. The same goes with JF as well, so one does not need endorsement in order to represent the movement. However if PJ does denounce this blog and myself then I suppose there is nothing I can do than say that I need to resolve this denunciation of me and this blog.

Keith seems to have a superiority complex making these statements of what I do and do not do and that I am not even worth his time. He also assumes what I am doing off the internet; he assumes that I do not do a job in the academic world or that the only medium I have to express myself is YouTube (YT) and WordPress (WP). This notion is an assumption with no real objective evidence or basis for his notion.

“This is a person who doesn’t know the difference between Arianism, the doctrine of Arius the heretic who said Jesus was the first creation, and the Aryan race concept that Hitler supported. These kind of blunders are a regular occurrence for Devan Evans and he therefore he embarrasses himself continuously.”

Interestingly enough this really has nothing to do with my original article yet again. This statement has to do with a misspelling of a word I used to ask Yuratchka a particular question in regards to his Arian belief. I told him that I accidently misspelled it and Keith essentially took the opportunity to start throwing out insults.[12] One can read the entire conversation in the footnotes in order to ascertain the truth of this instead of taking my word for it.

This being put into perspective one can see that Keith has lied in order to serve his own superiority complex in trying to make me look like a fool; this is an interesting tactic for Keith as he tries to utilize this entire method again and again throughout the article as one will see through this response.

“Devan has devoted his time to defending Acharya S, a woman who believes in the lost city of Atlantis, the New Age of Aquarius and the Christ myth theory as well as the “Freethought nation” forum by attempting to address my recent article: “Refutation of Acharya S’s followers at ‘Feethought Nation’ Regarding ‘Aquarius: The Age of Evil,’” wherein I demonstrate the error of these people.”

Within the article himself he declares very interestingly that Acharya “believes in the lost city of Atlantis.” There are no footnote entries for this, nor is there any actual mention of the Lost City of Atlantis in any of her books. I could find no information on any articles or forum posts she has made on the internet about this subject. Keith has to actually provide evidence of this statement and since no evidence is given there should be no reason for me to even say that this is even true.

As far as the “New Age of Aquarius” accusation I will decide to either deal with that in this article or a future one which will completely debunk the notion. The only thing I can endorse as being true is the statement of “the Christ myth theory.”

“It is obvious that Devan, a Zeitologist who was sucked into the thoroughly exposed and discredited Zeitgeist films and movement, is trying to find his place in this world. He is seeking attention and publicity and thus he has begged me to write this article in a wild eyed frantic video. However, coming at me is not a good way to make himself known. It will just result in him being thoroughly refuted. Feeling sympathy for the delusion that this young man suffers from I thought it would be necessary to show that it is very easy to refute his simple errors and erroneous arguments. I hope to give him a reality check and deliver him from his New Age delusion by writing this reply to his blog post. I do not hate Devan and I wish him well but I do intend to completely refute and expose his false and dangerous utopian belief system.”

The reason for the video being made is due to the fact that I was getting tired of him yelling at me the words “you are strawmaning me” without information on why, how or what way I am strawmaning him and instead making the very same argument I already dealt with in the previous article. It wasn’t a “wild eyed frantic video” either it was more of a rant of myself getting sick and tired of his statements.

Keith also seems to think that I am trying to get myself known by people. I am not; I am trying to get him into a dialogue so thus Keith has yet misrepresented my meaning for this and even yet again tries to make himself seem important. Having support from a group of people who are interesting in preparing for the rapture, speaking in tongues and whom of which believe that the Antichrist is walking this earth as supporters is not a very good group to make. In fact it makes one seem very unstable in the mind at the least. This is not however a character assassination or an ad hominem, I am simply stating an observation.

A position rooted in logical discourse or just another logical fallacy?

Keith apparently puts forth the following:

“In my article addressing Luva over at Freethought Nation I responded to her argument which said that Acharya S has never read or cited Alice Bailey. She asserted this based on the fact that in my film Aquarius: The Age of Evil, Eric Brame highlighted that a lot of what Acharya S says regarding a progressive New Age of Aquarius, where humanity comes together, is not new. This rhetoric is found in early New Age literature including Alice Bailey’s books. My response was that although Acharya S may not have cited Alice Bailey, which would show she is familiar with one of the many people who helped popularize her world view (i.e., New Age of Aquarius progressiveness), Acharya has in fact cited other prominent New Agers and Theosophists like Helena Blavatsky (co-founder of the Theosophical Society) and Rudolf Steiner (former President of the European branch of the Theosophical Society). Therefore I stated:

“… when Luva asserts that Acharya has never cited Alice Bailey – it is a meaningless objection in light of the fact that Acharya cites other Theosophists who all similarly advocate the Aquarian New Age uniting of mankind – the same thing Acharya calls for… ”

“We know where the beliefs of Acharya and other New Agers come from, the Theosophical Society, Freemasonry and other occult groups. Acharya even cites them in her books so it is no shock to discover that she was influenced by them with respect to her New Age of Aquarius utopian beliefs”

It should be clear that my argument is that Acharya advocates a progressive New Age of Aquarius concept on her own. This ideology can be found in early Theosophical literature. And Acharya cites the people who popularized this belief showing she is aware of these Theosophists and views them as authoritative sources. That is the argument. My argument is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN that Acharya S cites these Theosophists specifically regarding the New Age concepts, just that she cites them. This is important because it would be one thing if Acharya S promotes their world view (Age of Aquarius progressiveness) but never cites them as authorities that she looks up to for information. But it would be another thing if she promotes their world view while also citing them as authorities on various issues. This would give validity to my argument in that it shows that Acharya is not ignorant of the Theosophists and occultists who popularized her world view. That is the argument. However, Devan seemingly mistakenly understood my argument to be that Acharya S cites these people promoting the New Age of Aquarius progressiveness. But that is not my argument. Notice the irrelevant straw man:

“Does Acharya quote H. P. Blavatsky in The Christ Conspiracy? Of Course! Does she cite another member? Yes! Keith however is not looking at HOW she is citing them or he is blatantly ignoring it on purpose.”

Notice Devan concedes that Acharya cites Blavatsky, a woman who founded the New Age and popularized the New Age of Aquarius progressive beliefs. This is all that is required for my argument. However, Devan seems to think that if he shows that Acharya cites Blavatsky on things other than the New Age it somehow refutes what I am saying. But, it doesn’t. Acharya could cite Blavatsky saying anything it doesn’t matter. The point is that she cites her and this shows that not only does Acharya S advocate the New Age of Aquarius progressive beliefs found in early Theosophical literature, but she also quotes these Theosophists in her writings as authoritative sources showing that she views them in high esteem and as reliable people. Therefore it is irrelevant how she cites Blavatsky as I am NOT saying she cites them talking about the Age of Aquarius. This is the first straw man.

Devan makes the same mistake regarding how Acharya S cites Rudolf Steiner. But again, that is irrelevant. The point is that Steiners book is listed in Acharya’s book. I don’t and never have cared how she cites him because I am not arguing that she cites them speaking of the New Age.”

It’s interesting that his position is completely and utterly illogical, it’s like saying that “I quote Freemasons and I cite Freemasons, so by contrast I must be a Freemason.” Keith’s own position is unfalsifiable and thus needs to be revised.

So thus I put forth an observation to Keith’s statement that if she really is trying to put forth a Utopia based upon the Age of Aquarius, she should have source citations supporting this from Theosophists. My own position is that she does not do this, nowhere in her book The Christ Conspiracy is there ever mention of a Utopia based on the Age of Aquarius.

I find it interesting that Keith says that “it is irrelevant how she cites Blavatsky.” How can one even say that it is irrelevant? In order to claim Acharya is promoting a One World Religion under a Utopian Aquarian system and that she is externalizing this belief from Blavatsky; then the relevance is very high and to simply just brush it off as irrelevant is to show that Keith is not interested in being corrected or even interesting in being proven wrong. Thus no matter what I will do he will claim that he is in the right.

He also makes the very same exact statement about Rudolf Steiner saying “that is irrelevant.” I am kind of curious to know why Keith finds it completely irrelevant even though the relevancy is very high when trying to establish she is drawing these beliefs from Theosophists. Keith’s position seems to be a fallacy called Guilt by Association. In other words Author A cites person B on Subject C, person B believes in D so person A must also believe in D. This is a fallacious way to pride one’s own position and thus Keith’s position has been shown to be neither logical nor falsifiable.

Keith’s own current position is Moving the Goal Post considering that he himself states in his film New Age Infiltration of the Truth Movement that Acharya is externalizing her beliefs via Theosophists. Now he is saying it is irrelevant how she cites them yet he puts so much effort into the idea and notion that she does cite them (in particular H. P. Blavatsky) when he “exposes” her.

This should be enough to discredit Keith but I am not done yet with his article so thus we will continue into what I deem as a trip down the rabbit hole

Keith object’s to his misquoting of the Christ Conspiracy

This is an interesting part of the article as when I pointed out to Keith that he “get’s the page numbers completely wrong.” This was not an attempt to criticize his argument or anything of the like; it was merely to point to him that he made a mistake in the article. His response to this however is thus:

“This is a mistake on Devans part. What I cited from Acharya’s book was the footnotes found at the end of each chapter. This is where Acharya lists the books she cites in the preceding bodies of text. If you go to the pages I refer people to in her book you will see that it is the footnote sections of her book at the end of each chapter where she lists the people she cites and thus I am not mis-citing at all. Devan seems to think I was trying to always cite the main body of text where Blavatsky’s quotes are found, however that is incorrect. If Devan can’t go to the pages I cite, doing proper investigative research and see that Blavatsky’s and Steiner’s names are listed there and figure out that I was intentionally citing Acharya’s footnote section, then Devan demonstrates that he does not know how to do research.”

Keith’s reasoning for citing the pages is to cite the footnotes. The pages of course in his other article regarding both Blavatsky and Steiner are “pp. 103, 103, 125, 126, 295, 355 etc… pps. 30, 48 etc,” while the statement of course is correct where both Blavatsky and Steiner appear in the pages given, this is not what is indicated in the footnote itself. It states that “Acharya S cites Blavatsky numerous times in her book The Christ Conspiracy… She also cites prominent Theosophist Rudolf Steiner numerous times.” In other words it would be more prudent to cite where the quote is given rather than simply cite the footnotes. This is poor source citation and a tactic of moving the goal post when shown that he made a mistake.

What’s interesting about this is that Keith seems to think that me not knowing his intention of citing the footnotes automatically makes me “not know how to do research.” It was not expounded upon via the footnotes, I did check the pages but I thought that he was going via an online pdf version (which would explain why he would get the quote wrong and decided to correct it). It was not something I expanded upon because it simply a correcting him in a very small minute area, the very fact that he would even address this shows that somehow I must have hit a nerve without meaning it.

Keith ignores my original statement yet again about Rudolf Steiner in saying that “but he also puts forth an “etc” where in fact there are only two citations from Rudolf Steiner.” Instead of Keith seeing this in error and correcting himself he sees that he has to ignore this mention and completely omit it from his response. I also provided the fact that while she cites Steiner this does not mean that she is quoting them. His response to this previously as saying he “never have cared how she cites him.” This shows that he is not interesting in being honest on specific critical things that would inevitably change his position, he is in it for the intellectual dishonesty that he himself has admitted over, and over and over again throughout this article.

Repeating an already dealt with argument

Keith, instead of simply providing an argument to the context of which I put forth repeats his same old argument with a few brand new addon’s to it to make it seem meaningful:

“In my initial paper I provide the following argument quoting Acharya S:

“But the future is now and the manoeuvres are being unveiled. As far as Christianity’s role inthis new age Carpenter states: “Christianity therefore as I say must either now come frankly forward and acknowledge it’s parentage from the great order of the past, seek to rehabilitate that and carry mankind one step forward in the path of evolution – or else it must perish, there is no alternative.” Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age… The age referred to in the gospel tale is that of Pisces, and, through contrivance and duplicity, coercion and slaughter, the fish-god “Jesus,” the Piscean Solar Avatar, has indeed been with us, but now it is the close of the age, and his time is over… As Hancock says, “We live today in an astrological no man’s land at the end of the ‘Age of Pisces,’ on the threshold of the ‘New Age’ of Aquarius. Traditionally these times of transition between one age and the next have been regarded as ill-omened.” Ill-Omened verily as the ongoing destruction of the earth and the endless warfare over ideology will indeed produce the ‘Armageddon” so long awaited and planned by those who cannot live for today but must look towards an afterlife. By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world.”

“From these statements we see that Acharya S believes we are approaching the New Age of Aquarius. She says that it is a FACT that we are entering this Age and that if only humanity would come to realize the cultural unity surrounding the “Christ Conspiracy” (i.e., that Jesus is a conspiracy based on astrology) humanity could come together in this New Age and prevent a fall by creating a better world together. This belief that humanity will come together for the New Age of Aquarius was a belief promoted by the founders of the modern New Age movement – the Theosophical Society.”

Instead of addressing the fact that Acharya S states that it is a FACT that the New Age of Aquarius is real and that humanity should pull together creating a better world in light of the supposed cultural unity behind the Christ conspiracy, Devan merely quotes a few pages where Acharya talks about the later Catholic Dark Ages, how Christianity is supposedly responsible for millions of deaths, how the Bible supposedly enables and supports racism and bigotry as well as some claims about Christianity being created by a secret brotherhood designed to empower certain individuals. However, I am not Catholic so I do not need to defend Catholic atrocities. But, even if this was all true, which it isn’t and has been refuted since 2001 when Dr. Mike Licona refuted Acharya’s S’ book in an article, Devan still doesn’t address the fact that Acharya S is promoting the Age of Aquarius as a solution. However, the Age of Aquarius progressive solution has long been seen to be a one world utopia, which if carried out in systems like the Zeitgeist Venus Project, the potential of a disastrous rise of misplaced power is present. The fact that many Freemasons, Theosophists and high level occult elites like Barbera Marx Hubbard, David Spangler, Robert Muller and others await the Age of Aquarius one world system shows that it is not Christianity which seeks to enable powerful people by creating a one world system, it is the New Age ideology that does so.

Instead of providing argumentation proving that the few pages Devon quotes refutes the fact that Acharya promotes the New Age of Aquarius as a progressive solution whereby humanity unites, Devan just claims that the “context” says otherwise. However, he fails to convincingly show that the context that he provides refutes my position. Devan claims:

“As one can see via the context of the quote is that Acharya was not advocating an “Aquarian one world.” This shows that Keith is not only deliberately quote mining, but also playing semantic trickery in order to establish the basis for this argument.”

I’m sorry; merely claiming I am wrong and that the context is not that of Aqarian New Age ideology is not an argument. You have to explain in detail why those few extra pages that you quote refute my argument. I have already stated in my past work that Acharya S blames Christianity for the problems of the world and then offers a New Age solution. So, merely showing that Acharya first blames Christianity for the problems of the world (which is what that supposed “context” does) and then offers a New Age solution does nothing to tear down what I am saying in regard to her New Age statements. In fact in my film New Age Infiltration of the Truth Movement I have already addressed this:

She is blaming Theists, namely Christians, for the problems of the world. And that the New Age will cure all of the evil from those bad Christians out there.”

The fact remains: Acharya S does promote the New Age of Aquarius. She does promote humanity pulling together because of the supposed cultural unity behind the Christ conspiracy. Well cultural unity and humanity joining together to “create” a better world is exactly what Theosophists popularized and have been calling for since the late 19th century. The problem is that many Freemasons and modern elites in the U.N. and other elite think tanks like the Club of Budapest and the State of the World Forum want the same thing all based on the Age of Aquarius. Devan does not address this but merely asserts:

“The main problem with this idea is that once I compared what Annie Besant believes vs. what D. M. Murdock actually wrote it completely contradicts Keith’s assertion (which as I have demonstrated thus far to be based on a deceptive tactic). Acharya basically states that all religions have a common origin steeped in Astrotheology; so instead of people bickering and fighting this notion that their religion is the one true religion and realize that all religions can be traced back through a common thread is when people will finally stop killing in the name of religion (the number one reason why people have killed each other throughout history.”

Why didn’t Devan mention Acharya S’s recourse to the Age of Aquarius? Why does he avoid the fact that the connotations of the Age of Aquarius are utopian and progressive with respect to humanity uniting into a one world utopian system as Gail Fairfield remarks?:

The sign of Aquarius is the Sign of focused concepts. It concentrates intently on developing its ideas and then applies them to the betterment of humankind. It has talent for rapidly correlating all the information available into a political, ethical, spiritual, technological system. Aquarius creates optimal futures for individuals and for humanity because it needs alternatives, possibilities, and something to move toward … Over all Aquarius is a reformer and visionary, working to create its utopia.”

Let us examine the similarities between the Theosphists’ Annie Besants progressive vision for the New Age and that of Acharya S that Devan thinks he refutes.

Besant states:

” … the equinox will reach the sign of Aquarius, and, coinciding the great Cycle of influence, we can indeed hope to put a complete end to all the influence of the past Cycle, with its tyranny, slavery, war and cruelty …” “This is one of the great transitional Epochs, and the karma before humanity as a whole, and to every group in particular, is to reform itself from slavery, female subjection, war and cruelty and establish a civilization based on humane-ness and interest in spiritual matters.”

Acharya states:

Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age… The age referred to in the gospel tale is that of Pisces, and, through contrivance and duplicity, coercion and slaughter, the fish-god “Jesus,” the Piscean Solar Avatar, has indeed been with us, but now it is the close of the age, and his time is over… As Hancock says, “We live today in an astrological no man’s land at the end of the ‘Age of Pisces,’ on the threshold of the ‘New Age’ of Aquarius. Traditionally these times of transition between one age and the next have been regarded as ill-omened.” Ill-Omened verily as the ongoing destruction of the earth and the endless warfare over ideology will indeed produce the ‘Armageddon” so long awaited and planned by those who cannot live for today but must look towards an afterlife. By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world.”

Why does Devan not address the fact that both Acharya S and Annie Besant both believe in the Age of Aquarius? Does Devan expect people to believe him when he does not even have the decency to represent these arguments correctly? Merely asserting that Acharya only wants people to stop arguing over religion while not addressing the New Age of Aquarius progressive aspects to her statements is not going to get very far in light of the fact Acharya S teaches people that Jesus represented Pisces and that it is now the close of his Age with the New Age of Aquarius on its way. Well what does that mean? Aquarius, for the New Ager, is a time when the old system of reality is shed and a new golden era is created – an era in which humanity unites into a single organism. This is why such themes are present in Acharya’s quote (i.e., cultural unity, humanity pulling together, create a better world etc). In agreement with Gail Fairfield regarding what the New Age of Aquarius is, Dian Stein remarks:

The popular New Age movement envisions the future as a world of peace, a world far different from what we live in now. Their New Age is a utopiaTo live in a Utopia – or the New Age, Age of Aquarius – means to live in paradise. To live in the New Age means to live on a planet where there are no wars, where everyone is “enlightened,” and where everyone has happiness and well-being.”

Therefore, when Acharya S promotes the New Age of Aquarius incorporating progressive idealistic views with utopian connotations such as “cultural unity” and humanity pulling together to create a better world, she is demonstrating that she has New Age ties. Merely claiming that her first talking about the dark ages and not wanting people to go to war is not some hidden context that refutes what I am saying – it is a smokescreen and red herring that I have already acknowledged and it does nothing to undermine my thesis. You are still left with her promiting the New Age of Aquarius. The same New Age that the Theosophical Society, many Freemasons, many New Agers as well as many occultist elitists embrace.

Devan asserts that Acharya is not promoting the New Age. Well despite the explicit language in her quotes that mention the New Age of Aquarius, author of In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images Clinton Bennett has likewise identified Acharya S as a New Ager who wishes to see humanity enter new epoch:

Acharya S writes from a New Age perspective. She suggests that as the world moves into a new epoch, towards the threat of chaos, it can learn something positive from the unity of ideas that lies behind the Jesus myth …”

What is interesting about this though is that I did a comparison between what Annie Beasant believes vs. what Acharya S believes and here is what I wrote:

“Acharya obviously indicates that this can be done via the field of Comparative Mythology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Archaeoastronomy and Astrotheology.

Compare that to Annie Besant’s notion that the world will enter into a moment of bliss where people’s minds will “awaken” vis-à-vis spiritual awakening. Instead of this being achieved through obtaining an education in the relevant fields of study this will become apparent automatically through the supernatural. In other words: Magic.”

Ignoring this and thus concluding that all I just did was simply providing a few extra pages of quote to take up space really shows a lot of ignorance. Interestingly enough however is that Keith states that “Acharya S blames Christianity for the problems of the world and then offers a New Age solution,” is completely wrong. She has articles where she blames Islam, along with a variety of other barbaric religious practices. This notion of course is based in the central theme of her book encompasses her own ideas. Let’s go ahead and examine and dissect the argument Keith utilizes.

According to the quote he gives the following words emphasis: this new age, the fact is that we are entering into a new age, but now it is the close of the age, New Age of Aquarius, By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world.

I will mainly deal with the highlighted references in this and nothing more so as to save the reader some time.

But the future is now and the manoeuvres are being unveiled. As far as Christianity’s role in this new age Carpenter states: “Christianity therefore as I say must either now come frankly forward and acknowledge it’s parentage from the great order of the past, seek to rehabilitate that and carry mankind one step forward in the path of evolution – or else it must perish, there is no alternative.” Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age… The age referred to in the gospel tale is that of Pisces, and, through contrivance and duplicity, coercion and slaughter, the fish-god “Jesus,” the Piscean Solar Avatar, has indeed been with us, but now it is the close of the age, and his time is over… As Hancock says, “We live today in an astrological no man’s land at the end of the ‘Age of Pisces,’ on the threshold of the ‘New Age’ of Aquarius. Traditionally these times of transition between one age and the next have been regarded as ill-omened.” Ill-Omened verily as the ongoing destruction of the earth and the endless warfare over ideology will indeed produce the ‘Armageddon” so long awaited and planned by those who cannot live for today but must look towards an afterlife. By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world.

What I fail to see is any mention of a belief that Acharya has some kind of Utopia of a one World Religion based upon the Age of Aquarius. It is interesting that Keith would include the quote that “Christianity… must either now come frankly forward and acknowledge it’s parentage from the great order of the past, seek to rehabilitate that and carry mankind one step forward in the path of evolution – or else it must perish” as if to add some kind of statement of meaning to the idea. This doesn’t mention anything about a Utopia and it’s only saying that if Christianity does not stop standing in the way of scientific progress then it will go the way of all other religions. This statement has nothing to do with a one world Age of Aquarius religious utopia; so my question to Keith is simple, why use it to begin with?

The statement that is highlighted being “the fact is that we are entering into a new age” really is very interesting. She doesn’t say that this will make any kind of awakening method, she doesn’t say anything about becoming enlightened and very “Spiritual,” she just says we are entering into a new age. How is this referring to a Utopian concept?

The other statement being highlighted again is “but now it is the close of the age.” Why is this part highlighted? It is not talking about mentioning anything to do with a spiritual evolution, an awakening, etc… what significance is this other than simply taking note of an astronomical event?

The other part that is highlighted are not even the words of Acharya but are instead the words of Hancock (whom is not a Theosophist). Thus it holds no relevance.

The next part Keith seems to want us to focus on which reads “By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world.” I might ask, how does this refer to a Utopia? How does creating “a better world” mean Utopia? Utopia means a perfect society in some way or form… but does creating “a better world” mean Utopia? Of course not.

Keith then repeats that “From these statements we see that Acharya S believes we are approaching the New Age of Aquarius. She says that it is a FACT that we are entering this Age and that if only humanity would come to realize the cultural unity surrounding the “Christ Conspiracy” (i.e., that Jesus is a conspiracy based on astrology) humanity could come together in this New Age and prevent a fall by creating a better world together. This belief that humanity will come together for the New Age of Aquarius was a belief promoted by the founders of the modern New Age movement – the Theosophical Society.”

This is merely a repeat of his original argument and I have already dealt with it but I guess doing it once more couldn’t hurt.

The New Age Movement (at least a portion of them) believe that once we enter into this New Age we will automatically come to an understanding by either some cosmic shift of the energies of the universe or some spiritual beings will enter into us thus completing our spiritual (and maybe physical) evolution or that we will be visited and enlightened by Aliens. Regardless they are all completely unscientific and nothing of which Acharya even hints at. She never talks about Aliens, she never hints about some kind of cosmic shift nor does she ever talking about becoming spiritually enlightened. Keith ignores yet again my statement that Acharya believes this can be done via the study of “Comparative Mythology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Archaeoastronomy and Astrotheology.” He does not bother with this at all in his response and hence sees it as something to ignore so he can readily continue to make assertion after assertion of her belief by playing semantics.

As far as the context of it, all you have to do is compare what she simply talked about early and read the context of what she was saying by “By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world.” This puts the context in place and shows that she is not advocating a one world religion/utopia under the Age of Aquarius.

The quote that “she is blaming Theists, namely Christians, for the problems of the world. And that the New Age will cure all of the evil from those bad Christians out there,” comes from a YT video source which is simply just a mirror of his film called The New Age Infiltration of the Truth Movement. He offers no real argument for this other than an absurd conspiracy theory statement of “Order out of Chaos.” She doesn’t just blame Christians, she also tends to blame Islam and any other extremist religion for that matter.

Keith then brings up a red herring by stating “Why didn’t Devan mention Acharya S’s recourse to the Age of Aquarius? Why does he avoid the fact that the connotations of the Age of Aquarius are utopian and progressive with respect to humanity uniting into a one world utopian system?” This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and it has nothing to with the actual article he put forth, which was responding to Freethinkaluva’s post on the Free Thought Forum; if Keith thinks I am going to address the red herring then has another thing coming.

I have already addressed the comparison between Annie Besant’s beliefs and examined the original quote via the highlighted references so I will not repeat myself. Since Keith has failed miserably to address my actual statement I will henceforth ignore the two quotes he gives until he can actually address what I said.

At this point he gives a quote from Clinton Bennett that agrees with his assessment. This essentially is an argument from authority meaning that “an authority agrees with me therefore I am right.” Bennett never even gives any reason for this other than providing a few quotes and some assertions to top it off. The same analysis I gave for examining Keith’s highlighted areas of the quote could be applied to Bennett as well.

More dodging and weaving

This would mean that Christianity is not responsible for deaths but instead it is the people who misuse Christianity who are responsible.

“Merely asserting that Christianity is responsible for the deaths 250 million people is not an argument. You have to demonstrate this with documentation and argumentation. Moreover, you can not blame Christianity for the actions of others when the primary Christian religious texts found in the New Testament for the new covenant people call for peace in opposition to what those individuals do:

“… do not murder …” (Luke 18:20)

“… do not murder …” (Matthew 19:19)

This I command you, that you love one another.” (John 15:17)

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well.” (James 2:8)

In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness.” (1 Timothy 6:11)

Be at peace with each other.” (Mark 9:50)

But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;” 1 Peter 3:15

Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.” (1 Peter 3:8)

Dear friends, let us love one another.” (1 John 4:7)

This is what is called a No True Scotsman Fallacy. This argument being given is that “they are not true Christians” is fallacious and does not even merit an actual response other than for every verse he gives I can give at least a hundred more that show that his religion is very ignorant and bigoted.[13] The list of these atrocious verses can be found in the footnotes if the reader wishes to check them out.

The very fact that Christianity can be “misused” is somewhat of an interesting statement that is an admission by Keith himself that the book contains horrific teachings. If a deity really was kind and gentle then he would have no problem in stopping people from misusing his religion… yet here it is being misused.

However the reasoning behind the numbers was not to discredit Christianity merely to serve as the reason why Acharya does not hold Christianity or Islam in high esteem.

“In Dr. Mike Licona’s 2001 article refuting Acharya S’s book The Christ Conspiracy he addressed Acharya’s argument from moral atrocity. Dr. Licona states:

You write, “And why are these men attacking me . . . over . . . an ideology that has been responsible for the torture and slaughter of millions of people worldwide? How can any honest person with any integrity defend this ideology, with its bloody past, or its supposed founder, on whose omnipotent shoulders ultimately rests the responsibility for the management of the world and, thus, its endless atrocities?”

You cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. Jesus would not have condoned the crusades and the numerous inquisitions initiated by the Catholic Church. Jesus would not have said to kill people in his name. Indeed, He told Peter to put his sword away and that Christians should love their enemies. It was only later that the Catholic Church, motivated by its political ambitions, used religious rhetoric to sanctify its goals of domination as well as provide an aggressive defense against an even crueler and conquering Islam. You cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse.”

This is simply an interesting statement being the fact that it has nothing to do with my original statement about the number of deaths that were committed in the name of Christ.

“Devan is not addressing the fact that both Besant and Acharya believe in the Age of Aquarius that will result in humanity pulling together creating a better world. Why is Devan afraid to address the Age of Aquarius? Devan asserts that aspects of Besant’s Aquarian vision are different in that hers deals with a supernatural spiritual awakening accompanied by bliss i.e., “magic” and Acharya’s does not. But even if this were true you are still left with the fact that both the Theosophist Annie Besant and the New Ager Acharya S believe in the Age of Aquarius and incorporate progressive utopian rhetoric in their statements (i.e., “culural unity,” humanity can pull together, “create a better world,” “establish a civilization” etc.)”

So let’s go ahead and grant Keith just for the sake of argument that she does believe in an Age of Aquarius Utopia… how is hoping for “Cultural unity” and humanity pulling together to “Create a better world” considered New Age Utopian beliefs? This does not make any sense. I myself hope for this every day, does this mean I believe in New Age ideas such as Magic? No! I believe this can be done via science, technology and education… does this mean I am a New Ager hoping and striving for a Utopia? No! He essentially is making equivocative statements without anything to actually back it up.

Now I accept that there is an Age of Aquarius… does this mean that I am a New Ager? No it doesn’t, it just means I accept that there is an astronomical event.

“But even with that said, Acharya’s Aquarian vision does contain a supernatural astrological cause and effect scenario that plays out in the universe, that can be identified as “magic” despite what Devan claims. In an earlier article refuting a person named dudekin on the same issue I argue:

Moreover, it seems dudekin didn’t read Acharya’s statement closely because she quotes “Hancock” with respect to how the end of every age results in certain human social aspects that can only be explained by the effect of this cycle on the human mind. Acharya states:

Traditionally these times of transition between one age and the next have been regarded as ill-omened.” Ill-Omened verily as the ongoing destruction of the earth and the endless warfare over ideology will indeed produce the ‘Armageddon” so long awaited and planned by those who cannot live for today but must look towards an afterlife.”

It is evident that Acharya holds the position that times of transition between every age are consistently ill-omened. Ill-omened means that a bad future is “promised” or “certain.” Thus, when Acharya relates warfare and destruction to the end of the ages all being considered ill-omened, she reveals that she thinks humans are subject to these cycles psychologically in that at the end of each one humans are prone to causing destruction and war. So for “dudekin” to assert that “Anyone with any knowledge of Miss Murdock will realize that she holds no opinion on astrology’s influence upon human demeanor, and she never advocates such an ideology in her book,” he demonstrates that he is either dishonest which is devilish or else that he is ignorant which is inexcusable with respect to such an important topic.”

It looks like Devan didn’t realize that his argument was refuted even before he wrote it.”

Interestingly the quote Keith provides is mainly a play on words. Age can usually refer to an event in history or current event marked as an Age; The Iron Age, The Golden Age, The Dark Age, The Age of Enlightenment and The Age of Information (one that we are still in) just to name a few. Now what about Ill-Omened? Well according to historical Ages marked and named by Historians themselves, one can see that usually these ages are marked either by peace or by warfare in the Constance of the age that one may be in.

The argument is mainly a play on words and concepts being used. Keith merely asserts that this is what she believes based on semantic reasoning. If Keith were to provide an e-mail statement from Acharya asking her what this means and she answered in her words the same… then he would be correct. But he doesn’t, instead he merely asserts this and claim victory. This is typical for him in all honesty.

More Semantic trickery

“With respect the New Age Aquarian beliefs about creating a better world for the New Age I noted how both Acharya S and Alice Bailey, the Theosophical New Ager and founder of Lucis Trust, call for humanity pulling together to create a better world for the Age of Aquarius. Bailey states:

The new era is coming [Age of Aquarius]; the new ideals, the new civilization, the new modes of life, of education, of religious presentation and of government are slowly precipitating and nothing can stop them … ”

The evil and the misery will pass but happiness will remain; above everything else will come the realisation that what we have so badly built must disappear and that ours is now the opportunity to build a new and better world.”

Acharya echoes:

Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age … By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world.”

Devan states:

The issue I take in this statement has to do with the notion that she is a “Theosophist.” In order to establish this she has to have been a member of the Theosophical Society and stayed as a member when she formed the organization known as Lucis Trust along with maintaining ties with the Theosophical society as when she original wrote the book The Externalization of the Hierarchy.”

Notice Devan does not attempt to directly respond to the obvious parallelism in ideology between Bailey and Acharya S. Instead he contends that because Alice Bailey was initially a member of the Theosophical Society but then left the Society to create the New Age Arcane schools with her Freemason husband as well as the Lucis Trust organization on her own that therefore we are wrong in calling her a Theosophist. This ignores the fact that Bailey’s fundamental views were Theosophical with respect to Blavatsky’s traditions that she invented and or popularized. For example: the Ascended Masters concept, the Luciferian concept and the Age concept etc. Bailey remained a follower of the Theosophical teachings of Blavatsky and would thus be considered a Theosophist in her theology and world view, although not an official member of the organization itself. Devan seems to confuse aspects of Blavatsky’s Theosophy as a world view commonly held by New Agers all over the world with official membership into the Society. But, the point is that Bailey got many of her beliefs from Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy and when she created Lucis Trust, those beliefs stuck with her.

Devan states:

However through two separate e-mails via both the Theosophical Society and Lucis Trust tell a different story:

I have answered most of these points before. Alice Bailey was a member of the Theosophical Society for 2-4 years, but left to form her own organization which later became the Arcane School and Lucis Trust. The Theosophical Society in America does not have any organizational connections or communications with Lucis Trust, although we have some of their Alice Bailey books in our library. We believe in the principle of open-minded inquiry, and our members are free to read anything they find worthwhile.”

There is no formal connection. The Theosophical Society and the Lucis Trust carry out their work in complete independence of each other, in the sense of formal organizational structures. However, the founders of the Lucis Trust, Alice and Foster Bailey, were actively involved in the TS for a number of years in the early part of the twentieth century, before leaving to begin their work for which the Lucis Trust serves as administrative and fiduciary agent.”

So, today Lucis Trust and the Theosphical Society have no formal connection as organizational structures. Fine, I have not argued that they do. My position is that Alice Bailey, a Theosophist herself for some years, as well as Lucis Trust both teach aspects of Blavatsky’s Theosophy which can be found in her books on many levels. Therefore since they believed in and taught Theosophical concepts it means that they are connected to Theosophy theologically and ideologically. I do not see how them not being connected through organizational structures means that they are not connected theologically and ideologically. This argument is pretty meaningless as Lucis Trust concedes that Bailey was a serious student of Blavatsky’s Theosophy. Bailey was so in tune with Blavatsky’s Theosophical beliefs that she acted as a mouth piece for the Ascended Masters for many years writings 24 books all supposedly channelled to her by them. Ascended Masters are supposed evolved beings that Blavatsky made people aware of. As the modern Lucis Trust website affirms:

The Baileys’ reasons for choosing the original name are not known to us, but we can only surmise that they, like the great teacher H.P. Blavatsky, for whom they had enormous respect, sought to elicit a deeper understanding of the sacrifice made by Lucifer. Alice and Foster Bailey were serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring the principle of mind to what was then animal-man.”

Notice that Lucis Trust acknowledges that Bailey was a serious student and teacher of Theosophy. Therefore, when we address Bailey as a Theosophist it is because she was affiliated with them organizationally for quite some time as well as the fact that she remained affiliated with Theosophy doctrinally and ideologically on many levels. Thus, Devan’s argument holds no weight and it is perfectly fine to identify Alice Bailey as “the Theosophist Alice Bailey” in past tense.

Devan then goes on to quote Blavatsky saying that Theosophy avoids politics as it stands because humanity needs to reform its nature before political reform can take place. He thinks this contradicts Bailey saying that a new government is coming and nothing can stop it. However, it is indicated in Bailey’s writings that she believed that the Age of Aquarius’ psychological effects would, along with educational methods, reform human nature thereby enabling a political system to work. Thus, there is no contradiction.”

Again as is stated before the highlighted word of “to create a better world” does not mean to create a Utopia. This is an attempt at semantic trickery more and more as we delve deeper into this article.

Interesting that Keith does not even address the fact that this has to do with Eric’s assertion and not Keith’s own statement. The rest of it about Blavatsky and Bailey I will touch upon later but there should be no reason to address this right now within this article.

Interesting Mental Gymnastics

“Again, Devan uses the straw man fallacy. My argument is not that Acharya quotes Blavatsky and Steiner talking about the New Age. My argument was that Acharya promotes the New Age ideology (Age of Aquarius rhetoric coupled with progressive utopian rhetoric), and she cites Theosophists showing she views them in high esteem as reliable sources. So when he attacks my argument on the basis of Acharya not quoting Blavatsky and Steiener regarding the New Age beliefs he is attacking a straw man. I do not care how Acharya cites them and I have never argued that she cites them regarding the New Age. The point is that Acharya promotes the New Age of Aquarius on her own which comes from them and then on top of that she cites these people on various issues showing that she supports them as authoritative reliable sources of information. The fact that she cites them at all is all that I care about because it shows that she considers these people reliable and authoritative – the same people that popularized the New Age Aquarian movement. This gives validity to my thesis which states that Acharya knowingly promotes New Age belief that comes from the Theosophical Society. That is my argument so why distort it? Devan’s straw man is therefore shown to be quite erroneous in point of fact.”

One only needs to read this and see that this paragraph makes no sense. It’s riddled with contradictions. At one point he says that his argument was that “Acharya promotes the New Age ideology… and she cites Theosophists showing she views them in high esteem as reliable sources.” Then he says that “the fact that she cites them at all is all that I care about” and right after that he says “because it shows she considers these people reliable and authoritative.” This is not cohesive and is simply riddled with mental gymnastics.

“Devan is wrong in stating that Blavatsky is the only member of the Theosophical Society that is quoted by Acharya S. On p. 31 of The Christ Conspiracy G.R.S. Mead is cited. Mead was a member of the Theosophical Society for around 24 years. He was even Blavatsky’s private secretary.(16) Therefore Devan is wrong again. But just to be fair and honest with my data unlike Luva, Bead did end up leaving the society officially along with many others when Annie Besant allowed the pedophile Freemason C.W. Leadbeater back in – not because he disagreed with Blavatsky doctrinally, however. But nonetheless, this is yet another man with Theosophical ideologies and connections who was a member of the society for 25 years that Acharya cites along with Blavatsky and Steiener. Devan should avoid dogmatic assertions about who Acharya cites when he has no knowledge of the subjects he tries to speak on. Acharya appeals to Theosophists, Freemasons, New Agers and occultists as reliable sources of her version of history – because she is herself a New Ager and occultist. That is a fact.”

I do acknowledge that I was wrong about my assertion, yet his entire argument is as before pointed out a tactic of Guilt by Association. So there is no reason for me to even attack this absurd logical fallacy. Thus far Keith himself has completely failed on all accounts to provide a meaningful reason why Acharya is a Theosophist/New Ager/occultist other than Guild by Association.

“Acknowledging that the word ‘Theosophy’ comes from the Greek ‘Theosophos’ – meaning “one wise about God” does not address the fact that freethinkaluva22 was trying to limit the current cultural definition of the word ‘Theosophy’ to only mean “any of various forms of philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature,” by using dictionary.com. However, that same dictionary source gives an alternate definition of Theosophy being “the system of belief and practice of the Theosophical Society.” This is the very definition that Luva sought to avoid and steer people away from and thus she omitted it from her article to deceive that forum. These people are just outraged that I call Acharya S a Theosophist and so they think that if they can separate the word “Theosophy” from the beliefs of the Theosophical Society, they can have a point. However, the common understanding of the word Theosophy today is one who practices the beliefs of Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society because of how successful that theological belief structure has become. One of those beliefs is that the Age of Aquarius is real and is progressive – a belief Acharya S promotes. Thus we are justified in saying that Acharya promotes Blavatsky’s Theosophical beliefs (i.e., Theosophy).

It seems Devan doesn’t understand what I initially wrote when I responded to Luva regarding this definition issue and is therefore ignorant once again while also failing to acknowledge my argument. He fails to realize what I was saying and how it shows that Luva is a deceiver who purposefully omits data that refutes her from the very same source. Luva was incorrect regarding what Theosophy means in contemporary culture based on the same dictionary source she provided.”

What beliefs of the Theosophical Society? It’s as if everyone must believe the exact same thing when in fact in the e-mail I provided explicitly stated that they support any member to follow any kind of literature of belief as long as it is in accordance with spreading the notion of a brotherhood. In order for them to have unifying beliefs and believe the exact same thing there needs to be a survey and of which Keith himself bears the burden of proof in providing this survey. Merely quoting influential theosophists is not beneficial to this; he needs to prove with statistical numbers and a credible source that this is true. He himself fails to do this at all.

The argument that “the common understanding of the word Theosophy today” is irrelevant to what I had made in the first place. I was meaning simply to state that “Luva” was putting emphasis on this due to the idea and notion that Theosophy = beliefs that are held via the Theosophical society is completely ridiculous. I was also putting emphasis on the fact that the word Theosophy predates the Theosophical Society by over 200 years. Keith over looked this fact and my argument and decided to state that I did not address anything. Luva also ALWAYS gave the link for one to check it out; so it wasn’t like Luva was hiding anything at all.

The Logical Fallacies… ooooh the Logical Fallacies!

I will not address his notion of TVP being communism right now, as this has to do with more along lines of Acharya being a Theosophist and a New Ager. This next comment is mainly to address some misconceptions and play on words that Keith has in order to turn his defeat into utter victory.

“In my previous article I corresponded with Dr. Noel Swerdlow, professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago regarding the antiquity of the astrological 2150 year Age concept and he relayed that although Hipparchus was aware of precession this does not support the claim that the 2150 year Age concept was held. Dr. Swerdlow remarks “to know the precession is not to attribute any astrological significance to which group of stars the equinoxes and solstices are located in.” In conclusion he remarks “The short answer is still that this ‘age’ stuff in modern astrology is entirely modern….”

With a severe lack of understanding of this subject Devan thinks that by quoting Dr. David Ulansey stating the following it proves that the ancients believed that the Zodiac constellations represented Ages:“This circle traced by the sun during the course of the year was known as the “zodiac”– a word meaning “living figures,” which was a reference to the fact that as the sun moved along the circle of the zodiac it passed in front of twelve different constellations which were represented as having various animal and human forms.”

However, even if that is conceded Dr. Ulsansey is not even arguing that just because these people believed that the sun passed through the 12 signs that therefore they believed each sign represented an Astrological Age lasting around 2150 years in antiquity. No, he is not arguing that at all and there is nothing in his statements to indicate that he is. Devan provides no commentary illustrating what about his statement proves that the signs were seen as 2150 year Ages. In fact Dr. Swerdlow addressed this kind of misconception in the past:

The location of the equinox among one or another zodiacal constellation, as the so-called Age of Aquarius or Age of Pisces, is something of concern to modern astrology, but is never mentioned as significant in ancient astrology. It is simply anachronistic to believe that what is important to twentieth century astrology was of importance to ancient astrology.”

Therefore I would challenge Devan to provide some 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century sources etc. mentioning the Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius explicitly.

Interestingly enough at the end of the article itself I provided a footnote to said article written by David Ulansey where Keith could have gone over this and seen whether or not it could verify or refute him. Yet he blatantly ignored it so he could play some more semantic trickery in an attempt to turn his defeat into a victory. However dishonesty will not go unanswered when he is responding to me. There were several illustrations on the article which would have hinted to Keith that he was referring to an Age concept.

These illustrations by Peter Joseph show that these are almost mirror images of Dr. Ulansey’s, which points to that the procession is not a fringe notion but is in fact real.

Furthermore if Keith had even bothered to look at the article he would have found this entry here:

“For during the Age of Taurus, when the equinoxes were in Taurus and Scorpio, the two solstices– which are also shifted by the precession– were in Leo the Lion and Aquarius the Waterbearer. (In the above diagram of the “Age of Taurus,” Leo and Aquarius are the northernmost and southernmost constellations of the zodiacal circle respectively– these were the positions of the summer and winter solstices in that age.) It is thus of great interest to note that in certain regions of the Roman empire a pair of symbols was sometimes added to the tauroctony: namely, a lion and a cup. These symbols must represent the constellations Leo and Aquarius, the locations of the solstices during the Age of Taurus. Thus all of the figures found in the tauroctony represent constellations that had a special position in the sky during the Age of Taurus.

The Mithraic tauroctony, then, was apparently designed as a symbolic representation of the astronomical situation that obtained during the Age of Taurus. But what religious significance could this have had, so that the tauroctony could have come to form the central icon of a powerful cult? The answer to this question lies in the fact that the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes was unknown throughout most of antiquity: it was discovered for the first time around 128 B.C. by the great Greek astronomer Hipparchus. Today we know that the precession is caused by a wobble in the earth’s rotation on its axis. However, for Hipparchus– because he held to the ancient geocentric cosmology in which the earth was believed to be immovable– what we today know to be a movement of the earth could only be understood as a movement of the entire cosmic sphere. In other words, Hipparchus’s discovery amounted to the discovery that the entire universe was moving in a way that no one had ever been aware of before!

At the time Hipparchus made his discovery, Mediterranean intellectual and religious life was pervaded by astrological beliefs. It was widely believed that the stars and planets were living gods, and that their movements controlled all aspects of human existence. In addition, at this time most people believed in what scholars call “astral immortality”: that is, the idea that after death the human soul ascends up through the heavenly spheres to an afterlife in the pure and eternal world of the stars. In time, the celestial ascent of the soul came to be seen as a difficult voyage, requiring secret passwords to be recited at each level of the journey. In such circumstances, Hipparchus’s discovery would have had profound religious implications. A new force had been detected capable of shifting the cosmic sphere: was it not likely that this new force was a sign of the activity of a new god, a god so powerful that he was capable of moving the entire universe?

Hipparchus’s discovery of the precession made it clear that before the Greco-Roman period, in which the spring equinox was in the constellation of Aries the Ram, the spring equinox had last been in Taurus the Bull. Thus, an obvious symbol for the phenomenon of the precession would have been the death of a bull, symbolizing the end of the “Age of Taurus” brought about by the precession. And if the precession was believed to be caused by a new god, then that god would naturally become the agent of the death of the bull: hence, the “bull-slayer.”

This, I propose, is the origin and nature of Mithras the cosmic bull-slayer. His killing of the bull symbolizes his supreme power: namely, the power to move the entire universe, which he had demonstrated by shifting the cosmic sphere in such a way that the spring equinox had moved out of Taurus the Bull.”[14]

This is exactly how Zeitgeist depicts the Procession of the Equinox:

“Now, of the many astrological-astronomical metaphors in the Bible, one of the most important has to do with the ages. Throughout the scriptures there are numerous references to the “Age.” In order to understand this, we need to be familiar with the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. The ancient Egyptians along with cultures long before them recognized that approximately every 2150 years the sunrise on the morning of the spring equinox would occur at a different sign of the Zodiac. This has to do with a slow angular wobble that the Earth maintains as it rotates on it’s axis. It is called a precession because the constellations go backwards, rather than through the normal yearly cycle. The amount of time that it takes for the precession to go through all 12 signs is roughly 25,765 years. This is also called the “Great Year,” and ancient societies were very aware of this. They referred to each 2150 year period as an “age.”[15]

This claim that Mithra symbolizing the Age of Taurus the bull is not a scholarly view is completely erroneous. Another notion is Keith’s challenge:

“Therefore I would challenge Devan to provide some 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century sources etc. mentioning the Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius explicitly.”

This notion that I need to find a document in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century that says “Age of Pisces” or “Age of Aquarius” is absolutely absurd. People who would have observed this Age phenomena literally would not call it the “Age of Pisces” or the “Age of Aquarius,” but would have made several allusions to it such as mentioning the precession and referring to one of the signs of their Zodiac and attributed to it as such. Keith’s challenge is absurd in the same challenge that Kent Hovind gave for proving evolution, it’s unfalsifiable and a challenge that can NEVER be met.

Keith seems to think that repeating Hebrew would be sufficient to debunk this, yet what he fails to recognize is that according to modern scholars (evermerists) Jesus spoke a form of Ancient Aramaic, which has no bearing on Hebrew. The Gospels were also written in either Greek, Latin or Coptic, so to devise what words may have been used in the Gospels is completely guess work unless we have the actual fragment spoken in Jesus’ own language (if it is indeed correct that he spoke an Ancient form of Aramaic).

The rest of the statement’s given are not really worth responding to since Keith has yet to show really any actual form of consistency and honesty within his statements.

Conclusion

In his Conclusion Keith states the following:

“Zeitologists and New Agers like Devan and Luva demonstrate that they are not qualified to speak on these subjects. They misrepresent arguments, omit important data from the same sources that they use to deceive their audience, they make numerous basic factual errors, they embrace fringe views of history not recognized by scholarship, they distort data to support their claims, and they utilize the straw man fallacy over and over. Devans article is by far the worst article I have ever read on any subject and the straw man fallacy that he is so fond of utilizing may convince Zeitologists and New Agers but it certainly will not convince the outsiders looking in. It will only make Zeitgeist and its followers appear to be desperate, incompetent and unable to conduct proper research. By supporting and embracing Devans article, Freethough Nation shows how low they are willing to go to shore up their New Age ideologies against attacks at all costs. If Freethought Nation continues to support Devan Evans they run the risk of discrediting themselves permanently. He is a racist, racism supporting liar who does not know the subjects he attempts to write on. I have been researching these issues for 6 years and I encourage meaningful dialogue. But, when you have people like Devan, who have done nothing important in their lives in this respect, and have only been examining these issues for less than a year representing you, that should be a big red flag indicating that your position is only held by the fringe and the ignorant.”

It is interesting that Keith has yet to provide anything meaningful other than semantic trickery and logical fallacies such as Guilt by Association, Strawman Fallacies and general Ad Hominem’s. As such that were presented with his view of me at the beginning he seems to repeat the statement that I am “a racist.” I am curious as to what me being a racist has to do with any of this. Even if I was a racist (which I am not and all he has to go on is circumstantial evidence based on a comment made by someone with the user name reaper06221986 on YT) the question would still stand, at what point would this have any relevancy whatsoever?

Again Keith has stated that my “article is by far the worst article I have ever read on any subject and the straw man fallacy that he is so fond of utilizing” even though he is guilty of much of the same tactics he accuses me of doing and much more. He has moved his position so many times that one cannot even take him seriously or at least honestly and yet when he claims that what I pointed out is “irrelevant” he doesn’t seem to demonstrate it in his films when he states that Acharya “externalizes theosophy by quoting Blavatsky verbatim.” It seems that when Keith wishes to establish his thesis of Acharya quoting Blavatsky it is relevant, yet when I show that she is only citing Blavatsky not in regards to the New Age of Aquarius (which is his exact argument) he claims it is a strawman by attempting a logical fallacy known as Moving the Goal Post.

He has also shown to completely ignore several of the things I said and did so purposely in order to change his defeat into a victory. This shows that Keith is completely dishonest and will simply fly off the handle at the most minute thing such as correcting him on his citation of the page number and him insulting me and claiming that he is in the right. This shows that Keith is the actual Pseudointellectual and those who cannot see it are probably either arrogant or idiotic. Keith also seems to have some kind of superiority complex as is shown throughout this article. It seems that he thinks that he will always be in the right since he believes that God is on his side and those that do not agree with him are either stupid, ignorant or brainwashed. He has also included among his own group someone who speaks in tongues[16] (the same person whom of which referred me to the Biblical Archaeological Society for evidence that the Exodus is an historical event but was wrong about it), he respects ShockofGod who initially was found to be phishing YT accounts (this is well known and does not need a source citation for this) along with a series of other questionable people such as Govie who has been caught saying that he will kick anyone who is not a Christian out of the U.S. if he was in charge.[17] This has relevance to Keith’s motives because most of the people he chooses to hang out with have questionable caricature and have some form of mental instability which would explain Keith’s need to always be in the right.

Now I am up for being proven wrong but the moment someone goes into a half assed article by playing semantic trickery, moving the goal post, guilt by association, etc… it immediately makes me wonder the motive of the person.

At the end of the conclusion he puts the following verse:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5)

Interesting that Keith uses this verse out of context and violates Biblical Hermeneutics which is probably a field of which Keith has never even heard of. The full verse as to how it should be read is as follows:

“Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ. We are ready to punish every disobedience when your obedience is complete.”[18]

It looks as if Keith does not know that these verses were supposed to be used together and not separately from one another, hence to keep it in context. However as the person he is, willing to play semantic trickery and take things out of context and ignore those that do not actually agree with his premise, views and argument so that he may be able to be in the right one should not be surprised that he would apply the same tactics to his own bible.

My conclusion is that Keith’s response is not really a response, it is a knee jerk reaction filled with ad hominem’s (directed towards me), Moving the Goal Post, Red Herring’s, Strawman’s, Ignoring evidence that was already in my article that would refute him and a variety of other such reasons.

If Keith wishes to remain objective I would suggest that he stop with the use of the logical fallacies and personal attacks and start making objective articles towards me instead of these half assed knee-jerk reactions to my own articles against him.

This might actually elicit a response from Keith but I am more than ready for him as one can see. I encourage those to actually look at the footnotes instead of taking my word for it and investigate my claims for yourself; Keith on the other hand will most likely just wave me off and make another half-assed knee jerk reactionary response to this article; only time will tell.


[1] https://zeitgeistresponds.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/responding-to-keith-thompson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Crefutation-of-acharya-s%E2%80%99s-followers-at-%E2%80%98feethought-nation%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D/

[2] http://www.keithtruth.com/refutation_of_acharya_ss_followers_at_feethought.html

[3] http://www.keithtruth.com/a_zeitologist_attempts_to_defend_acharya_ss_follo.html

[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDqTlyA7So

[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBDYPlRmxpw

[6] Exposing the Satanic Empire Final Cut 2008 at 26:38-26:50

[7] The World’s Most Powerful Religion by Anton Szandor LaVey – http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/MostPower.html

[8] http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/7163/dudeuragayscum.jpg

[9] http://www.hourofthetime.shoppingcartsplus.com/catalog/item/2569223/7954772.htm

[10] http://www.hourofthetime.shoppingcartsplus.com/catalog/item/2569223/6945965.htm

[11] http://www.hourofthetime.shoppingcartsplus.com/page/page/2569223.htm – The link is currently not working but if you go to the website at the 16th item being sold you will see it.

[12] http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=7UWFBD707ic

[13] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

[14] http://www.well.com/~davidu/mithras.html

[15] http://zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm

[16] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5c55_V0oKs

[17] http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z279/iamthescum13/Theocracy.png

[18] 2 Corinthians 10:3-6 (NRSV)



Posted in Conspiracy Theory Claims, Keith Thompson, Response Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Responding to Keith Thompson’s “Refutation of Acharya S’s followers at ‘Feethought Nation’”

By Devan Evans

The internet is very vast with a variety of pseudo-intellectuals and pathological liars so much so it makes it hard for one to even be able to distinguish what is truth and what is not. While being able to have knowledge at your finger tips that would have made the academics at the Ancient Library of Alexandria blush there is also much disinformation, smear, libel as well as slander within the confines of cyberspace (not to mention the amount of crazy paranoid nut jobs).

Among this aspect is an internet and online persona of one Keith Thompson. Keith is a self-proclaimed researcher, debater, film director, Christian apologist and “scholar.” He himself has written many articles, directed/edited/produced four documentaries thus far and went into a series of debates upon the subject. He is also an anti-mason, very anti-catholic and identifies himself as being very patriotic towards the U.S.A. (even though he lives in Canada and not in the states).

This particular article is in response to one of his called Refutation of Acharya S’s followers at ‘Feethought Nation’  Regarding ‘Aquarius: The Age of Evil’[1] (never mind the misspelling) where he has since responded to an online thread post made by Freethinkaluva22 entitled Keith TRASH is a Liar for the Lord – again.[2] In this article the reader will see source criticism along with a variety of other such methods used for the field of textual criticism.

I may also add that the reason this is appearing on this particular blog is due to the fact that Keith has been making a variety of claims within his films since the release of one Zeitgeist Part One Exposed (of which I am working on a response article for that as well) and several of them are geared towards painting the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus project as being Communist/New Age/Socialism/NWO (New World Order) and attempts to link Acharya to this movement as well. Being that Acharya herself is being accused of these things only due to the fact of the movement coming into creation I thought it would be prudent that a member of the ZGM would respond to some of the disinformation.

Keith’s response article begins with the following response:

“It is interesting that Eric Brame’s statement was called into question because the proof offered in the film to substantiate the fact that Acharya S promotes an Aquarian one world system and New Age belief that finds its origin in early Theosophical literature, including Alice Bailey’s writings, is already plainly laid out for all to see. At 3:26 of part (5/14) in the Youtube version of the film I quote Acharya S promoting an Aquarian one world New Age concept. In her book The Christ Conspiracy, Acharya S states:

But the future is now and the manoeuvres are being unveiled. As far as Christianity’s role in this new age Carpenter states: “Christianity therefore as I say must either now come frankly forward and acknowledge it’s parentage from the great order of the past, seek to rehabilitate that and carry mankind one step forward in the path of evolution – or else it must perish, there is no alternative.” Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age… The age referred to in the gospel tale is that of Pisces, and, through contrivance and duplicity, coercion and slaughter, the fish-god “Jesus,” the Piscean Solar Avatar, has indeed been with us, but now it is the close of the age, and his time is over… As Hancock says, “We live today in an astrological no man’s land at the end of the ‘Age of Pisces,’ on the threshold of the ‘New Age’ of Aquarius. Traditionally these times of transition between one age and the next have been regarded as ill-omened.” Ill-Omened verily as the ongoing destruction of the earth and the endless warfare over ideology will indeed produce the ‘Armageddon” so long awaited and planned by those who cannot live for today but must look towards an afterlife. By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world.”

From these statements we see that Acharya S believes we are approaching the New Age of Aquarius. She says that it is a FACT that we are entering this Age and that if only humanity would come to realize the cultural unity surrounding the “Christ Conspiracy” (i.e., that Jesus is a conspiracy based on astrology) humanity could come together in this New Age and prevent a fall by creating a better world together. This belief that humanity will come together for the New Age of Aquarius was a belief promoted by the founders of the modern New Age movement – the Theosophical Society. In the film Eric Brame mentioned the fact that Alice Bailey is the main source (the source that hammered this concept the strongest) that this ideology comes from and we can list many others like Annie Besant, Helena Blavatsky, N Sri Ram, Rudolf Steiner etc. These were early Theosophists and the Theosophical Society was founded by Helena Blavatsky. Acharya S cites Helena Blavatsky’s and Rudolf Steiner’s books quite frequently in The Christ Conspiracy, so when Luva asserts that Acharya has never cited Alice Bailey – it is a meaningless objection in light of the fact that Acharya cites other Theosophists who all similarly advocate the Aquarian New Age uniting of mankind – the same thing Acharya calls for.

To re-iterate the points: Eric Brame is not incorrect in asserting that Acharya advocates an Aquarian world system because in her book she does just that. She advocates the New Age of Aquarius as well as humanity “pulling together” to create a better world in light of the cultural unity behind the “Christ Conspiracy.”

The source being given within the footnotes is The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold p. 416, 417 in a sub-chapter called The New Age.

However what is interesting is that this comes after the sub-chapters The Origins of Cultural Bigotry and Racism and The Age of Darkness. In order to understand the context of the quote that Keith puts forth these sub-chapters must be read:

“The Age of Darkness

There is indeed nothing new under the sun. And “Jesus” is, basically, the same old sun, the Hellenized Joshua, the Judaized Horus and Krishna, thought by the deceived masses to have been a native of the country in which he was worshipped. Is it mere coincidence that, after the celestial mythos and astronomical knowledge had become completely eclipsed and subverted, the Western world was plunged into the Dark Ages?

Jackson describes the results of this putting out of the light of the sun:

[T]he Gnostic wisdom was not wholly lost to the world but its great, universal educational system was supplanted. It is a well-established historical fact, not denied by the church that it required about 500 years to accomplish this submersion of Gnosticism, and to degrade the new generations in ignorance equal to the state of imbecility. History again points its accusing finger at the living evidence. The horrible results of such a crime against nature and mankind are pictured in the Dark Ages . . . Not even priests or prelates were permitted to learn to read or write. Even bishops could barely spell out their Latin. During this period of mental darkness, the ignorant masses were trained in intolerance, bigotry, fanaticism, and superstitious fear of an invisible power secretly controlled by the church; all of which begat a state of hysteria and imbecility.

Robertson explains why Christianity arose and what its purpose was:

Religions, like organisms and opinions, struggle for survival and the fittest survive. That is to say, those survive which are fittest for the actual environment, not fittest from the point of view of another higher environment. What, then, was the religion best adapted to the populations of the decaying Roman Empire, in which ignorance and mean subjection were slowly corroding alike intelligence and character, leaving the civilized provinces unable to hold their ground against the barbarians? . . . Christianity . . . This was the religion for the Dark Ages . . .

And Larson states:

We believe that, had there been no Christianity, Greek enlightenment would, after a fierce struggle with Mithraism and its offspring Manichaeism, have emerged victorious. There would have been no Dark Ages. . . .

During this appalling Age of Darkness without the Sun, learning and literacy were all but destroyed. Libraries were burned, in order to hide the horrible secret of the Christian religion, and a world that had been reaching for the stars, with great thinkers appearing in numerous places, was now subjugated in darkness falsely portraying itself as the “light of the world.” As Pike says:

The Church of Rome claimed despotism over the soul, and over the whole life from the cradle to the grave. It gave and sold absolutions for past and future sins. It claimed to be infallible in matters of faith. It decimated Europe to purge it of heretics. It decimated America to convert the Mexicans and Peruvians. . . . The history of all is or will be the same—acquisition, dismemberment and ruin. . . . To seek to subjugate the will of others and to take the soul captive, because it is the exercise of the highest power, seems to be the highest object of human ambition. It is at the bottom of all proselytizing and propagandism . . .

And, as Wheless declares:

Holy Fraud and Forgery having achieved their initial triumph for the Faith, the “Truth of Christ” must now be maintained and enforced upon humanity by a millennial series of bloody brutal Clerical Laws of pains and penalties, confiscations, civil disabilities, torture and death by rack, fire and sword, which constitute the foulest chapter of the Book of human history—the History of the Church!

The Origins of Cultural Bigotry and Racism

One of the most unfortunate aspects of the historicizing of this “oldest story ever sold” was that one particular ethnic group, and that one only, became esteemed above all others for being “God’s chosen people,” the “priestly nation” and the spiritual masters of mankind. Another calamitous aspect has been the vilification of these same people as “Christkillers” and foaming-at-the-mouth murderers of the Almighty Lord God himself. Thus, in believing the gospel tale Christians have been forced into a love-hate relationship with the Jews, who are to be perceived as “God’s chosen” and “Christkillers” at the same time. Not only is this schizophrenic salvation plan and legacy not the product of any good god, it is utterly divisive, setting people against each other all over the world.

Furthermore, not a few people have wondered why these identical stories found outside of the Bible and revolving around “Gentile” or “Pagan” characters are “myths,” while the biblical tales told about Hebrews and Jews are “history.” As Jacolliot remarks:

We have repudiated Greek and Roman mythologies with disdain. Why, then, admit with respect the mythology of the Jews? Ought the miracles of Jehovah to impress us more than those of Jupiter? . . . I have much more respect for the Greek Jupiter than for the God of Moses; for if he gives some examples not of the purest morality, at least he does not flood his altar with streams of human blood.

The gospel story constitutes cultural bigotry and does a disservice to the history of humanity. Contrary to popular belief, the ancients were not an ignorant and superstitious lot who actually believed their deities to be literal characters. Nor were they as a whole immoral or unenlightened. This propaganda has been part of the conspiracy to make the ancients appear as if they were truly the dark and dumb rabble that was in need of the “light of Jesus.” As Massey says:

The picture of the New Beginning commonly presented is Rembrandt-like in tone. The whole world around Judea lay in the shadow of outer darkness, when suddenly there was a great light seen at the centre of all, and the face of the startled universe was illuminated by an apparition of the child-Christ lying in the lap of Mary. Such was the dawn of Christianity, in which the Light of the World had come to it at last! That explanation is beautifully simple for the simple-minded; but the picture is purely false—or, in sterner words, it is entirely false.

And Pikes asks, “Did the Deity leave the whole world without Light for two score centuries, to illuminate only a little corner of Palestine and a brutal, ignorant, and ungrateful people?”

The reality is that the ancients were no less advanced in their morals and spiritual practices, and in many cases were far more enlightened, than the Christians in their own supposed morality and ideology, which, in its very attempt at historicity, is in actuality a degradation of the ancient celestial and terrestrial religion. Indeed, unlike the Christians, the true intelligentsia among the ancients were well aware that their gods were astronomical and atmospheric in nature. Even the much vilified Babylonians declared that their gods and those of other cultures and ages were the sun, moon, stars and planets, demonstrating that they were not only advanced but honest in this matter. In addition, the eminent Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle surely knew that their gods, such as Zeus, the sky-god father-figure who migrated to Greece from India and/or Egypt, were never real people.

These three great Greek luminaries were, oddly enough, highly esteemed by early Christian conspirators, who, as they had with so many preceding purveyors of wisdom and ideologies, falsely presented these savants’ known accomplishments in philosophy as divine revelation to the Church. Such appropriation was recognized by the ancients themselves. For instance, Amelius, a Platonist of the 3rd century, “upon reading the first verse of St. John the Evangelist, exclaimed, ‘By Jove, this

barbarian agrees with our Plato.’ Cardinal Palavicino is quoted as saying, “Without Aristotle we should be without many Articles of Faith.” It is amusing to consider that the omniscient “Lord,” who came to deliver a “New Dispensation,” needed the writings of Aristotle to determine doctrine for “his” Church. It is likewise interesting that, by constantly “borrowing from” and aligning themselves with exalted philosophers who were recognized as having penetrated the mysteries of the cosmos, the Christians themselves admitted just how advanced were their predecessors. Thus, we discover that the image of the ancient world as portrayed by Christianity is utterly false.

In fact, rather than serving as an improvement, Christianity has been a psychic trauma, uprooting ideas and deities that were worshipped since Neolithic times, particularly nature gods and goddesses. The sexist Judeo-Christian-Islamic ideology has been a war on all things considered female, including Nature and Mother Earth. The patriarchal age has represented the military campaign of the sky-god father-figure against the earth-goddess mother-figure. In the process, the Goddess’s groves—so sacred to the ancients that to cut them down was sometimes a capital offense—have been plowed under and her creatures butchered in a vicious quest for riches and “heaven.” The current culture is now headed for environmental cataclysm, because this ideology has served to disconnect human beings from the earth, to constantly focus their attention not on this life and this reality but on an afterlife and another world altogether.

Furthermore, as Graham says, “Such a story as the Gospels tell us is unworthy of man’s respect; it is, we repeat, the greatest fraud and hoax ever perpetrated upon mankind.” No human culture can survive that bases its fundamental beliefs and perceptions on a hoax, particularly one in which the result has been the needless torture and slaughter of millions around the globe.

In reality, Christianity was the product of a multinational cabal composed of members of a variety of brotherhoods, secret societies and mystery schools, and was designed to empower and enrich such individuals and to unify their empire. To do so, these conspirators took myriad myths and rituals of virtually all the known cultures and combined them into one, producing a godman to beat them all. This unreachable fictional character has since been considered the “greatest man who ever walked the earth,” to whom no one else can compare and besides whom nobody else deserves much recognition and appreciation. All others are, in fact, pathetic, born-in-sin wretches. But, he did not walk the earth, and we must hereafter allow the dignity of sanctity to be bestowed upon not just one “man” but all of creation.

The prejudice and bigotry promulgated by Christianity and other monolithic yet divisive ideologies have caused an atrocious amount of destruction of cultural diversity. It has been demonstrated what a wonderfully colorful and varied world it is in which we live. Around the globe for millennia has appeared a mythos, a core of understanding, that is cosmic and eternal in nature. It once had an infinite variety of flavors and incorporated much of creation in a divine and respectful play. To reduce all this glory to a handful of characters of a particular ethnicity who allegedly played out the cosmic drama one time in history robs us not only of the truth but also of our diversity and universality as well. Furthermore, by removing our ability to question “authority” and to develop our own individuality, this ideology homogenizes us in a way that it is not beneficial but ugly and sheepish. By understanding the terrestrial and cosmic mythos conveyed for millennia, we can move ourselves at last into an age of enlightenment and enjoy the multiplicity of the human mind, unfettered by controlling concepts and “thought police” that limit creativity and wisdom.

The New Age

It has been demonstrated that Christianity pretty much got it all wrong—except the end to its erroneous means: It succeeded in enriching and empowering its most effective proponents many times over. According to the same astrological system used to create Christianity, the age for such divisiveness, fascism and hierarchical exploitation is now drawing to a close, and lying, deceit, cheating and stealing will fall by the wayside. Included in this age in which “the truth will be shouted from the rooftops” is the exposure of Earth’s “dirty little secret.” As Jacolliot says:

Apostles of Jesus, you have counted too much upon human credulity, trusted too much that the future might not unveil your manoeuvres and your fabricated recitals―the sanctity of your object made you too oblivious of means, and you have taken the good faith of peoples by surprise in re-producing the fables of another age, which you believed buried for ever.

But the future is now, and the maneuvers are being unveiled. As far as Christianity’s role in this “New Age,” Carpenter states:

Christianity therefore, as I say, must either now come frankly forward and, acknowledging its parentage from the great Order of the past, seek to rehabilitate that and carry mankind one step forward in the path of evolution—or else it must perish. There is no alternative.

Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age. “I am with you always to the close of the age”—so ends the Gospel of Matthew. What does this mysterious statement mean, and why was this all-important book ended with it? The age referred to in the gospel tale is that of Pisces, and, through contrivance and duplicity, coercion and slaughter, the fish-god “Jesus,” the Piscean Solar Avatar, has indeed been with us, but now it is the close of the age, and his time is over.

As Hancock says, “We live today in the astrological no man’s land at the end of the ‘Age of Pisces,’ on the threshold of the ‘New Age’ of Aquarius. Traditionally these times of transition between one age and the next have been regarded as illomened.” Ill-omened verily, as the ongoing destruction of the earth and the endless warfare over ideology will indeed produce the “Armageddon” so long awaited and planned for by those who cannot live for today but must look towards an afterlife. By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world.”[3]

As one can see via the context of the quote is that Acharya was not advocating an “Aquarian one world.” This shows that Keith is not only deliberately quote mining, but also playing semantic trickery in order to establish the basis for his argument. Interestingly enough however this completely contradicts another statement Keith has made about this exact same quote:

“…Acharya S, in fact, she promotes basically the abolishen of Christianity in her book the Christ Conspiracy…  Those who don’t wanna join the New Age are gonna have to perish and Acharya S even said that in her book on page 416, 417 of The Christ Conspiracy. So they hate the Christians…”[4]

As Alice would say “curioser and curioser” as I ask which is it? Is she advocating that Christians must die or is she advocating a New World Order under the Age of Aquarius? At this point however one can obviously see that it is neither and shows that Keith is both being deceptive and playing semantics in order to establish his argument.

“This kind of New Age utopian sentiment is echoed in Annie Besant’s writings as well – former president of the New Age Theosophical society. I quote her in the film as saying:

” … the equinox will reach the sign of Aquarius, and, coinciding the great Cycle of influence, we can indeed hope to put a complete end to all the influence of the past Cycle, with its tyranny, slavery, war and cruelty …” “This is one of the great transitional Epochs, and the karma before humanity as a whole, and to every group in particular, is to reform itself from slavery, female subjection, war and cruelty and establish a civilization based on humane-ness and interest in spiritual matters.””

The main problem with this idea is that once I compared what Annie Besant believes vs. what D. M. Murdock actually wrote it completely contradicts Keith’s assertion (which as I have demonstrated thus far to be based on a deceptive tactic). Acharya basically states that all religions have a common origin steeped in Astrotheology; so instead of people bickering and fighting this notion that their religion is the one true religion and realize that all religions can be traced back through a common thread, is when people will finally stop killing in the name of religion (the number one reason why people have killed each other throughout history. The numbers of which are as followed: 250 million have been murdered in the name of Christianity and 270 million have been murdered in the name of Islam since their creation. That’s over half a billion murdered just between those two religions. And both of their end time’s prophecies predict killing 2/3rds of the non-believing population. That is precisely what Acharya rejects and why she works to expose those barbaric aspects of religion. Acharya believes we can do much better if we are able to make well informed choices) and we finally outgrow the sentiment of established religions.

Acharya obviously indicates that this can be done via the field of Comparative Mythology, Anthropology, Archaeology, Archaeoastronomy and Astrotheology.

Compare that to Annie Besant’s notion that the world will enter into a moment of bliss where people’s minds will “awaken” vis-à-vis spiritual awakening. Instead of this being achieved through obtaining an education in the relevant fields of study this will become apparent automatically through the supernatural. In other words: Magic.

This is completely opposite of what the Zeitgeist Movement (which he is trying to connect us with) and what Acharya apparently proposes. Yet this is exactly what Keith is trying to do, by establishing links where they do not exist.

“This language is also present prominently in the book “The Externalization of the Heirarchy” by the Theosophist Alice Bailey as Eric Brame correctly noted.”

The issue I take in this statement has to do with the notion that she is a “Theosophist.” In order to establish this she has to have been a member of the Theosophical Society and stayed as a member when she formed the organization known as Lucis Trust along with maintaining ties with the Theosophical society as when she original wrote the book The Externalization of the Hierarchy (what can one expect of Keith when he says that Peter Joseph cites Manly P. Hall a Freemason even though the book he referenced being The Secret Teachings of All Ages was written over 30 years before became a Freemason in 1954!).

However through two separate e-mails via both the Theosophical Society and Lucis Trust tell a different story:

“I have answered most of these points before. Alice Bailey was a member of the Theosophical Society for 2-4 years, but left to form her own organization which later became the Arcane School and Lucis Trust. The Theosophical Society in America does not have any organizational connections or communications with Lucis Trust, although we have some of their Alice Bailey books in our library. We believe in the principle of open-minded inquiry, and our members are free to read anything they find worthwhile.”[5]

“There is no formal connection.  The Theosophical Society and the Lucis Trust carry out their work in complete independence of each other, in the sense of formal organizational structures.  However, the founders of the Lucis Trust, Alice and Foster Bailey, were actively involved in the TS for a number of years in the early part of the twentieth century, before leaving to begin their work for which the Lucis Trust serves as administrative and fiduciary agent.”[6]

Also when one does even further digging the very fact that Alice Bailey set up an organization to be in apart of politics shows that this goes completely against what Helena Petrovna Blavatsky intended for the Theosophical Society:

“Enq: Do you take any part in politics?

Theo: As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old bottles.

Make men feel and recognise in their innermost hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at the head of affairs as of old.”[7]

Being that this is a violation of what Blavatsky clearly stated, it shows that she is not a “Theosophist” as both Keith and Eric assert.

“Acharya even cites them in her books so it is no shock to discover that she was influenced by them with respect to her New Age of Aquarius utopian beliefs.”

This is clearly an “attempt to connect Acharya with the theosophists Keith tries to broadly paint as evil is blatant guilt by association and smears” as Freethinkaluva22 pointed out previously. Does Acharya quote H. P. Blavatsky in The Christ Conspiracy? Of Course! Does she cite another member? Yes! Keith however is not looking at HOW she is citing them or he is blatantly ignoring it on purpose. Let’s look at how she is using these Theosophists shall we?

“And Blavatsky says, “The Baal of the Israelites (the Shemesh of the Moabites and the Moloch of the Ammonites) was the identical ‘Sun-Jehovah,’ and he is till now ‘the King of the Host of Heaven,’ the Sun, as much as Astoreth [Astarte] was the ‘Queen of Heaven’―or the moon…

The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ Figure… He was considered the “Sin Bearer,” and Good Shepherd…

The following is a partial list of the correspondences between Jesus and Krishna… He castigated the clergy, charging them with “ambition and hypocrisy… Tradition says he fell victim to their vengeance…  He was called the “Shepherd God” and “our Lord and Savior,” who came to earth to die for man’s salvation…

In addition to the canonical gospels, the Christianized Peter tales were not in existence at the time of Justin Martyr (100-165), who, as Blavatsky relates, “writing in the early part of the second century in Rome, where he fixed his abode, eager to get hold of the least proof in favor of the truth for which he suffered, seems perfectly unconscious of St. Peter’s existence!! Neither does any other write of any consequence mention him in connection with the Church of Rome, earlier than the days of Irenaeus, when the latter set himself to invent a new religion, drawn from the depth of his imagination…

Furthermore, while the inhabitants pretended to be celibate, Christian nunneries were turned into whorehouses that serviced monks, among others. In fact, it was an apparently common practice for the compromised nuns’ babies to be tossed into ponds near the nunneries or buried in basements. As Blavatsky relates:

Luther speaks of a fish-pond at Rome, situated near a convent of nuns, which, having been cleared out by order of Pope Gregory, disclosed, at the bottom, over six thousand infant skulls; and of a nunnery at Neinburg, in Austria, whose foundations, when searched disclosed the same relics of celibacy and chastity…

When at the Corinthians Paul calls himself a “skilled master builder,” “he is using a word pre-eminently kabalistic, theurgic, and masonic…”[8]

This being said, in a footnote by Keith he states that “Acharya S cites Blavatsky numerous times in her book The Christ Conspiracy. For example pp. 103, 103, 125, 126, 295, 355 etc.” It’s interesting that Keith himself get’s the page numbers completely wrong. On another note he also claims that “she also cites prominent Theosophist Rudolf Steiner numerous times. For example pps. 30, 48 etc.” What is interesting is that Keith yet again is using “guilt by association,” as well as not even showing what the quotes are and how they relate to the book.

“Indeed, the story of Jesus as presented in the gospels, mass of impossibilities and contradictions that it is, has been so difficult to believe that even the fanatic Christian “doctor” and saint, Augustine (354-430), admitted, “I should not believe in the truth of the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church forced me to do so…”

Even knowing this fact of falsity, some believers will claim the gospels are nonetheless inspired by the omnipotent God and represent an infallible representation of the life of “the Lord.” Far from being infallible,” these spurious gospels contradict each other in numerous places. As noted by Otto Schmiedel, considered one of the greatest authorities on the “life of Jesus”: “If John possesses the genuine tradition on the life of Jesus, that of the first three Evangelists (the Synoptists) is untenable. If the Synoptists are right, the Fourth Gospel must be rejected as a historical source…””[9]

As with Blavatsky he cites the wrong pages in the footnotes, but he also puts forth an “etc” where in fact there are only two citations from Rudolf Steiner. But once I looked at the source on pp. 40-41; I came to the conclusion that Steiner was NOT the person she was referencing, it was someone else who happened to be in Steiner’s book Christianity as Mystical Fact.

By checking the source of the quote (which is something Keith never even bothered to do) I found out that it’s from a German book called Die Hauptprobleme der Leben Jesu-Forschung. Apparently this quote is translated into English via “the theosophist” himself. This being said now and taken into consideration; I have concluded that Murdock only references Steiner once, or is she?

Looking at the original source it would appear that she is just citing a particular document as the basis of her quote on page 99 of Christianity as Mystical Fact. This may or may not be Steiner’s own original translation (it does not seem to say in the footnote) but for the sake of argument we will assume he is working on the basis of someone else’s translation. This being put into perspective… is she referencing Rudolf Steiner? No! Does she cite Steiner…? Yes! The difference here is the referencing vs. the source citation in the footnote. Keith has apparently lied by saying that “she… cites prominent Theosophist Rudolf Steiner numerous times” by failing to mention that it is only twice and he even lied about the fact that she is not even referencing him… she is referencing Augustine’s Against Mani’s So-called Fundamental Epistle and Otto Schmiedel’s Die Hauptprobleme der Leben Jesu-Forschung.

One might think that I am being a bit harsh on Keith by calling him a liar, however he has stated that he is a self professed researcher and being a researcher he should have mentioned these little facts. He apparently both did not bother to check the sources and is mistaken or he knew about it and deliberately left it out. Either way, Keith is intellectually dishonest in this matter.

“No attempt has to be made to connect Acharya to early members of the New Age Theosophical society. She does that herself by promoting their Aquarian New Age beliefs and quoting their members as authoritative sources.

As for Luva defining Theosophy: it should be quite clear that when we say Acharya promotes Theosophical views we are speaking of the views of Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society as opposed to anyone who “discusses religious concepts.” The funny thing is that Luva cites disctionary.reference.com to define theosophy as something other than the views of Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society. However, that same source gives an alternate definition defining theosophy as the views of Blavatsky’s Theosphical Society – the very thing Luva doesn’t want theosophy to mean! Luva omitted that from the source to deceive her audience!:

Theosophy: 1. any of various forms of philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature.
2. (often initial capital letters ) the system of belief and practice of the Theosophical Society.

In regards to the beginning of this assertion it must be noted as before that she is NOT promoting ANY kind of New Age belief system. The quotes I gave with her citations of H.P. Blavatsky and the examination of the citations of Rudolf Steiner, I have concluded for myself that these are not quotes about spreading new age beliefs, but are about the historical context of Christianity and the interpretation of the texts (in only one case I might add is this even done via H.P.B.). What I would like to say is that the idea that she is a member of the Theosophical Society just because she quotes the founder and referencing only her (she is the ONLY member of the Theosophical Society quoted and referenced in The Christ Conspiracy) is absolutely absurd. This is much like saying that because I quote Benjamin Franklin to support my thesis, I must be a member of the Hellfire Club. This is the ONLY way Keith can assert this and that is basically taking step A and skipping all the way to step M without even bothering to look at any of the steps between to see if you did it right. It’s a leap of logic in and of itself (one that I cannot even fathom or being capable of doing myself).

Now onto the definitions; the point that Freethinkaluva22 was getting at apparently went over Keith’s head so I’m going to explain for Keith:

Because of the very first definition beingany of various forms of philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature”[10] is that the word Theosophy as its basis for the name of the society shows that it has no inherent belief systems. The definition goes as far back as the mid 17th century and has its roots in the Greek Theosophos meaning “one wise about God.”[11]This is something Keith overlooked and does not understand.

It would be at this point, I, along with the reader, can very much conclude that Keith is very ill-equipped to doing adequate research on a specific subject, especially in regards to the Theosophical Society. However this is more or less a thorough response of the article in question so bear with me as we continue down the Rabbit Hole.

“I don’t see how Luva can say it is a lie to say that Acharya promotes Karl Marx when I provide pictorial evidence demonstrating that she quoted Marx on her old website defaming religion in agreement with her anti-religious world view. If someone is opposed to Karl Marx and communism they are not going to quote him with approval to support their anti-religious world view.

Luva asserts that Acharya has never read Marx except for the one quote that was on her old website which states, “Religion … is the opium of the masses.” Luva would like you to believe that this is the only time that Acharya has promoted Marx by quoting him but that is not true. Even on her modern website Acharya quotes Marx a second time saying:

Christianity sprang out of Judaism. It has again withdrawn into Judaism. The Christian from the outset was the theorizing Jew; the Jew is therefore the practical Christian and the practical Christian has become a Jew. Christianity has only seemed to overcome real Judaism …Christianity is the sublime idea of Judaism. Judaism is the common application of Christianity.” Karl Marx, a Jew and “clear and lucid Talmudist” “On the Jewish Question,” Selected Essays

Therefore, Luva is incorrect when saying Acharya has never read Marx except for the one quote. Acharya is quite fond of quoting the founder of communism which is not surprising since Zeitgeist promotes a communist world system and Acharya promotes Zeitgeist. Luva’s research abilities have been shown to be shoddy.”

The two quotes being given have nothing to do with Karl Marx’s social political philosophy. They are comments and statements being made about religion which have nothing to do with Communism. Communism is defined as a set of political and economical ideas that sets itself up as a variety of systems of government. It has little to do with religion… and if Keith doesn’t really understand this, all he needs to know is that there is a party called the Christian Communist Party. Any quote that Keith points to that has to do with Marx making a comment about religion, is being promoted by Murdock and is asserting that she supports Communism can be dismissed as an ignorant statement offhandedly so.

I myself agree with Karl Marx on many things with what he has to say about religion; does this make me a Communist? No it doesn’t. I have a view that Karl Marx was one of the greatest philosophers of the 19th century; does this make me a communist? No it doesn’t. In order for Keith to establish this towards Murdock he needs to make constant leaps of logic in order to achieve this much like superman skipping over a building.

One should also notice that when Keith makes the reference that “Luva’s research abilities have been shown to be shoddy;” but as is being shown here is that the statement could have easily been reversed towards Keith, as I have shown time and time again that Keith’s “research abilities have been shown to be shoddy.

“As far as Luva claiming that Acharya cherishes the US constitution in her past work… that is irrelevant in light of the fact that Acharya has openly embraced Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist movement – a movement that proposes a one world system, which if carried out, would dismantle the U.S. Constitution.”

This is an interesting red herring. This really has nothing to do with anything on proving she is a Communist. I know that Keith here is trying to put forward that the Zeitgeist Movement is Communism and by contrast Acharya is a Communist. This is what we call Guilt by Association, I will respond to the many accusations by Keith and others at the notion that the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement are both Communism by nature in a future article.

“Keith and Dr. Swerdlow are easily proven wrong with primary source evidence. Hipparchus discusses the precession of the equinoxes and, there’s a mountain of evidence long before Hipparchus that the ancients were well aware. Read the “Astrotheology of the Ancients” chapter in Suns of God for more on this issue. Concerning the age of the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes, in his book In Search of Ancient Astronomies, astronomer and director of Los Angeles’s Griffith Observatory Dr. Edwin Krupp states:

“The earliest known direct reference to precession is that of the Greek astronomer Hipparchus (2nd century BCE), who is credited with discovering it. Adjustments of the Egyptian temple alignments, pointed out by Sir Norman Lockyer, may well indicate a much earlier sensitivity to this phenomenon, however.”

Again, Krupp says:

“Circumstantial evidence implies that the awareness of the shifting equinoxes may be of considerable antiquity, for we find, in Egypt at least, a succession of cults whose iconography and interest focus on duality, the bull, and the ram at appropriate periods for Gemini, Taurus, and Aries in the precessional cycle of the equinoxes.”

– Suns of God, page 40

Here’s an excerpt, Astrotheology of the Ancients

National Geographic’s “Ancient Astronomers”

Hipparchus’s understanding of the precession by David Ulansey in which he points out Dr. Swerdlow’s errors.

The evidence is on Acharya’s side, and Keith knows it. So he creates these videos to smear, defame, harass and ridicule her into submission, like a good bully for the Lord pushing his extremist form of the Christian ideology.

Keith repeats the same lies and misinformation as all his other older videos. Keith makes no effort to correct those lies, let alone obvious errors, even after they have been brought to his attention repeatedly. Again, Keith is clearly not interested in any “Truth.” He is only interested in shoring up his faith at all costs – even if it means maliciously attacking living, breathing people because they disagree with his religious ideology.

Keith and his cult must be held responsible and accountable. They are selling this DVD full of these lies … Keith and Eric Brame should be sued for malicious lies, smears, libel and defamation. The videos I’ve discussed here thus far should be flagged by everyone and removed by Youtube. If Bill Cooper’s website “Hour of the Time” had any idea how badly Keith’s DVD maliciously smears and defames people in it, I don’t think they’d support it. If he had any integrity, Bill Cooper would find Keith’s slanderous, trashy videos an embarrassment to decent Christians.

There is always room for legitimate criticism, but what Keith and his extremist Christian cult are doing, maliciously smearing and lying about specific individuals like a witch hunt, is evil. Keith merely proves himself to be a pathological liar for the Lord.

Dr. Swerdlow responded via email stating:

Keith,

“I fear there is no way of convincing these people that they are incorrect since they don’t really understand what they are writing. Of course the precession was known to Hipparchus—how many other people took it seriously before Ptolemy is not known since there are no earlier references to it—but to know the precession is not to attribute any astrological significance to which group of stars the equinoxes and solstices are located in. This plays no role in ancient astrology, medieval astrology, Renaissance astrology, or anything else before the last century, if that. There was some concern in the study of ancient chronology in the seventeenth century with the locations of the equinoxes in zodiacal constellations, but it was not astrological, it was a purely historical study concerned with the distance of various stars from the equinoxes by which it was believed that precise dates could be assigned to things like the Voyage of the Argonauts and the Trojan War. It did not work as it was built on too many unverifiable assumptions and the events were mythical anyway. The short answer is still that this ‘age’ stuff in modern astrology is entirely modern, twentieth century as far as I know.”

Noel

I contacted Noel to ascertain as to whether or not Keith actually e-mailed him. His response was that he did, however I did notice something very interesting in his response where he stated that “the sources you cite look to me to be either misinformed or crackpot.” Keith indicated that he “emailed this… to Dr. Noel Swerdlow” which was an apparent lie as he never actually saw the sources based on his response.

Dr. Swerdlow offers no such indication as to why they are “crackpot” other than they are. Apparently this is just an assertion without any actual evidence.

David Ulansey, PhD  of the history of religions and comparative religious studies at Princeton University and a teacher at the University of California at Berkeley, Boston University, Barnard College, Columbia University, University of Vermont, Princeton University, etc…[12] wrote an article entitled Mithraism: The Cosmic Mysteries of Mithra where Professor Ulansey stated the following:

My own research over the past decade has been devoted to discovering why these particular constellations might have been seen as especially important, and how an icon representing them could have come to form the core of a powerful religious movement in the Roman Empire.

In order to answer these questions, we must first have in mind a few facts about ancient cosmology. Today we know that the earth rotates on its axis once a day, and revolves around the sun once a year. However, Greco-Roman astronomy at the time of the Mithraic mysteries was based on a so-called “geocentric” cosmology, according to which the earth was fixed and immovable at the center of the universe and everything went around it. In this cosmology the universe itself was imagined as being bounded by a great sphere to which the stars, arranged in the various constellations, were attached. So, while we today understand that the earth rotates on its axis once every day, in antiquity it was believed instead that once a day the great sphere of the stars rotated around the earth, spinning on an axis that ran from the sphere’s north pole to its south pole. As it spun, the cosmic sphere was believed to carry the sun along with it, resulting in the apparent movment of the sun around the earth once a day.

In addition to this daily rotation of the cosmic sphere carrying the sun along with it, the ancients also attributed a second, slower motion to the sun. While today we know that the earth revolves around the sun once a year, in antiquity it was believed instead that once a year the sun– which was understood as being closer to the earth than the sphere of the stars– traveled around the earth, tracing a great circle in the sky against the background of the constellations. This circle traced by the sun during the course of the year was known as the “zodiac”– a word meaning “living figures,” which was a reference to the fact that as the sun moved along the circle of the zodiac it passed in front of twelve different constellations which were represented as having various animal and human forms.

Because the ancients believed in the real existence of the great sphere of the stars, its various parts– such as its axis and poles– played a central role in the cosmology of the time. In particular, one important attribute of the sphere of the stars was much better known in antiquity than it is today: namely, its equator, known as the “celestial equator.” Just as the earth’s equator is defined as a circle around the earth equidistant from the north and south poles, so the celestial equator was understood as a circle around the sphere of the stars equidistant from the sphere’s poles. The circle of the celestial equator was seen as having a particularly special importance because of the two points where it crosses the circle of the zodiac: for these two points are the equinoxes, that is, the places where the sun, in its movement along the zodiac, appears to be on the first day of spring and the first day of autumn. Thus the celestial equator was responsible for defining the seasons, and hence had a very concrete significance in addition to its abstract astronomical meaning.

As a result, the celestial equator was often described in ancient popular literature about the stars.”[13]

Professor Ulansey touches upon the subject at even greater length in his book The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World (Oxford University Press 1991). I would suggest to the reader that they pick the book up in order for greater clarity on the subject itself.

In response though to Noel Swerdlow’s statement about Hiparchus found on an online article which might be of very much interest to those wanting opposing view point’s to Swerdlow,[14] can in fact be found in the footnotes.

Conclusion

The article that Keith puts forth thus far is completely lacking in substance. He utilizes semantic trickery, quote mining, and strawmaning the opposing position in order to establish his thesis along with utilizing a play on words as well as faulty generation (i.e. guilt by association). This being said however I doubt that Keith will either acknowledge this response to his article or he will write me off as being “uneducated” or “strawmaning his position.”


[1] Refutation of Acharya S’s followers at ‘Feethought Nation’  Regarding ‘Aquarius: The Age of Evil’

[2] Keith Trash is a Liar for the Lord – again

[3] S, Acharya The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold [Adventures Unlimited Press 1999] pp. 411-417

[4] Keith Thompson Interview by Chris White

[5] Re: The Supposed connection between yourb organization and the Theosophical Society 3/5/2010―If one wishes to have this e-mail simply contact me at voiceofreason467@yahoo.com to be forwarded the e-mail. This is the e-mail response from the Theosophical Society. They can be contacted at archives@theosophical.org.

[6] Your query 3/29/2010― if one wishes to have this e-mail simply contact me at voiceofreason467@yahoo.com to be forwarded the e-mail. This is the e-mail response from Lucis Trust. They can be contacted at newyrok@lucistrust.org.

[7] Blavatsky, H. P. The Key to Theosophy p. 231― http://ia311230.us.archive.org/2/items/totheosophybe00blavkeyrich/totheosophybe00blavkeyrich.pdf

[8] S, Acharya The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold [Adventures Unlimited Press 1999] pp. 93, 109, 110, 116, 117, 169, 284, 344―These quotes are from H. P. Blavatsky.

[9] Ibid, pp. 24, 40-41

[10] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theosophy

[11] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=theosophy

[12] http://www.well.com/~davidu/

[13] http://www.well.com/~davidu/mithras.html

[14] http://www.well.com/user/davidu/swerdlow.html

Posted in Conspiracy Theory Claims, Keith Thompson, Response Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 28 Comments

The Zeitgeist Movement’s alleged connection to Freemasonry, Illuminati, Theosophical Society

The Zeitgeist Movement has connections to the Theosophical Society, Freemasonry, and the Illuminati

While conspiracy theorists are not known for applying Occam’s Razor this one is purely ridiculous on almost all points and level’s and will take some time to refute some of these ridiculous claims. I will go over each of them, both by Christian Conspiracy Theorists, Atheist Conspiracy Theorists (even though there are less of those around) and just plain old Conspiracy Theorists.

Claim #1: Zeitgeist: The Movie cites Helene Petrovna Blavatsky in the transcript thus supporting New Age ideology.

This claim is by far one of the most ridiculous claims above all else. The reason for those comes in the transcript citation where Helena Blavatsky is only cited once and is used for information on Sargon:

“This baby in a basket story was lifted directly from the myth of Sargon of Akkad of around 2250 b.c. Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide, and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal mid-wife.”[S142]

[S142] – Blavatsky, H. P.: The Secret Doctrine Vol 1, p 319-320

However, while this is available for all eyes to see at http://zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm a lot of people do not tend to use this, and in fact claim that Zeitgeist: The Movie is using H. P. Blavatsky numerous times when in fact it is just once. Also I seriously doubt Peter Joseph even remembers citing her as she is not on the Source/Credit’s link found at http://zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm.

Be that as it may Peter was actually asked this question on his the Zeitgeist Movement Bi-Weekly Address found at http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=438&Itemid=1904 where he states the following.

However regardless of this, people never tend to even try and listen to the Zeitgeist Movement Bi-Weekly Address, however people should indeed try it at any such case.

That being said however one must understand that Zeitgeist: The Movie has no relevant connection to Zeitgeist: Addendum, and only on a superficial way are they even connected to the Zeitgeist Movement.

Claim #2: Zeitgeist: The Movie cites Freemason’s such as Manly Palmer Hall, Albert Pike, and Albert Churchward thus supporting Freemasonry ideology.

This claim seems to be connected with anti-Masonic claims of them being either New Ager’s or even holding theistic Lucifer beliefs. I will not of course go in length with these accusations of Freemasonry as they can be no doubt shown to be false with just a simplistic call to the Freemasonry lodges however I will quote briefly the Grand Lodge of England:

“Freemasonry is far from indifferent to religion. Without interfering in religious practice, it expects each member to follow his own faith, and to place above all other duties his to God by whatever name He is known.”

For those wanting to know more about Freemasonry, I suggest you contact your local Freemasonry Lodge or look up their websites on the facts rather than the conspiracy myth’s.

That being said now onto this claim.

Now let us begin with the idea of Manly Palmer Hall, he was used in the source citation. However that being said let us look as to how he was being used and what he was referenced towards in the transcript:

“The term Zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified, as figures, or animals.”[S4] [M]

[S4] – Hall, Manly P.: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, 1928. Page 53-56 [Chapter: “The Zodiac and Its Signs]

“of the virgin Isis-Meri”[S18]

[S18] – Hall, Manly P.: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, 1928. Page 53-56 [Chapter 7: “Isis, the Virgin of the World”]

(I would also like to point out that there are two different source citations for this being Gerald Massey and Thomas Doane)

“It is the Sun’s transition period before it shifts its direction back into the Northern Hemisphere, bringing Spring, and thus salvation.”[S82]

[S82] – Hall, Manly P.: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, 1928. Page 183

(I would also again like to point out that there is another source citation being used which is William Olcott.)

“This has to do with a slow angular wobble that the Earth maintains as it rotates on it’s axis. It is called a precession because the constellations go backwards, rather than through the normal yearly cycle.”[S101]

[S101] – Hall, Manly P.: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, 1928. Page 53-54

As is being shown, one obviously has to see that Hall had nothing to do with the source citation of Jesus and about more than half of it was backed by other source citations. Only two source citations were supported by Hall alone.

Now then to Albert Pike. This claim comes from Keith Thompson’s New Age Infiltration of the Truth Movement (Final Cut 2009), and possibly Chris White. However after careful examination of the source citation, you will find literally no source citation whatsoever of Albert Pike.

[S1] – Singh, Madanjeet: ‘The Sun- Symbol of Power and Life, UNESCO Pub., 1993
[S2] – Krupp, Edwin: In Search of Ancient Astronomies, Mcgraw-Hill, 1979
[S3] – Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, DODO Press, Chaper III: “The Symbolism of the Zodiac
[S4] – Hall, Manly P.: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, 1928. Page 53-56 [Chapter: “The Zodiac and Its Signs]
[S5] – Carpenter, Edward: Pagan & Christian Creeds, 1920. Page 36-53 [Chaper III: “The Symbolism of the Zodiac]
[S6] – Acharya S.: Suns of God, Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004. Page 60-85 [Chaper III: “The Sun God”]
[S7] – Hazelrigg, John.: The Sun Book, Health Research, 1971. Page 43
[S8] – Acharya S.: Suns of God, Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004. Page 86-95
[S9] – Olcott, William Tyler : Suns Lore of All Ages, The Book Tree, 1914. Page 157
[S10] – Mackenzie, Donald: Egyption Myth and Legend, 1907 Page 163
[S11] – Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, Page 48, 51
[S12] – Acharya S.: Suns of God, Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004. Page 92, 113
[S13] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. Page 257-259
[S14] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Page 39-40
[S15] – Septehenses, Clerk De.: Religions. of the Ancient. Greeks, p. 214.
[S16] – Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 327-328
[S17] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Page 40
[S18] – Hall, Manly P.: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, 1928. Page 53-56 [Chapter 7: “Isis, the Virgin of the World”]
[S19] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Page 12-13
[S20] – Jackson, John: Christianity before Christ, AAP, p111-113
[S21] -Walker, Barbara: Women’s Encyplodia of Myths and Secrets, p. 748-754
[S22] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 56-61
[S23] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 613-620
[S24] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 614
[S25] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 600-607
[S26] – Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 256, 273
[S27] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 623-661
[S28] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Page 626
[S29] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 74-75
[S30] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. Page 115
[S31] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 43-47
[S32] – Acharya S.: Suns of God , Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004. Page 93
[S33] – Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, Page 135
[S34] – Bonswick, James: Egyption Belief and Modern Thought, p. 157
[S35] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Page 628-629
[S36] – Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 222- 223
[S37] – Bonswick, James: Egyption Belief and Modern Thought, p. 150-155, 178
[S38] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. Page 107-108
[S39] – Frazer, James.: The Golden Bough, Touchstone, 1963. Page 403-409
[S40] – Jackson, John: Christianity before Christ, AAP, p. 67
[S41] – Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 190-191
[S42] – Berry, Gerald: Religions of the World, B&N, p.20
[S43] – Weigall, Arthur: The Paganism in our Christianity, Thames & Hudson, 1999 p115-116
[S44] – Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, p 12
[S45] – Acharya S.: Suns of God , Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004. Chapter 7
[S46] – Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 113-115
[S47] – Wilkes, Charles (translator): Bhagavat-Geeta, 1785 p 52
[S48] – Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 278-288
[S49] – Freke & Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers Press, p. 29, 33, 38, 48, 56
[S50] – Frazer, James.: The Golden Bough, Touchstone, 1963. Page 451-452, 543
[S51] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. Page 111-113
[S52] – Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 193
[S53] – Weigall, Arthur: The Paganism in our Christianity, Thames & Hudson, 1999 p220-224
[S54] – Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, DODO Press, p10
[S55] – Freke & Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers Press, p. 33, 42
[S56] – Frazer, James.: The Golden Bough, Touchstone, 1963. Page 415-420
[S57] – Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 223
[S58] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. Page 118-120
[S59] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman
[S60] – Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, DODO Press, p16-17
[S61] – Charles F. Dupuis : Origine de Tous les Cultes, Paris, 1822
[S62] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 12-13
[S63] – Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 140-146
[S64] – Irvin & Rutajit: Astrotheology and Shamanism, The Book Tree, Pages 25-26
[S65] – Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, DODO Press, p 17-18
[S66] – Frazer, James.: The Golden Bough, Touchstone, 1963. Page 391
[S67] – Moor, Edward, The Hindu Pantheon, Simpson, p154
[S68] – Maxwell, Tice, Snow: That Old-Time Religion,The Book Tree, p43
[S69] – Freke & Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers Press, p. 33
[S70] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 27
[S71] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. Pages 189-190
[S72] – Acharya S.: Suns of God , Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004. p199,220-221,352-353
[S73] – Frazer, James.: The Golden Bough, Touchstone, 1963. Page 415-417
[S74] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. Pages 154-155
[S75] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 10, 98
[S76] – Maxwell, Tice, Snow: That Old-Time Religion,The Book Tree, p41
[S77] – Roy, S.B: Prehistoric Lunar Astronomy, Institute of Chronology, New Delhi, 1976 p.114
[S78] – Bonswick, James: Egyption Belief and Modern Thought, p. 174
[S79] – Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 495-508
[S80] – Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 483-492
[S81] – Olcott, William Tyler : Suns Lore of All Ages, The Book Tree, 1914. chapter IX
[S82] – Hall, Manly P.: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, 1928. Page 183
[S83] – Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 496
[S84] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. Pages 166-183
[S85] – Higgins, Godfrey: Anacalypsis, A&B Books. Pages 781-782
[S86] – Anderson, Karl: Astrology of the Old Testamate, Health Re. p18
[S87] – Jackson, John: Christianity before Christ, AAP, p. 185
[S88] – Campbell, Jospeh: Creative Mytholigy- The Masks of God, Penguin, p 24-25
[S89] – Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, p 363
[S90] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.218
[S91] – Maxwell, Tice, Snow: That Old-Time Religion,The Book Tree, p41
[S92] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, John 9:5
[S93] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Matthew 28:6
[S94] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman John 14:3
[S95] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, 2 Corinthians 4:6
[S96] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Romans 13:12
[S97] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, John 3:3
[S98] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Mark 13:26
[S99] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, John 3:13
[S100] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, John 19:5
[S101] – Hall, Manly P.: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, 1928. Page 53-54
[S102] – A.L. Berger; Obliquity & Precession for the last 5 million years; Astronomy & astrophysics (1976), p127
[S103] – Campion, Nicholas: The Great Year: Astrology, Millenarianism, and History in the Western Tradition, Penguin
[S104] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes
[S105] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Aquarius
[S106] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Exodus 32-34
[S107] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Exodus 32:27
[S108] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf#The_Sin_of_Idolatry
[S109] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.146
[S110] -Wagner, Leopold: Manners, Customs, and Observances; Jewish Fasts and Festivals 1894 # 403
[S111] – Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, DODO Press, p16-17
[S112] – Acharya S.: Suns of God , Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004. p 127
[S113] – Hall, Manly P.: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, 1928. P 55
[S114] – Dowling, Eva S. A, Ph.D: Scribe to the Messenger, p 6
[S115] – Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, DODO Press, p 30
[S116] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, John 6:9-11
[S117] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Matthew 4:19
[S118] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.146
[S119] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.146-147
[S120] – Leedom, Tim.: The Book your Church Doesnt Want You to Read, Truth Seeker,. p.25
[S121] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Matthew 28:20
[S122] – Maxwell, Tice, Snow: That Old-Time Religion,The Book Tree, p44
[S123] – Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, p 282, 366
[S124] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 1-10
[S125] – Massey, Gerald.: Lectures, A & B, p 7-8
[S126] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.265-274
[S127] – Wells, G.A.: Who was Jesus?, Open Court 1991 p179
[S128] – Jackson, John: Christianity before Christ, AAP, p. 109-118
[S129] – Budge. Sir. E.A. Wallis: The Gods of the Egyptions Vol I, Methuen and Co. p566-599
[S130] – Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, p 394-403
[S131] – Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 122,190,213,222,256,327,363,476,484
[S132] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.115-116
[S133] – Jackson, John: Christianity before Christ, AAP, p. 110-112
[S134] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 32-35
[S135] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Page 663-671
[S136] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.237-239
[S137] -Walker, Barbara: Women’s Encyplodia of Myths and Secrets, p. 315
[S138] -Thompson, R. Campbell (tr. by ): The Epic of Gilgamish, 1928
[S139] – Budge. Sir. E.A. Wallis: The Babylonian Story of the Deluge and the Epic of Gilgamish, 1929
[S140] – Teeple, Howard M.: The Noah’s Ark Nonsense, Religion and Ethics Institute, 1978
[S141] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Exodus 2:1-10
[S142] – Blavatsky, H. P.: The Secret Doctrine Vol 1, p 319-320
[S143] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.241-243
[S144] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Exodus 20:2-17
[S145] – Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 55-61
[S146] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.241
[S147] – Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 60
[S148] – Graham, Lloyd, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, Citidel, 1991, p. 147
[S149] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 526-528
[S150] – Budge. Sir. E.A. Wallis: The Book of the Dead, Gramercy, Chapter CXXV
[S151] – Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 319-321
[S152] – Budge. Sir. E.A. Wallis: The Book of the Dead, Gramercy, p66
[S153] – Budge. Sir. E.A. Wallis: The Book of the Dead, Gramercy, Chapter CXXV
[S154] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p99-148
[S155] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p84, 197-198,200, 202, 213, 215
[S155] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p888-893
[S156] – Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 181-205
[S157] – Maxwell, Tice, Snow: That Old-Time Religion,The Book Tree, p51-53
[S158] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p942, 951-952
[S159] – Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 85-87
[S160] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Book 4, p149-196
[S161] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics , p92 180, 192, 26-266
[S162] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.237-239
[S163] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World , Cosimo, p130, 228, 274, 584-585, 859, 870, 880
[S164] – Olcott, William Tyler : Suns Lore of All Ages, The Book Tree, 1914. chapter IX
[S165] – Bonwick, James: Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, C. Kegan, 1878, p.237
[S166] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p888, 797 [* also see S163]
[S167] – Martyr, Justin: First Apology / The Apostolic Fathers: Martyr and Irenaeus by Philip Schaff. Eerdmans Pub.
[S168] – Martyr, Justin: I Apol., chs. xxi, xxii; ANF. i, 170; cf. Add. ad Grace. ch. lxix; Ib. 233.
[S169] – Freke & Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers Press, Chapter 3 -“Diabolical Mimicry”
[S170] – Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 466-507
[S171] – Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, p 404-409
[S172] – Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, DODO Press, Chaper II & III
[S173] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p563-622
[S174] – Acharya S.: Suns of God , Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004. Chapters II, III, IV
[S175] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Gen. 30:22-24
[S176] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Matt. 1:18-23
[S177] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Gen. 42:13
[S178] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Matt. 10-1
[S179] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Gen. 37:28
[S180] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Matt. 26:15
[S181] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Gen. 37:26-27
[S182] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Matthew 26:14-15
[S183] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Gen. 37:28
[S184] – King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman, Matthew 26:15
[S185] – Murdock, D.M. – Who was Jesus?, Steller House Publishing, Chapter “Extrabiblical Testimony”
[S186] – Remsburg, John E.: The Christ Myth, Nuvision Pub, p 17-30
[S187] – Freke & Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers Press, p. 133-139
[S188] – Doherty, Earl: The Jesus Puzzle, A&R,p78
[S189] – Acharya S.: Suns of God , Adventures Unlimited Press, 2004. p381-388
[S190] – Doherty, Earl: The Jesus Puzzle, A&R, Chapter 2
[S191] – Freke & Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers Press, Chapter 7
[S192] – Murdock, D.M. – Who was Jesus?, Steller House Publishing, 2005
[S193] – Remsburg, John E.: The Christ Myth, Nuvision Pub, Chapter 1
[S194] – Allegro, John – The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Prometheus Books, 190-203
[S195] – Massey, Gerald. : Lectures- Gnostic amd Historic Christianity,Cosimo Classics, p. 73-104
[S196] – Freke & Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers Press, p 89-110, 253-256
[S197] – Acharya S.: The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999. p.340-342

I am kinda curious however where they seem to have gotten Albert Pike from the source citation as you can see that there is no such source being used in the first Zeitgeist film.

Now for Albert Churchward.

It is true that Albert Churchward was a Masonic author, however if we remember that Manly P. Hall also wrote The Lost Keys of Freemasonry’ 31 years before he was even a member of Freemasonry. However when searching for information on Albert Churchward I came upon an interesting site called http://www.churchward.com/ and on it I have even contacted Brianne Churchward where he responded back stating the following.

Hi there,

Dr. Albert Churchward (1852-1925) was a medical practionier who wrote a string of books on various religious themes, including some of the Freemason movement. I had always assumed that he must have been a Freemason, but I do not have any proof.

He is not a member of my branch of the family, but I am in contact with someone who is related to him. He is Jack Churchward of Florida (contact: trinley@churchward.com ). Jack is the great-grandson of a brother of Dr. Albert, and so may be able to answer your query.

Regards,

Brian Churchward.

Taking his advice I e-mailed Jack Churchward who stated the following:

Hi,

Albert was a Freemason and wrote books on the subject.

Attached is his obituary in the “Freemason” – probably published in London.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2517/albertchurchward.jpg

I did some research on Dorothy M. Murdock (aka Acharya S) when I was made aware that she was quoting my great-grandfather James. Since I was aware of her theories that “Jesus never existed” and that James Churchward would not have agreed, I dug a little deeper and discovered that she took some of his quotes out of context and even twisted them to match her theories. I did not dig into the other quoted authors, but I would not be surprised if the same intellectual dishonesty that she used for James’ quotes was used elsewhere also.

A transcript of the original podcast is here:

http://www.my-mu.com/podcasts/podcast7.html

After her minions attacked and the video was removed from YouTube, I did another in response:

http://www.my-mu.com/bon/b05_2008.html

Both of the original video are available (again) from my YouTube accont:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jchurchward&view=videos

Have a great day,

Jack Churchward

Clearwater, Florida

Now that we have that straightened out. Let us see how he is being used shall we?

From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set [D] was the personification of the darkness or night .[M] [S11]

[S11] – Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, Page 48, 51

Horus was crucified[S33]

[S33] – Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, Page 135

(I would like to point out as well also that there is another source citation for this being James Bonswick.)

the shorthand of which looked like this. [S89]

[S89] – Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, p 363

The entire concept of end times and the end of the world is a misinterpreted astrological allegory.[S123]

[S123] – Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, p 282, 366

(I would like to point out also that there are four other source citations for this being Gerald Massey (his book The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree and Lectures), Acharya S. and G. A. Wells)

As you can see here the entire thing about the Freemasons being used is also a fabrication as Albert Pike was never even used, Manly Palmer Hall was only cited because of his knowledge of the Zodiac, Isis (which was backed up by other sources), the Winter Solstice (which again was backed up by other sources), and the Procession of the Equinox, and Albert Churchward’s (even though he was a Freemason) entire source citation was due to his knowledge on the duality of Horus and Set, the Crucifixion of Horus (which was backed up by other sources), the short hand version of the Zodiac, and the mistranslation of the end times as described in the King James Bible (again backed by other sources). Also he never did believe in the Christ Myth. However for a more clarification of this I have contacted the YouTube user spaceagebachelor who stated the following:

“Yes she has in private conversations with me.

Jack Churchwood has also attacked her on YouTube.

Comment from a supporter:

Jack Churchward is entitled to his opinion but the quotes he complains about are easily found on the net. He makes a mountain of a mole hill. Acharya never once said that James agreed with her theory. Jack, Buddhist or not, sounds like an angry Xian.

I do believe Acharya has plans on a 2nd edition for Christ Conspiracy – maybe she will remove all of the Churchward quotes, then the Churchward’s will be completely forgotten about & Jack will have something else to complain about.”

So to say that Albert Churchward accepted the whole Christ Mythos is a complete fabrication and devoid of any real fact checking.

However as is mentioned before with the first claim of H. P. Blavatsky the first Zeitgeist film has nothing to do with the Movement as a whole.

Claim #3: Zeitgeist cites Druid Gerald Massey who was the Chosen Chief of the Most Ancient Order of Druids, thus Zeitgeist supports Druidic teachings and knowledge.

This claim comes from the YouTube user truthoutmedia, the Conspiracy Theorist’s and Christian apologist’s Keith Thompson and Chris White. I was kinda curious if this claim was true or not, if it was then so what? It’s not like a source citation immediately confers that we somehow support or teach Druidic rituals, beliefs, or ideologies.

However when searching for evidence of this the only places I could find it were quoting a New York publisher, D. M. Bernett, who wrote of his friend Gerald Massey in the second edition of The World’s Sages, Thinkers and Reformers on page 967:

“Gerald Massey is a warm-hearted, genial man, and as a companion and friend he has few superiors. His interests and incentives are decidedly in the direction of Science and Rationalism. He has many years been freed from the binding and blinding theological creeds and obligations. He regards priestcraft as one of the great evils which mankind for thousands of years have been compelled to endure and support; and regards it as one of the most important works that men of the present time can engage in to demolish the idols of the past dark ages; to liberate the mind from the dwarfing and blighting effect of pagan and Christian mythology and to dispense with the officious and expensive services of a designing, useless, aristocratic and wily priesthood. He most desires to see the human race advance in knowledge and truth and mental freedom, which science and philosophy imparts to the diligent investigator. He believes ignorance to be the Devil, Science the Savior of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey

However one must realize that this is a copy of Wikipedia’s source of the Upper Norwood Joint Library-The Gerald Massey Collection. While Wikipedia can be a reliable source it cannot truly be confirmed whether or not it is true and is thus invaluable. However being the researcher that I am I decided to contact the Upper Norwood Joint Library via e-mail and there response was as followed:

“Dear Devan

I forwarded your enquiry about Massey’s involvement with Druidism to David Shaw, who I think can be considered the foremost authority on Massey. David has probably emailed you directly, but if not please see below what he has sent me on this subject:

Jerry:
I noted that in my revised biog (and online) under ‘Societies’ p. 352-3.
Massey was elected Chosen Chief of the Most Ancient Order of Druids in 1880,
replacing Edward Vaughan Kenealy LLD., Q.C., (1819-1880). He held the position until 1906, when he was replaced by John Barry O’Callaghan (1847-1909). The position so far as I can
ascertain was purely an Honorarium, and required little, if any, work for the
Order. He would not have become an actual member of the Druid Order as such, as
he was not in favour of ritual. See also my revised biog (and online) Ch.7, p.202 and fn. 9.
David

Best wishes

Jerry Savage

Reference & Local History Librarian

Upper Norwood Joint Library

Westow Hill

Upper Norwood

London

SE19 1TJ”

This being said, he apparently did not believe as Druidism like people believed. As is noted I decided to get an online biography online where it states the following:

Due to Massey’s increasing involvement with research for his intended book and his improved financial position at that time, the family moved in about 1876 to a more modern house, Bordighiera Villa, 1 Grove Road, New Southgate. Although the title of ‘villa’ sounds prestigious, it was used often at that time as a name to denote a good quality, usually three-storey semi-detached residence. He rented the house for £36 per annum, an average charge for that type of property in the area. Having three storeys, it might be assumed that the size would have been adequate for the family, but with seven children and a housekeeper living in the house, conditions must have been extremely cramped, and may have been responsible for some of the children’s health afflictions later on.

Since his book on Spiritualism and subsequent concentration on lecturing, literary activities had ceased apart from a tract (6d. per hundred, 4s. per thousand, carriage extra) issued in 1877 to promote Spiritualism. He continued to write an occasional poem either to give voice to his present opinions or to support a person whose allegiance to an unpopular cause was akin to his own. An appeal to his idealism was made by Annie Besant and the Secularists who, between 1876 and 1879 were collecting funds toward an Italian committee’s memorial to Giordano Bruno, a Dominican monk martyred at the stake in 1600. A philosophical thinker and sceptical of Christian dogmas, Bruno was imprisoned for eight years by the Inquisition for heresy, prior to being put to death as an atheist. It was considered that his memory would be reflected in the more recent independent moral philosophies of Garibaldi and Mazzini. The erection of the statue, strongly opposed by the papacy, took another ten years before it could be completed. Massey’s poem, ‘A Greeting’ dedicated to Annie Besant, later published in the 1896 edition of Massey’s Lyrical Life as ‘Annie Besant’, recognised her as a fellow worker in the fight for right:

Annie Besant, brave and dear,
May some message, uttered here,
Reach you, ringing golden-clear.

Though we stand not side by side
In the front of battle wide,
Oft I think of you with pride,

Fellow-soldier in the fight!
Oft I see you flash by night,
Fiery-hearted for the Right! …

Bruno lives! Such Spirits come,
Swords, immortal-tempered, from
Fire and Forge of Martyrdom …

It might be queried why he did not acknowledge also her more valiant social action in championing the cause of the unfortunate Bryant & May match girls in 1885 and 1888, but he was abroad touring during both these times.

The next year, 1880, saw the death of his father, aged 84, from ‘senile decay and diarrhoea’ on 6 October, at 5 King Street, Tring, where he had been living alone attended by neighbours since the death of his wife six years earlier. Also in that year, probably as the result of his research prior to publication of his Book of the Beginnings, Massey was elected Chosen Chief of the Most Ancient Order of Druids, replacing Edward Vaughan Kenealy.[9] Founded in 1781, this order claimed to have traditions extending from Neolithic times. Its Celtic-Arthurian mystery teachings and the mysteries of Ceridwen developed to a more modern emergence in the eighteenth century. As the order was both practical and philosophical in outlook, a number of prominent persons are said either to have belonged to a Druid order, or to have been acquainted with their teachings. These included Bulwer Lytton, Charles Kingsley, Sir Edwin Arnold and Lewis Spence of the Rosicrucians. Traces of Druidic teachings are said to be found in the works of Boehme, William Blake and Swedenborg. The Three Intentions of Druid Instruction, which must have appealed to Massey, were the training of the mind; the cultivation of the heart, and the making of true manliness. Massey remained Chosen Chief of the Order until 1906 when ill health forced his resignation, and he handed over to John Barry O’Callaghan. (See under ‘Societies‘ in Appendices.)”

Reference:

[9] Edward Vaughan Kenealy (1819-1880) LL.D., Q.C. Commenced the independent Englishman in 1874. He had many literary connections, and was an advocate of female suffrage. Later in life he became interested in Hinduism and Buddhism and wrote anonymously, Fo The Third Messenger of God (London, Englishman Office, 1878), giving deistic connections between Buddhist, Druid and Mediterranean philosophies. See Memoirs of Edward Vaughan Kenealy by Arabella Kenealy (London, Long, 1908), and Kenealy and the Tichborne Case by Michael Roe (Melbourne UP, 1974). Neither mentions any connection with a Druid Order.”

[10] Athenæum, 2 Jul. 1881, 12-13.

http://www.gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/cbiog_part_07.htm

So apparently Massey never partook in rituals and was never actually in all means or any means whatsoever conveyed to be an authority figure, and it was only honorary; and thus conveyed no real authority upon the behalf of it all. For those wanting the e-mail address of such so they may contact themselves please e-mail jsavage@uppernorwood.akhter.com for information.

Now that we have that out of the way, let us address another counter claim about the first film and Gerald Massey. The fact remains that while Gerald Massey is self taught, one has to remember of something called the Rosetta Stone which was found by French Army engineer Captain Pierre-François Bouchard sometime in mid July (sources are not specific on the date of the month of July) of 1799. During that time that time Gerald Massey along with almost everyone was self taught in Egyptology or was taught by someone who was self taught. So thus to rag on Gerald Massey about being a self taught Egyptologist, that would implicate that almost all Egyptologists can be disregarded because the entire field during that time was self taught through Classical Greek, Demotic, and other such languages.

Now that we have those out of the way let us examine how Gerald Massey is being used within the source citation.

At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 [S22] [S23]

[S22] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 56-61
[S23] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 613-620

he was baptized by a figure known as Anup [M] and thus began his ministry[S24] [M]

[S24] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 614

Horus had 12 disciples[S25]

[S25] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 600-607

he traveled about with, performing miracles[S27]

[S27] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 623-661

(I would like to point out here that there is another source being used for this which is Thomas Doane).

such as healing the sick[S28]

[S28] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Page 626

and walking on water[S29]

[S29] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 74-75

Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God’s Annointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others[S31].

[S31] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 43-47

(This source is also backed by Acharya S. as well).

buried for 3 days[S35]

[S35] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Page 628-629

These 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times: The Three Kings. [S62]

[S62] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 12-13

(There is another source for this being Charles F. Dupuis).

Virgo is also referred to as the House of Bread [S70],

[S70] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 27

(There is another source for this being Freke & Gandy).

During this 3 day pause, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation.[S75]

[S75] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 10, 98

(There is another source for this being Jordan Maxwell).

The entire concept of end times and the end of the world is a misinterpreted astrological allegory. [S124] [S125] [M]

[S124] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 1-10

[S125] – Massey, Gerald.: Lectures, A & B, p 7-8

(There are three source citations for this claim being attributed to Albert Churchward, Acharya S. and G. A. Wells).

The images begin with Thaw announcing to the virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus, then Nef the holy ghost impregnating the virgin, and then the virgin birth and the adoration. [S134] [M]

[S134] – Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 32-35

(Another source for this being John Jackson)

This is exactly the story of Jesus’ miracle conception. In fact, the literary similarities between the Egyptian religion and the Christian religion are staggering. [M] [S135]

[S135] – Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Page 663-671

virgin birth [S154]

[S154] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p99-148

and resurrection, [S155]

[S155] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p84, 197-198,200, 202, 213, 215
[S155] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p888-893

circumcision, [S158]

[S158] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p942, 951-952

(There is another source citation for Circumcision being Thomas Doane)

saviors,[S160]

[S160] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Book 4, p149-196

holy communion, [S161]

[S161] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics , p92 180, 192, 26-266

Passover, [S166]

[S166] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p888, 797 [* also see S163]

The Bible is nothing more than an astro-theological literary fold hybrid, just like nearly all religious myths before it. [S173]

[S173] – Massey, Gerald. :Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, p563-622

(There are four source citations on this which include Thomas Doane, Albert Churchward, Edward Carpenter, and Acharya S).

The reality is, Jesus was the Solar Deity of the Gnostic Christian sect, [S195]

[S195] – Massey, Gerald. : Lectures- Gnostic amd Historic Christianity,Cosimo Classics, p. 73-104

(Two other source citations were used which include John Allegro and Freke and Gandy).

Now that this has been cleared up I would like to note that it would appear that while Gerald Massey’s work was used extensively in Zeitgeist: The Movie’s source citation; the film is also citing various other people in conjunction with Gerald Massey.

However again as I so like to remind people that Zeitgeist: The Movie, is not at all affiliated with the Zeitgeist Movement or Addendum.

Claim #5: Zeitgeist cites New World Order advocate Jordan Maxwell, and thus supports the New World Order.

Again yet another claim done by Conspiracy theorists who would love to not only slander the Zeitgeist Movement but also Jordan Maxwell. It must be urged to know that Jordan Maxwell has lived a life of controversy in symbolism and his words have upset a lot of people. There are some things which I do not agree with Maxwell on, such as Freemasonry, specific symbols and there meanings, along with various words. However I do find what he has to say about law, government, and so forth very interesting.

However those understanding and watching Maxwell’s work, along with his writings would know that he is very heavily opposed to the idea of a New World Order being placed as a one world government. However I have traced this claim to Chris White and Frank Lordey and there Debunking Jordan Maxwell: The Movie where he takes this quote completely out of context in 30:01-32:27 as is seen here.

This is very much a strawman argument because in all honesty, Maxwell was only speaking upon his personal beliefs of what may happen, and what he hopes might happen for the better. If one thinks the entire idea of Order out of Chaos is somehow a New World Order concept I would like to point to you the Big Bang which was a process that was very much reminiscent of this same process.

But for those who really believe that Jordan Maxwell actually believes this, I would also like to point out that the Bible is filled with the whole Order out of Chaos. The Genesis Flood and the Book of Revelations just to name a couple.

Also various hippies in the sixties and seventies spoke very much about this, does this mean they are New World Order advocates? No, obviously not since they do not trust the establishment. I guess they were right in what they said a while back.

At any rate, with that out of the way, let us see the source citation for Jordan Maxwell in Zeitgeist: The Movie:

begin with an M.[S68] [M]

[S68] – Maxwell, Tice, Snow: That Old-Time Religion,The Book Tree, p43

During this 3 day pause, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation. [S76] [M]

[S76] – Maxwell, Tice, Snow: That Old-Time Religion,The Book Tree, p41

(There is another source citation from Gerald Massey).

It is a Pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac. [S91

[S91] – Maxwell, Tice, Snow: That Old-Time Religion,The Book Tree, p41

(There is another source citation from Acharya S.).

However, in King James Version, “world” is a mistranslation, among many mistranslations. The actual word being used is “aeon”, which means “age.” “I will be with you even to the end of the age.” Which is true, as Jesus’ Solar Piscean personification will end when the Sun enters the Age of Aquarius. [S122]

[S122] – Maxwell, Tice, Snow: That Old-Time Religion,The Book Tree, p44

the ark of the covenant, [S157]

[S157] – Maxwell, Tice, Snow: That Old-Time Religion,The Book Tree, p51-53

As one can see, all Jordan had to contribute was the letter ‘M’ with specific deities, the vicinity of the sun during the three day pause in the southern Crux, the pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac, the mistranslation of the word world and what it means essentially, and that the concept of the ark of the covenant is used originally in ancient Egypt.

As one can see here, this is also a fallacious argument as a lot of people probably don’t know who Jordan Maxwell is, and some could care less if they knew to begin with.

However as I have stated before, the first Zeitgeist film has no connection to the actual movement or to Addendum.

Claim #6: Zeitgeist wants to bring about New Age ideology as is espoused by the New Ager’s, Theosophy, Freemasonry, and New Ager’s like Michael Tsarion and Acharya S.

This probably has to do with Zeitgeist: The Movie’s specifics in the whole New Age of Aquarius in the Procession of the Equinox. However one must understand that the entirety of the Age of Aquarius is of course an event in astronomy, not astrology as is shown in Zeitgeist: The Movie 24:46-29:50:

As one can see this is entirely taken completely out of context in all forms. Now to the idea that somehow Acharya is some kind of New Ager is quite self defeating when I read this post on her BlogSpot:

Sunday, July 16, 2006

New Age Phonies

“News flash: I didn’t just fall off a turnip truck yesterday. In addition to the weeping and wailing from the believing camp and the snooty disregard from the non-believing camp comes the nose-in-the-air pretensions of the New Age crowd – all of these factions are united in their attempts to dismiss my opinions. The Christians, of course, are quite convinced that they have got the true and correct belief system, while the atheists believe the same thing, and the New Agers are certain that they are the chosen people. All have one thing in common, and that is the conceit that they each know it all.

My opinions are vexing to the Christian because I’m perceived as an “atheist,” while the atheists get up in arms because I’m “too mystical,” but the New Agers are sure that I haven’t experienced enough satoris or samadhi. (You see, you need to have a fancy Indian name as a pedigree for your mystical experiences, or they don’t count.) In order to garner respect from the New Age snoozers, who seriously believe that they can think themselves into and out of any situation, you must park your cushion and spew a bunch of meaningless platitudes about “love,”
“God,” “the universe,” “spiritual union,” etc. I got news for you, been there, done that. I’ve had just about every mystical experience in the books, which is why I don’t entirely dismiss them – a fact that gets me into trouble with the atheists. I’ve read the best and worst of ’em, meditated upon my navel for hours on end, experienced countless satoris – including the “Cosmic Orgasm” or “Oneness with the universe,” which is widely perceived as “enlightenment.” It is this reality I have experienced that has allowed me to see what I see.

The conceited New Ager who believes that he or she is residing in pristine reality is no less deluded and no more enlightened than the average religious fanatic. The New Age goal seems to be to accumulate enough wealth to be able to live in hot tubs on Maui. I have rarely encountered a hardcore New Ager who wasn’t completely self-absorbed in his or her attempt at becoming egoless. The most fanatical of these almost have less respect for other people than the members of the tribes to whom New Agers arrogantly pretend to have become superior. They are always talking about “self-help” and “processing,” and they assume that everyone else is as messed up as they are. “She needs this and that,” they smugly pronounce as they pettily psychoanalyze each other. If you haven’t done their favorite group, you’re nowhere, man.

Meanwhile, with their heads in the clouds, life passes by the prancing New Agers, so superior and smug in their mystical beliefs. The truth is that the plateau that these individuals are stuck on is called “spiritual arrogance,” not enlightenment. Enlightenment is x-ray vision that allows you to see through the crap, not a billowing balloon of hot air that blocks the view.

Posted by Acharya S at 5:24 PM

http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2006/07/new-age-phonies.html

It would appear that she does not support the idea of the New Ager’s and view them to be just as deluded as Christian Fundamentalists that somehow believe they have the correct belief setting.

As for Michael Tsarion, there is not much I can say about the guy. I have only recently heard about him through The Esoteric Agenda by Ben Stewart. While the film is riveting and brings up a lot of questions, I am unconvinced by what it has to offer. However the idea that our president’s genealogy can be traced back to various monarchies such as Bush’s genealogy being related to the monarch’s of the 15th century which claim he has direct descent from Henry III and Henry VIII’s sister Mary Tudor is very interesting indeed. However regardless of this interesting information I have yet to look it up.

However when visiting his website at http://www.michaeltsarion.com/ I had found some interesting things, some disturbing things, and some completely debunked notions.

For instance Tsarion has an entire portion of his site dedicated to Taroscope’s. For those who do not know, this is the notion that through the readings of Tarot cards, Divination and Relic channeling that one can predict the near, or distant future and some being able to predict the events of the past or present. This is of course nothing but pseudoscience, something of which the Zeitgeist Movement does not have any connections to, nor do we promote. I am sure there are people within the movement that are fascinated by the Tarot, and some believe they can actually do the things they do, however I am not one of them, and I have yet to people within the movement that do

One particular quote made me kind of uneasy within his frame of mind being the following:

“The vile Judeo-Christian institution and its inhuman ideology would not have been able to endure if the pristine marvel of Irish Druidism remained strong and bright in the world of men.”

http://www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/irishoriginsexcerpts/book1_chap1.html

This somewhat struck a red flag with this guy really. One must wonder why he views Irish Druidism in such high esteem while Judeo-Christianity institutions as inhuman ideology. Now for those who think I am standing up for Christianity against Druidism I must answer with a simple; no I am not.

While Christianity has caused a lot of suffering, destruction, war, segregation and so forth. I do not think that holding one superstitious belief over another as its superior is a correct advocation. Now to my knowledge there has really been very little wars, fighting, and segregation within Druidism that I have more acceptance of it than Christianity; however that being said there are specific things that make me uneasy with Druidic beliefs. Such as the idea that somehow offering up a human’s to be sacrificed (which is why Tiberius outlawed Druidic practices in the Roman Empire) will bring forth a spirit to be channeled and there powers gathered.

However while there are not very many Druids that would condone such notions today (which would be known as Neo-Druids), the fact remains that the bloody history of human sacrifices makes one a little nervous.

However an interesting thing I did notice was that Tsarion’s mentioning of Psychic Vampirism:

“The man who has murdered his own self becomes a predator who lives to consume what others create. The self-murdered person is the greatest threat in the world. He is violent and destructive towards himself and everyone he encounters. He can occupy positions of little importance or of the greatest importance. He can destroy a single life, or that of a world. He cares nothing for the trail of destruction and ruin he leaves. He cares only for the satiation of his insatiable appetites…

…He seeks you and all that is yours…”

http://psychicvampirism.com/pg3.html

This being said, I read a little bit more into this; Tsarion may have some psychological insight into this. He seems to have insight of people that tend to feed off the emotion of their environment, people and live within the destruction they wrought. This seems to describe most of the dictators and being the opposite of the peace makers and he describes them both in this segment:

“Creative

The “Creativve” man is alive from within and is inner-directed. He does not require external stimuli to feel alive, and so his relationship to the world is healthy, deep and real. He has the best of both worlds. He has a strong sense of selfhood, and is autonomous and independent in the true sense. He is a rebel. He does not cling to things or to others for fulfillment because he is not inherently empty. His relationships are not based on power dynamics. He is present and whole and open to change and to the future. He sees problems as challenges, and has strong boundaries. He does not manipulate or deceive. He envies no one and takes charge of his own destiny. He knows that consciousness changes reality. His happiness and his suffering are sacred to him. He does not censor himself, or care what others do, say, or think. Evil is, for him, the absence of autonomy and selfhood. He leads and does not follow. He is in contact with ths true source of life which exists and flows from within his being. His life-force is his own. He mutable and reinvents himself every day. He is every growing.

Destructive

The “Destructive” man requires external stimuli to feel alive. He is emotionally dead and without the world of objects and other people his life is nothing. He is deeply addicted to the stimuli which fills his psychic abyss. He cannot be still or alone. He is a shell addicted to fashion, conforming to be accepted. In his world image and appearance are everything. His experiences are banal and casual. He performs and mimics, but abuses trust, sexuality and beauty. What he cannot own or control he fears. He seeks a cause and a master to avoid responsibility. If his desires are thwarted he becomes depressed, suicidal and aggressive. He is ambitious, competitive, and pathologically reliant upon approval. He is expert at manipulation and is hypocritical and immoral. Other people, especially those with inherent power and creativity, are his prey. He feels a sense of greatness from their less and ruin. He is the implacable enemy of true creativity, independence and selfhood. Nothing is sacred to him except his image, success, possessions and catalog of destruction.”

http://psychicvampirism.com/pg5.html

So I am unsure about Michael Tsarion myself however I will state that he is a bit weird, somewhat disturbing, naive, or interesting in one subject or another. That being said, I highly doubt that anyone within the Zeitgeist Movement has any real relevancy towards Tsarion’s ideas.

Claim #7: The Zeitgeist Movement hates Christianity and Jesus and whishes to bring about the destruction of the Christian religion; and are trying to tell people to leave Christianity.

Like the previous claims it would appear this one comes from various biblical literalists such as Keith Thompson, Chris White and specific Youtuber’s.

This mainly has to do with the controversy of the first part of Zeitgeist: The Movie. However there was a Questions and Answer segment found on http://zeitgeistmovie.com/ where it states the following towards these accusations:

“Some say the film attacks Christians. What is your response to this?”

“The idea that the film is against any group is a fallacy. The only thing the film addresses is ideology and beliefs. Sadly, many don’t realize that one’s ideology is not them. We are emergent beings and everything we believe is taught to us one way or another. Therefore to say the film is attacking “Christians” is about as absurd as saying the film attacks people with baseball caps. This is a serious problem in our society, for identity is erroneously associated with belief. Once again, propagandists against the project use this idea that the film “attacks” a group in order to try and manipulate their surroundings into not thinking critically about the information. The same kind of propaganda has materialized where the project has been called “new world order”, “satanic” “marxist” and other irrational, thoughtless distinctions not worth bringing up.”

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/q&a.htm

So the idea as followed that we want Christianity to be destroyed and yet hate a figure who has no real evidence of being anything other than mythological is absurd. Sure people have a distaste for Christianity. But in all honesty, that probably has to do with the various wars, destruction, segregation, hate crimes, etc, etc, etc…. posed by Judeo-Christian beliefs.

However that does not mean that we favor one religion over Christianity. But I would like to say there are various people within the movement that are Christians. For example a member known as Rabbitburn had gotten upset over a post I had in the Zeitgeist Movement titled For those who wish to end the Jesus Myth where he posted the following:

“How someone can spend this much energy trying to convince people that Jesus didn’t exist is incredible to me. What do you wish to gain? And where is your discourse on Hinduism or Islam? Buddhism or Atheism? Even if you can sway someone to reject their faith, what is it you suggest people now believe in? Humanity? Atheism? Darwinism? I really don’t have time to read through your intolerant material. I for one was enlightened by God Himself, not by man. When God tells me to stop believing in Christ I will do so. But you could never change my mind in a thousand years. What do I gain by doubting Christ? It is actually the teachings of Christ Himself that show us true humanity. In the Book of James it says: “This is true religion, pure and undefiled in the sight of God, to look after widows and orphans in their time of need.” Reaching out to the needy in love is not taught by Society, government, or schools. So if the end result is love and compassion, then Jesus has His rightful place in this world.

Acts 4:32-35 (New International Version)

The Believers Share Their Possessions
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

This is what the Church started out as, pretty close to Zeitgeist if you ask me. So before you toss out Christianity may I suggest you understand the heart of God and stop looking at the corrupt church as it is today. Peace”

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=8&id=135818

Because of this I decided to response to him in not only in the thread but by e-mail as well

Forum Post:

“I am not here to convince you; this is only a thread to help combat the increasingly Christian Apologists that seemingly cannot get passed the religious portion of it all and would rather bring up religion when you talk about the Zeitgeist Movement. I am not putting this thread here to disprove Christianity. In my mind it’s a possibility that Jesus could have existed as a man, a great man who was a philosopher, a teacher, and one of the first that saw the problem. I am sorry if you were offended; but if you are offended then please it was not my wish to do so.”

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=8&id=135818

e-mail:

“Hey there. I would like to apologize for the thread I had posted earlier about Ending the Jesus Myth. I suppose the title is a little misleading. In all honesty, the thread is to help people dealing with Christian apologists and to help combat their arguments when talking about the Zeitgeist Movement or the Venus Project. I have gotten into a few debates with them, allowing some to see where I am coming from and offer my own point of view for the whole Jesus thing. Now then; I am quote sorry for your offense, it was not my intention to do so. Oh and please do not mistake the thread for me hating religion; I only hate people who believe that homosexuality is a sin, non-believers will go to hell, if you don’t believe in god you must hate him, etc, etc, etc… I do not hate religion, to me religion in and of itself is harmless, I hate the people who just misuse it for specific agenda’s like power and affluence. So again, I apologize for my offense.”

03 Jun 2009, 05:23 PM

After which he responded with the following:

“Thank you, and I am not to judge others from their actions but to love them with mine. I do understand why someone telling you your a fag going to hell would really piss you off. Personally i would spit on them for insulting me. This area in Christianity I have opposed since the early 90’s. But you must admit my second post was a little witty. lol.

In order for us to really see this movement take off there must be a unity in purpose and a tolerance of others beliefs that baffle those still living in the matrix. Only by our collective efforts will we make inroads. There is so much we meed to work on and focus on that we must be diligent not to cause bickering amongst ourselves over issues that don’t promote our goals or slow us down. Thank you for your reply.”

03 Jun 2009, 05:38 PM

This being shown, I am pretty sure there are plenty of Christians within the Zeitgeist Movement, so to say we want to destroy Christianity is utter nonsense. Also the claim we are trying to convert Christians is obviously due to some people leaving Christianity after the first Zeitgeist film, which again has no connection to Zeitgeist: Addendum or the Zeitgeist Movement. That is the fault of the two millennium’s of lies that they have brought forth. Thus I would blame the Christian churches and their dogma. However be that as it may, many of them have probably already questioned their faith to begin with. So it is not like we had anything to do with it either. And especially since there are various other people within the movement that are Christian, the notion and idea is asinine.

Claim #8: The Zeitgeist Movement’s ideas and motives can be found within the Externalization of the Hierarchy.

There is a much more thorough dealing with this claim that can be found here

Claim #9: Zeitgeist: Addendum uses Illuminati symbolism and John Perkins refers to the God Spirit where an Illuminati symbol is being shown, thus making the Zeitgeist Movement nothing but a bunch of Lucifarian sun worshipers and agent group for the Illuminati.

This claim has in large to do with the small quote mine used when John Perkins speaking about spirituality; where he in fact was being poetic. However before we go over his statement let us examine the so called “Illuminati Sun Symbol.”

I could have done more on this, however the fact remains that the conclusion is still very much valid. However I may in the future redo this and decide to add more to it. That being said let us now begin with the statement addressed by various other conspiracy theorists about John Perkins that is shown in Zeitgeist: Addendum 01:41:51-01:43:21

Wow, we sure seem like a bunch of evil sun worshipers who want to induct the world into Lucifarian ideologies and create a one world government…. yah right.

Now then to deal with the other symbol being the eye, let us look at the fact of what it is. The eye symbol is actually used by many other ancient civilizations, the first being the Ancient Egyptian’s to make the eye a symbol of power, wisdom and ever-lasting life. So thus the idea of a specific symbol is being used therefore it is Illuminati, denotes the fact that this same symbol is also being used by the computer company Nvidia. Go to http://www.nvidia.com/page/home.html and you will see the eye symbol there. Can we assume that they are also the Illuminati? I mean the eye has been used so many times by not only societies, but also film makers, corporations, packaging companies, delivery companies, etc, etc, etc…

Claim #10: Jiddu Krishnamurti is used at the beginning and end of Zeitgeist: Addendum. He was hailed as the World Christ by the theosophical society by Helena Blavatsky and her acolytes.

One has to understand this statement comes directly from Alex Jones, while some are more informative but would still like to in some way or another create some kind of conspiracy about him still being friends with the theosophical society even after declining to be there new Messiah.

There is some truth to it, however I will go over them all about Krishnamurti in various rebuttals that intersect this claim.

To the Alex Jones claim, Krishnamurti had in fact left the Theosophical Society as is stated in the following documentary of Krishnamurti:

That being said some however state that he maintained a friendly relationship with them. However when asked for citation, sources or information they state a few people within the Theosophical Society, however when pressed for names, they never seem to give any specifics.

Now that we have assessed this, let us look at how Krishnamurti is being used in Zeitgeist: Addendum.

As you can see what he is saying completely makes sense. But conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, Keith Thompson and Chris White ignore the message and do character assassinations on him.

Claim #10: The Zeitgeist Movement wants to create a one world utopian government and one world religion, and is anti-Constitutional and anti-American.

This claim comes from people like Keith Thompson and Chris White. However what we propose is not a one world government, let alone a utopian like government.

However one must know that there are different types of utopia so it is wise to discern between them.

Sir Thomas More

Utopia is a name for an ideal community or society, taken from the title of a book written in 1516 by Sir Thomas More describing a fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean, possessing a seemingly perfect sociopoliticolegal system. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempted to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature. “Utopia” is sometimes used pejoratively, in reference to an unrealistic ideal that is impossible to achieve. It has spawned other concepts, most prominently dystopia.

Ecological utopias describe new ways in which society should relate to nature. They react to a perceived widening gap between the modern Western way of living that destroys nature and the traditional way of living that is thought to be more in harmony with nature. According to the Dutch philosopher Marius de Geus, ecological utopias could be sources of inspiration for green political movements.

Economic utopia

These utopias are based on economics. Most intentional communities attempting to create an economic utopia were formed in response to the harsh economic conditions of the 19th century.

Particularly in the early nineteenth century, several utopian ideas arose, often in response to the social disruption created by the development of commercialism and capitalism. These are often grouped in a greater “utopian socialist” movement, due to their shared characteristics: an egalitarian distribution of goods, frequently with the total abolition of money, and citizens only doing work which they enjoy and which is for the common good, leaving them with ample time for the cultivation of the arts and sciences. One classic example of such a utopia was Edward Bellamy‘s Looking Backward. Another socialist utopia is William MorrisNews from Nowhere, written partially in response to the top-down (bureaucratic) nature of Bellamy’s utopia, which Morris criticized. However, as the socialist movement developed it moved away from utopianism; Marx in particular became a harsh critic of earlier socialism he described as utopian. (For more information see the History of Socialism article.) Also consider Eric Frank Russell‘s book The Great Explosion (1963) whose last section details an economic and social utopia. This forms the first mention of the idea of Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS).

Utopias have also been imagined by the opposite side of the political spectrum. For example, Robert A. Heinlein‘s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress portrays an individualistic and libertarian utopia. Capitalist utopias of this sort are generally based on free market economies, in which the presupposition is that private enterprise and personal initiative without an institution of coercion, government, provides the greatest opportunity for achievement and progress of both the individual and society as a whole.

Another view that capitalist utopias do not address is the issue of market failure, any more than socialist utopias address the issue of planning failure. Thus a blend of socialism and capitalism is seen by some as the type of economy in a utopia. For example, one such idea is to have small, community-owned enterprises working under a market-based model of economy. Such a model of market-basedCommunism itself was in theory supposed to create a “classless utopia”, but no communist state has ever reached that point.

Political and historical utopia

Political utopias are ones in which the government establishes a society that is striving toward perfection. A political or historical utopia is basically impossible to find.

A global utopia of world peace is often seen as one of the possible endings of history. Within the localized political structures or spheres it presents, “polyculturalism” is the model-based adaptation of possible interactions between different cultures and identities in accordance with the principles of participatory society.

Religious utopia

These utopias are based on religious ideals, and are to date those most commonly found in human society. Their members are usually required to follow and believe in the particular religious tradition that established the utopia. Some permit non-believers or non-adherents to take up residence within them; others (such as the Community at Qumran) do not.

The Islamic, Jewish, and Christian ideas of the Garden of Eden and Heaven may be interpreted as forms of utopianism, especially in their folk-religious forms. Such religious utopias are often described as “gardens of delight”, implying an existence free from worry in a state of bliss or enlightenment. They postulate freedom from sin, pain, poverty, and death, and often assume communion with beings such as angels or the houri. In a similar sense the Hindu concept of Moksha and the Buddhist concept of Nirvana may be thought of as a kind of utopia. In Hinduism or Buddhism, however, utopia is not a place but a state of mind. A belief that if we are able to practice meditation without continuous stream of thoughts, we are able to reach enlightenment. This enlightenment promises exit from the cycle of life and death, relating back to the concept of utopia.

However, the usual idea of Utopia, which is normally created by human effort, is more clearly evident in the use of these ideas as the bases for religious utopias, as members attempt to establish/reestablish on Earth a society which reflects the virtues and values they believe have been lost or which await them in the Afterlife.

Scientific and technological utopia

These are set in the future, when it is believed that advanced science and technology will allow utopian living standards; for example, the absence of death and suffering; changes in human nature and the human condition. Technology has affected the way humans have lived to such an extent that normal functions, like sleep, eating or even reproduction, have been replaced by artificial means. Other examples include a society where humans have struck a balance with technology and it is merely used to enhance the human living condition (e.g. Star Trek). In place of the static perfection of a utopia, libertarian transhumanists envision an “extropia“, an open, evolving society allowing individuals and voluntary groupings to form the institutions and social forms they prefer.

Buckminster Fuller presented a theoretical basis for technological utopianism and set out to develop a variety of technologies ranging from maps to designs for cars and houses which might lead to the development of such a utopia.

One notable example of a technological and libertarian socialist utopia is Scottish author Iain BanksCulture.

Opposing this optimism is the prediction that advanced science and technology will, through deliberate misuse or accident, cause environmental damage or even humanity’s extinction. Critics, such as Jacques Ellul and Timothy Mitchell advocate precautions against the premature embrace of new technologies.

Feminist utopia

Utopias have been used to explore the ramification of gender being either a societal construct, or a hard-wired imperative. In Mary Gentle‘s Golden Witchbreed, gender is not chosen until maturity, and gender has no bearing on social roles. In contrast, Doris Lessing‘s The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four and Five (1980) suggests that men’s and women’s values are inherent to the sexes and cannot be changed, making a compromise between them essential. In My Own Utopia (1961) by Elizabeth Mann Borghese, gender exists but is dependant upon age rather than sex – genderless children mature into women, some of whom eventually become men.]

Utopic single-gender worlds or single-sex societies have long been one of the primary ways to explore implications of gender and gender-differences In speculative fiction, female-only worlds have been imagined to come about by the action of disease that wipes out men, along with the development of technological or mystical method that allow female parthenogenic reproduction.

As one can see there are a wide variety of utopian societies each one has its own definition. Be that as it may there are several videos where Jacque has told people it is not a utopia.

Now then, there may be specific things taken from each utopian idea from bits and pieces, however it is not a utopian society.

I would also like to point out that the words anti-American and anti-Constitution are completely empty words. During such a time it was considered anti-Constitutional not to believe in god and hold an office of an elected official, it was anti-American to question your government about the events of 9/11, it was anti-Constitution if you spoke ill about the presidents of the past and present. These terms are so meaningless that they must be defined.

On a further note we are not trying to abolish the Constitution. Many of us have a great respect for it, but unlike most laws many people find the idea that somehow that if the United States was done away with then somehow we would forget about the Constitution and people would not hear about it to be a complete fallacy.

The Constitution was erected by philosophical and intelligent leaders who in fact saw the problems of what would happen and laid down the statements that the government will recognize our natural rights given to us. In reality, for people to state that the Constitution will only ever exist on a piece of paper is a complete fallacy because we as human beings can see the Constitution as not just a document of laws, but we can see it as a way of life. And unlike a law, a way of life cannot be changed unless people themselves see some of these ideas and ways of life irrelevant so they evolve out of it all.

Also, there are specific things that are not in the Constitution, such as the right to food, clothing, housing and the basic necessities to live. These things along with others are not in the Constitution so it would only make sense if they were added. But instead of just adding these things, we can apply it to a living standard and a way of life which no one can take away by some legislation.

Now then, to the idea of a one world government.

I would like to state that a one world government is not something we envision. We envision a one world system through peace, prosperity and the utilization of technology and science. Now before one goes off and says that a one world system is the same thing should note that http://www.sociology.emory.edu/globalization/theories01.html describes a one world system as: A world-system is any historical social system of interdependent parts that form a bounded structure and operate according to distinct rules, or “a unit with a single division of labor and multiple cultural systems.”

So as is stated the fact remains that a one world system is not the same as a one world government. Also let’s see what one of the members of the Zeitgeist Movement says about a one world government.

CheleveSaRa states:

So thus this idea is very much bunked. Also the same rebuttal can be given from the argument against claim #7 as well.

Claim# 11: Peter Joseph is the leader of the Zeitgeist Movement and is also a New World Order Agent trying to externalize theosophical teachings and Illuminati belief to the public found on Reflections on the Christ by David Spangler p. 43-44 and The Key to Theosophy by H. P. Blavatsky Section 3, p. 39, and p. 155-156

This claim in large has to do with Peter’s remark on spirituality and the quote mine of the presentation guide. This is also presented by Keith Thompson in his film New Age Infiltration of the Truth Movement (2009 Final Cut); along with the other contextological arguments he gives.

Here are his statements in full.

Spirituality:

The Orientation Video:

Secondly, what David Spangler was saying in comparison to what Peter Joseph was saying are two completely different things. I however do not have a copy of David Spangler’s Reflections on the Christ, I will however purchase a copy later on when the time arises and edit this portion.

Now to H. P. Blavatsky’s statement. As is shown this is the so called statement that Keith gives on The Key to Theosophy in both his New Age Infiltration of the Truth Movement (Final Cut 2009) and his Illuminati: An Historical Evaluation in Light of Zeitgeist (2/4)

Now then to his first statement is easily found because his statement given is an utter quote mine. I got a pdf. copy of The Key to Theosophy and this statement is what makes it apparent:

“Enq. What are the objects of the “Theosophical Society”?

Theo. They are three, and have been so from the beginning, (1.) To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, colour, or creed. (2.) To promote the study of Aryan and other Scriptures, of the World’s religion and sciences, and to vindicate the importance of old Asiatic literature, namely, of the Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian philosophies. (3.) To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers latent in man especially. These are, broadly stated, the three chief objects of the Theosophical Society.”

The Key to Theosophy Section III – The Working System of the Theosophical Society p. 39

“Enq. Do you take any part in politics ?

Theo. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given

below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have efiected

a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old bottles.

Make men feel and recognise in their innermost hearts what is

their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power,

every iniquitous law in the national policy, based on human,

social or political selfishness, will disappear of itself. Foolish

is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed of poisonous

plants by cutting them off from the surface of the soil, instead

of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting political

reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at the

head of affairs as of old.”

The Key to Theosophy Section XII – The Relations of the T.S. to Politics p. 231

THE THEOSOPHICAL PUBLISHING COMPANY, LIMITED,

7, Duke Street, Adelphi, W.C.

new lL)orft:

W. Q. JUDGE, 2T, PARK ROW.

1889

For those wishing to view the pdf copy please visit. http://www.archive.org/details/totheosophybe00blavkeyrich

However I would like to state that Peter’s statement on spirituality is probably not the same as many here think. Some people believe in spirituality in a sense of closeness with another, or a deeper understanding. You cannot take a single quote without someone stating that is what he means. You need clarification from the person speaking.

However the idea that those that must view the human race as a singular family and the earth as our home is somehow a view held by theosophists is completely and utterly insane due to the fact that many hippies around the sixties and seventies had the very same notion. Does this mean that the massive hippie movement during those times was somehow a conspiracy by the Theosophical Society? No.

One more thing though before we go onto the next claim. Peter Joseph is indeed the person who created the Zeitgeist Movement, and we all do tend to look up to him as a sort of role model, however that does not mean he is a leader, and he has said before, time and time again in a clip like this one:

Claim #12: Peter Joseph constantly quotes H. P. Blavatsky, such as the use of the word Intellectual Materialism.

I would go on with this one and completely debunk the phrase however YouTube user and Zeitgeist Movement member Dudekin in the following video.

I have thus commented on Dudekin about the book and will purchase it, by doing so I will make sure to include the quote from the particular book mentioned by Dudekin.

Claim #13: Peter Joseph and his Zeitgeist Movement are trying to push there Esoteric teaching upon us.

Another claim which btw holds no ground. I would also like to point out one thing… would science be esoteric? Is science basically a form of esoteric teaching? If that is so, then we use it every day. Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist Movement are advocates of technology, philosophy and the scientific method.

If you think these are esoteric by nature, you need to get your head checked.

Claim #14: The Zeitgeist Movement hopes to resurrect the City of Atlantis through the Venus Project because of Plato’s description of the New Atlantis and Manly P. Hall’s quotes in the books Lectures on Ancient Philosophy and Americas Assignment with destiny p. 109.

In all honesty I cannot tell you how much I hate this idea and not only that, this entire quote. I do not have the books being mentioned at the moment but I can tell you this though, Plato’s description of a circular city has nothing to do with Jacque Fresco’s Venus Project and here is the reason why being illustrated in Jacque’s film Future by Design.

Also the main reason why Jacque Fresco has also decided on a circular city is mainly because of the fact it takes in natural energy resource, and distributes them. This is some of the main reasons why. Because it will take in more energy than it outputs. This is illustrated by the fact that solar plants also tend to gather solar energy in a circular fashion, being as this is one of the most efficient ways to gather energy.

Thus this very idea is complete crap and nonsense.

Claim #15: Peter Joseph is a part of the Illuminati royal bloodlines.

To this idea, I just have to respond with showing this video clip.

Now that I have gone over most of these claims; I must remind you that if I need to add one, let me know what the claim is so I may add it to this one. Contact me at reaper1986@comcast.net

Good day to everyone and have a nice time.

Posted in Conspiracy Theory Claims | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 27 Comments

Lucis Trust vs. The Zeitgeist Movement

By Devan Evans

Among many of the statements made about the Zeitgeist Movement there are those that are completely illegitimately made about us. From notions about using being Communists to being Socialists and to Conspiracy Theories about us advocating a One World Government. Among these however is a prominent recurring statement being made in the assertion about not only the movement but also about the film (in this case I speak of Zeitgeist: Addendum).

The accusation I am referring to is the ideas that are discussed in the film (Zeitgeist: Addendum) are taken from the book The Externalisation of the Hierarchy by Alice A. Bailey. Also it has extended to that we also base our philosophy and even ideas on what the Movement represents. They give a series of a few quotes from the book to justify this statement; however for this statement to fit one has to actually read the book in full context and understand what is being said and why. This article will primarily work upon assessing the assertions being made, the validity of those assertions, the quotes being represented, if what we represent does in fact come from Bailey’s book and drawing our conclusions from there.

Statement’s being made

The statement’s being made among Conspiracy Theorists about this notion is that the Zeitgeist Movement draws upon its ideas for sociologically recreating the environment for the best our purposes, utilizing technological advancements for the good of mankind and our outgrowth of politics can be found within The Externalisation of the Hierarchy; either word for word or perhaps on a broad generalized scale.

Justification for this

The Justification for this is the notion that there are quotes from The Externalisation of the Hierarchy that actually very much justify what Zeitgeist: Addendum advocates and/or talks about. The quotes they give are as followed:

The problem of money will have to be faced; the problem of the distribution of wealth – whether natural or human – will need careful handling and a compromise reached between those nations which possess unlimited resources and those who have few or none;  the problem of the varying forms of national government must be faced with courage and insight; the restoration – psychological, spiritual and physical – of mankind must constitute a primary responsibility. The sense of security must be put on a firm basis the basis of right relationship, and not the basis of force. Men must feel secure because they are seeking to develop international goodwill… The new world order will recognize that the produce of the world, the natural resources of the planet and its riches belong to no one nation but should be shared by all. There will be no nations under the category “haves” and others under the opposite category. A fair and properly organized distribution of the wheat, and the oil and the mineral wealth of the world will be developed based upon the needs of each nation, upon its own internal resources and the requirements of its people. All this will be worked out in relation to the whole… The new world order will be founded on the recognition that all men are equal in origin and goal but that all are at differing stages of evolutionary development that personal integrity, intelligence, vision and experience, plus a marked goodwill, should indicate leadership. The domination of the proletariat over the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, as in Russia, or the domination of an entrenched aristocracy over the proletariat and the middle classes, as has been until lately the case in Great Britain, must disappear. The control of labor by capital or the control of capital by labor must also go… In the new world order, the governing body in any nation should be composed of those who work for the greatest good, of the greatest number… The new world order will be founded on an active sense of responsibility. The rule will be “all for one and one for all.” This attitude among nations will have to be developed. It is not yet present…  In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a stead and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organize any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation. One of the first tasks of any future peace conference will be to regulate this matter and gradually see to the disarming of the nations.[1]

These seem to be the primary quotes that they use mainly to assert this.

Problems with this

Because of many the assertions about this book I decided to make sure to buy it and look through it. However throughout the entire piece of literature I kept noting various odd problems throughout it. Let us go ahead and note the problems with these quotations:

  1. The book itself is primarily seven hundred one pages long. The quotes that they use to justify this are from mainly pages one hundred ninety-one through one hundred ninety-two. Thus providing so few quotes from the book itself does not constitute or justify a strong argument.

2. The quote being presented at the end “In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a stead and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organize any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation. One of the first tasks of any future peace conference will be to regulate this matter and gradually see to the disarming of the nation” seems to indicate the usage of force, while Peter Joseph has advocated education and conditioning through environment. It also seems to indicate that Alice Bailey’s “New World Order” will utilize government and politics to this; which in and of itself is in complete contradiction to what Peter Joseph has advocated which would be the outgrowing of the usage and need of politics and government. Lastly it also seems to indicate the usage of legislation through paper proclamation which is another contradiction to what Peter Joseph advocates which is growing out of the need to use law’s and legislation by using technology and science and social change in order to solve problems.

3. It ignores the rest of the book’s six hundred ninety-nine pages which as far as I have read (which is half of the book) is riddled with mainly new age ideologies such as psychic energies and waves,[2] an other worldly hierarchy that guide’s humanity throughout society and human history for the better outcome,[3] Divine Invocations that are magical and are intended to bring peace and prosperity along with summoning a new world teacher referred to as the Maitreya or Christ[4] and finally with primary emphasis on training psychics.[5]

What the Zeitgeist Movement hence condones

What the Zeitgeist Movement condones towards our ability is explained much in length within the Activist Orientation Guide. Of those of a more critical mind and willing to put more time into the assertion may simply compare The Externalisation of the Hierarchy with the Activist Orientation Guide from the Zeitgeist Movement website. However here is a brief synopsis of the guide:

1. Our restrictions of how to the change the world for the better rely on our ability and comprehension of scientific methodology and the ability to apply it in a humane scientific way for the betterment of humanity.

2. Politics, government and legislation are historically and scientifically inadequate in order solve problems. Legislation will not make a person steal if they are forced to in order to survive, politics will not help change society as politics are put into place based on popular opinion and the funding behind those politicians and finally government does not help as all forms of government one day lead to corrupted forms of their former self usually ruled by an Oligarchy consisting of high class rich men and women.

3. Our educational system is rooted in memorizing facts and only in applying people for jobs. It does not actually help people find the facts and apply a conclusion based on those facts. Because of this a complete overhaul of our educational system is drastically and urgently needed and must apply emphasis on critical thinking surrounded and rooted in scientific methodology.

4. The economic system within any monetary based planning always is rooted upon the management of scarce resources. Because of this, money or any other economic system thus far has been based upon the management of resource scarcity and not an actual basis in representing resources in and of themselves. Because of this money is essentially a worthless representation other than simply representing the time one can put into a job.

5. Given these general premises the Zeitgeist Movement concludes that a complete redesign of our society, environment, technology, educational system, economic system and even our values is not only essential for the survival of our human species; but needed very urgently in our time.

Throughout The Externalisation of the Hierarchy however none of these premises actually seem to emerge. Given this observation it can be concluded that we do not draw out ideas and notions from Alice A. Bailey

Conclusions

Even though I have only read up a certain portion of the book I can very much conclude the entire piece of literature in and of itself contains very little of what the Zeitgeist Movement even supports or condones. I have also concluded that these statements and quotes are completely bunked especially since there is a chapter entitled The Return of the Christ[6] and since it states in Activist Orientation Guide that “We cannot wait for some divine revelation or some “great man” to guide us. We must realize that we are on our own on this planet and it is up to us to change the world for the better.”[7]

However I encourage those of a skeptical mindset to simply purchase the book and verify this assessment by reading it yourself.


[1] Bailey, Alice A.: The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, Lucis Publishing Company 2001, pp. 192, 191 – The order of these quotes were taken from the video on YouTube called Zeitgeist addendum is NWO propaganda

[2]These statement’s can be seen throughout the book itself but for specifics please see Section Two – The Causes of the World Difficulty, The Hidden Source of the Outer Turmoil, The Spiritual Trend of Human Destiny and Conflict between Force of Ancient Origin pp. 69-105

[3] If one reads the entire book or just up to Section Four you seem to see this as the primary theme for the book itself.

[4]Ibid, pp. 144-170, 251-282, 488-491

[5]Ibid, pp. 10-15

[6]Ibid, pp. 591-612

[7] The Zeitgeist Movement: Observations and Responses – Activist Orientation Guide, 2009, p. 80

Posted in Conspiracy Theory Claims | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments