invisible empire

[shai]

That's interesting that you say that because I would place this film in the loosely in the category of entertaining rather than educational. Coupling short out of context quotes, film snippets with scary music, and largely illogical arguments based on tenuous evidence does not (as Mammero stated, equate to education. Even a cursory understanding of historical and contemporary political philosophy and sociological theory is much more enlightening in terms of understanding the state of international affairs. Unfortunately this is far more difficult to achieve because it requires deeper reading than a page or 2 on someone's blog. Real education is hard (!!!) yet thoroughly rewarding.

 

To be blatantly honest I really get no benefit out of encouraging you guys to actually do some legitimate research. I can think of 3 better things I could be doing with my time than even writing this post! However, it's uncomfortable to sit and watch some pied piper character leads people, that I am actually in contact with, toward a highly distorted understanding of the world.

 

A lot (between 2/3 to 3/4) of what I post here is opinion. I do my research, though...I try to keep my assertions based in fact as much as I can, but I'll admit it- a lot of what I say here is me thinking out loud. I don't necessarily need people to agree with me to feel validated (even though it's nice to hear), I'm just presenting another point of view.

 

Anyway...I haven't watched the movie, for the same reasons I haven't seen "Zeitgeist" or "Loose Change". I DO think these films are valuable in their capacity to generate interest in the topics they cover, which motivates some people to do their own research. However, if someone wants to instantly lose any credibility with me in a conversation/debate, all they have to do is start citing "Zeitgeist" or "Loose Change" and it's game, set and match. I prefer to do my own reading so I can come to my own conclusions...IMO movies like the three I mentioned wrap up these issues in an attractive, easy-to-digest package for the ADHD/"internet expert" crowd.

 

Some of the facts these films present are sound, but the conclusions they arrive at tend to be sensational. As a cynic I could say the filmmakers do this because making sensational claims generates a buzz, which gets people's attention, which sells DVDs and/or drives up their view count on Youtube.

 

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

[christo-f]

Second "couldn't have said it better myself" post.

 

I've also been wondering about the profits made from these films. I took a quick look recently and apparently "Loose Change, which I have not seen, sold quite a few copies.

 

As I said, I wont' have time to watch it before the weekend. And Mammero, the only reason I will watch it is because it really irks me when people call something bullshit without supplying a logic behind their decision/call. So unfortunately I cannot do it either.

[shai]

I should add that I did like "America: Freedom to Fascism" for some of the points it brought up, but as I said before I wouldn't cite it as gospel truth. After all, the facts they present are easy enough to check.

 

Christo-f, I can usually tell when you're posting opinion and when you're citing research/analysis. What I am curious about is the ratio of the analysis you post...how much of it is excerpts from articles/papers you wrote versus quoting the work of others? Do you have a specific area you concentrate on, or do the assignments vary?

[Zig]

A lot (between 2/3 to 3/4) of what I post here is opinion. I do my research, though...I try to keep my assertions based in fact as much as I can, but I'll admit it- a lot of what I say here is me thinking out loud. I don't necessarily need people to agree with me to feel validated (even though it's nice to hear), I'm just presenting another point of view.

 

Anyway...I haven't watched the movie, for the same reasons I haven't seen "Zeitgeist" or "Loose Change". I DO think these films are valuable in their capacity to generate interest in the topics they cover, which motivates some people to do their own research. However, if someone wants to instantly lose any credibility with me in a conversation/debate, all they have to do is start citing "Zeitgeist" or "Loose Change" and it's game, set and match. I prefer to do my own reading so I can come to my own conclusions...IMO movies like the three I mentioned wrap up these issues in an attractive, easy-to-digest package for the ADHD/"internet expert" crowd.

 

Some of the facts these films present are sound, but the conclusions they arrive at tend to be sensational. As a cynic I could say the filmmakers do this because making sensational claims generates a buzz, which gets people's attention, which sells DVDs and/or drives up their view count on Youtube.

 

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

 

that is a good point, these films aren't meant to be educational as much as they are meant to be informative and spark an interest in the casual viewer who otherwise wouldn't be thinking about these issues. that is why they have an entertainment value to them (the creepy music, the graphics, etc.) because these kind of elements attract the attention of people who are used to watching movies that are exciting, mysterious, and interesting to them. otherwise they would zone out after 15 minutes.

 

Freedom to Fascism was definitely one of the better films, and Alex Russo did some great work. Alex Jones' End Game is another good one and actually has a bibliography with cited sources for all of it's information so you can do your own research if you feel the movie is fabricating things.

 

Police State 4 also just released today.

 

Here is an interesting watch, extras from the film Invisible Empire, an interview with Peter Dale Scott discussing how the plan for how the United States would respond to a nuclear attack evolved into a pretext to impose CoG policies in response to any declared emergency, empowering the shadow government to enact its agenda on 9/11.

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF4VbZNwhGI&feature=related Part 2

[Removed]

Anyway...I haven't watched the movie, for the same reasons I haven't seen "Zeitgeist" or "Loose Change". I DO think these films are valuable in their capacity to generate interest in the topics they cover, which motivates some people to do their own research. However, if someone wants to instantly lose any credibility with me in a conversation/debate, all they have to do is start citing "Zeitgeist" or "Loose Change" and it's game, set and match. I prefer to do my own reading so I can come to my own conclusions...IMO movies like the three I mentioned wrap up these issues in an attractive, easy-to-digest package for the ADHD/"internet expert" crowd.

 

Some of the facts these films present are sound, but the conclusions they arrive at tend to be sensational. As a cynic I could say the filmmakers do this because making sensational claims generates a buzz, which gets people's attention, which sells DVDs and/or drives up their view count on Youtube.

 

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

 

I used to think similarly that these kinds of films are valuable in that they broaden the spectrum of opinion available to people, which this might have a stimulating effect on people who did not feel engaged by more mainstream theory. Though, since then I have come to rethink this opinion because I have begun to observe a 'conspiracy generation' emerging who rather than question the theories presented, or do critical(!) research to establish their own opinion, tend towards a wholesale belief in everything stated. I recognise that this kind of blind acceptance will be a natural response by many people who have not learnt, or perhaps have no interest in learning, to critically analyse information. This is unfortunate but unarguable. Yet, I am concerned that these films actively promote this by encouraging paranoia, which is virtually an antithesis of rational thought, thereby further removing the ability to think critically about the content. Or even worse yet, the ability to think critically about any further information on a related topic.

 

Another element that I think should be recognised is related to the medium itself. It is much easier to maintain attention for a longer period of time if a message is coupled with images and sounds. This much is fairly straight forward and is easily demonstrated by the popularity of tv news compared to printed newspapers. I also think there is a huge amount of positive scope for film makers to engage viewers on more deeply theoretical topics than we are used to at the moment. Although I believe a further difficulty with this medium is that it lends itself to a sort of bombardment of fast paced statements. I see this as leading to a kind of processing overload, where the viewer cannot possibly critically assess the statements fast enough to keep pace with the argument. The result of this is that it becomes more difficult to identify the questionable statements or bad evidence, in a way that is not found when reading a book.

 

For the people who have complained that I (and others) haven’t watched past the first 15 minutes of the film. I would suggest that it has a lot to with being able to identify the standard that the film sets within this timeframe. For example, if in the first 15 minutes of the film, the film maker is willing to repeatedly make very dubious connections between quotes that I recognise as taken out of context from their intended meaning, then this indicates to me that this theme will be repeated through the rest of the film. It also indicates to me that the film is based on heavily manipulated research, and that the film maker is comfortable dishonestly misrepresenting the quote in order to make it fit the overall argument. When I (and I assume others) say I do not need to see further than the 15minute mark to establish that the film is largely farcical, I am not suggesting that there is no valid content in it what so ever. I am, however, saying that if the film maker wants to be taken seriously they have to present their argument in a far more credible package to even warrant a serious review. This is why you will not find much mainstream content commenting on these films, other than some study on their wider implications rather than on their actual arguments.

 

Shai; I think I am fairly generous in my low level of scepticism towards the people that have made this film, or Zeitgeist etc, in relation to a profit motive. I think in some more established cases, Alex Jones for example, there is an element of a profit motive, but for the most part I see the creators of these films genuinely believing the message that they are spreading. Unfortunately I see them as having a highly distorted worldview themselves.

 

Zig; My opinion is not a matter of elitism at all. It is as stated above about credibility. If you want to present a compelling argument for the existence of a secret society that are close to securing their position of eternal rulers of the world, then please do it. So long as it is fairly concise and the difference between opinion and fact is well delineated, then I am sure a lot of the people who have refused to watch the film would be much happier to review and debate your argument.

 

In relation to the background theme of the film. If I am sufficiently motivated in the next few weeks I will make a thread discussing cosmopolitanism, its basis in liberalist thought, and it's various detractors. It might help to shed light on why some international political actors would want to volunteer away elements of sovereign power to an international organisation like the UN.

 

Peace out motherfuckers..its been real!

[shai]

Shai; I think I am fairly generous in my low level of scepticism towards the people that have made this film, or Zeitgeist etc, in relation to a profit motive. I think in some more established cases, Alex Jones for example, there is an element of a profit motive, but for the most part I see the creators of these films genuinely believing the message that they are spreading. Unfortunately I see them as having a highly distorted worldview themselves.

 

The DVD sales/Youtube comment was somewhat in jest, but I agree that these filmmakers try a little too hard to come up with pat answers to some very tough and complicated questions, then they proceed to beat the audience over the head with them. It's like they favor indoctrination over independent thought or research, which is scary since a misinformed audience has the potential to be far more dangerous than an ignorant one.

 

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but it seems like these movies have been steadily increasing in number and popularity since 2004...my guess is the elections that year, the 9/11 report and Katrina had a lot to do with the genre taking off like it did. It's similar to how there was a lot of interest in the paranormal right around the end of the 60s...that probably had something to do with the age of Aquarius. (Or drugs.) I do think the movies back then usually let the viewer make up their mind, though.

[russell jones]

I used to think similarly that these kinds of films are valuable in that they broaden the spectrum of opinion available to people, which this might have a stimulating effect on people who did not feel engaged by more mainstream theory. Though, since then I have come to rethink this opinion because I have begun to observe a 'conspiracy generation' emerging who rather than question the theories presented, or do critical(!) research to establish their own opinion, tend towards a wholesale belief in everything stated. I recognise that this kind of blind acceptance will be a natural response by many people who have not learnt, or perhaps have no interest in learning, to critically analyse information. This is unfortunate but unarguable. Yet, I am concerned that these films actively promote this by encouraging paranoia, which is virtually an antithesis of rational thought, thereby further removing the ability to think critically about the content. Or even worse yet, the ability to think critically about any further information on a related topic.

 

Another element that I think should be recognised is related to the medium itself. It is much easier to maintain attention for a longer period of time if a message is coupled with images and sounds. This much is fairly straight forward and is easily demonstrated by the popularity of tv news compared to printed newspapers. I also think there is a huge amount of positive scope for film makers to engage viewers on more deeply theoretical topics than we are used to at the moment. Although I believe a further difficulty with this medium is that it lends itself to a sort of bombardment of fast paced statements. I see this as leading to a kind of processing overload, where the viewer cannot possibly critically assess the statements fast enough to keep pace with the argument. The result of this is that it becomes more difficult to identify the questionable statements or bad evidence, in a way that is not found when reading a book.

 

For the people who have complained that I (and others) haven’t watched past the first 15 minutes of the film. I would suggest that it has a lot to with being able to identify the standard that the film sets within this timeframe. For example, if in the first 15 minutes of the film, the film maker is willing to repeatedly make very dubious connections between quotes that I recognise as taken out of context from their intended meaning, then this indicates to me that this theme will be repeated through the rest of the film. It also indicates to me that the film is based on heavily manipulated research, and that the film maker is comfortable dishonestly misrepresenting the quote in order to make it fit the overall argument. When I (and I assume others) say I do not need to see further than the 15minute mark to establish that the film is largely farcical, I am not suggesting that there is no valid content in it what so ever. I am, however, saying that if the film maker wants to be taken seriously they have to present their argument in a far more credible package to even warrant a serious review. This is why you will not find much mainstream content commenting on these films, other than some study on their wider implications rather than on their actual arguments.

 

Shai; I think I am fairly generous in my low level of scepticism towards the people that have made this film, or Zeitgeist etc, in relation to a profit motive. I think in some more established cases, Alex Jones for example, there is an element of a profit motive, but for the most part I see the creators of these films genuinely believing the message that they are spreading. Unfortunately I see them as having a highly distorted worldview themselves.

 

Zig; My opinion is not a matter of elitism at all. It is as stated above about credibility. If you want to present a compelling argument for the existence of a secret society that are close to securing their position of eternal rulers of the world, then please do it. So long as it is fairly concise and the difference between opinion and fact is well delineated, then I am sure a lot of the people who have refused to watch the film would be much happier to review and debate your argument.

 

In relation to the background theme of the film. If I am sufficiently motivated in the next few weeks I will make a thread discussing cosmopolitanism, its basis in liberalist thought, and it's various detractors. It might help to shed light on why some international political actors would want to volunteer away elements of sovereign power to an international organisation like the UN.

 

Peace out motherfuckers..its been real!

 

and this

[christo-f]

Holy bejesus.

 

Farankiefiver's post deserves its own public holiday.

 

 

A coherently stated position backed up with rational reasoning and clearly defined in order for alternative view points to take issue with if so desired.

 

 

It's not about being right, it's about being able to make a point in a way that allows others to check up on what you are saying without leaving anything to faith.

 

 

 

 

And that is the main point that I will look at when watching this film; does the evidence put forward support a systematic argument that is possible to disprove and does not require any faith with which to draw a rational conclusion.

[russell jones]

Holy bejesus.

 

Farankiefiver's post deserves its own public holiday.

 

 

A coherently stated position backed up with rational reasoning and clearly defined in order for alternative view points to take issue with if so desired.

 

 

It's not about being right, it's about being able to make a point in a way that allows others to check up on what you are saying without leaving anything to faith.

 

 

 

 

And that is the main point that I will look at when watching this film; does the evidence put forward support a systematic argument that is possible to disprove and does not require any faith with which to draw a rational conclusion.

 

 

Christo, Frankie, thanks for communicating exactly what I think about the situation. Saves me the time in doing it!

[Zig]

I used to think similarly that these kinds of films are valuable in that they broaden the spectrum of opinion available to people, which this might have a stimulating effect on people who did not feel engaged by more mainstream theory. Though, since then I have come to rethink this opinion because I have begun to observe a 'conspiracy generation' emerging who rather than question the theories presented, or do critical(!) research to establish their own opinion, tend towards a wholesale belief in everything stated. I recognise that this kind of blind acceptance will be a natural response by many people who have not learnt, or perhaps have no interest in learning, to critically analyse information. This is unfortunate but unarguable. Yet, I am concerned that these films actively promote this by encouraging paranoia, which is virtually an antithesis of rational thought, thereby further removing the ability to think critically about the content. Or even worse yet, the ability to think critically about any further information on a related topic.

 

Another element that I think should be recognised is related to the medium itself. It is much easier to maintain attention for a longer period of time if a message is coupled with images and sounds. This much is fairly straight forward and is easily demonstrated by the popularity of tv news compared to printed newspapers. I also think there is a huge amount of positive scope for film makers to engage viewers on more deeply theoretical topics than we are used to at the moment. Although I believe a further difficulty with this medium is that it lends itself to a sort of bombardment of fast paced statements. I see this as leading to a kind of processing overload, where the viewer cannot possibly critically assess the statements fast enough to keep pace with the argument. The result of this is that it becomes more difficult to identify the questionable statements or bad evidence, in a way that is not found when reading a book.

 

For the people who have complained that I (and others) haven’t watched past the first 15 minutes of the film. I would suggest that it has a lot to with being able to identify the standard that the film sets within this timeframe. For example, if in the first 15 minutes of the film, the film maker is willing to repeatedly make very dubious connections between quotes that I recognise as taken out of context from their intended meaning, then this indicates to me that this theme will be repeated through the rest of the film. It also indicates to me that the film is based on heavily manipulated research, and that the film maker is comfortable dishonestly misrepresenting the quote in order to make it fit the overall argument. When I (and I assume others) say I do not need to see further than the 15minute mark to establish that the film is largely farcical, I am not suggesting that there is no valid content in it what so ever. I am, however, saying that if the film maker wants to be taken seriously they have to present their argument in a far more credible package to even warrant a serious review. This is why you will not find much mainstream content commenting on these films, other than some study on their wider implications rather than on their actual arguments.

 

Shai; I think I am fairly generous in my low level of scepticism towards the people that have made this film, or Zeitgeist etc, in relation to a profit motive. I think in some more established cases, Alex Jones for example, there is an element of a profit motive, but for the most part I see the creators of these films genuinely believing the message that they are spreading. Unfortunately I see them as having a highly distorted worldview themselves.

 

Zig; My opinion is not a matter of elitism at all. It is as stated above about credibility. If you want to present a compelling argument for the existence of a secret society that are close to securing their position of eternal rulers of the world, then please do it. So long as it is fairly concise and the difference between opinion and fact is well delineated, then I am sure a lot of the people who have refused to watch the film would be much happier to review and debate your argument.

 

In relation to the background theme of the film. If I am sufficiently motivated in the next few weeks I will make a thread discussing cosmopolitanism, its basis in liberalist thought, and it's various detractors. It might help to shed light on why some international political actors would want to volunteer away elements of sovereign power to an international organisation like the UN.

 

Peace out motherfuckers..its been real!

 

That's fair to say, and you make valid points I don't disagree with. There is a growing portion of people who are willing to accept word for word much of the information coming from these forms of documentaries, but if you really pay attention to the way a majority of the population in society operates most people are usually accepting the information which they are receiving without even questioning it anyway. That information comes from mainstream media sources, where as this sort of information comes from alternative sources. I agree with you also, that I don't believe these sort of films are necessarily made for profit motives and that the messengers actually do legitimately believe in the message. The way I see it is, that these movies are directed at those sort of people who never even think about these sort of possibilities and issues in society, and are wrapped up in the every day materialistic concerns like sports, fashion, technology, etc.

 

However, I don't agree with you that these films are necessarily making dubious connections and fabricating realities to fit their world views. This is something you refuse to address when you shut the film off after 15 minutes, so in a way you are actually living in denial of the information that is presented because you refuse to even debate the issues being placed onto the table. Rather you would prefer to conform to your own world view that these sort of possibilities are ridiculous and don't exist, therefore you are in fact contradicting yourself when you say that you believe "there is a positive scope for film makers to engage viewers on more deeply theoretical topics than we are used to at the moment". The information presented is simply dismissed, therefore you aren't involving yourself in the debate, therefore you aren't engaging yourself more deeply into the discussion of theoretical topics society isn't used to discussing. Refusing to discuss the topic because you don't like the way it is presented, and dismissing the information because you don't believe it fits into your own personal world view, is practicing exactly what you are charging these film makers with doing.

 

Notice, we haven't discussed any of the information presented in this film whatsoever yet in this thread, only the way the film has presented the information, the creators of the film, other films that are similar to this one, etc. The information is what is important and what should be discussed. The actual reasons why you won't find much mainstream content commenting on these films is because they don't want to instigate these kind of discussions and bring this sort of information to the attention of the public, god forbid we might actually learn something.

 

And also, it isn't my job to create an argument for this information. The debate is on the information presented in this film, and others like it. If I wanted to create arguments, I would make a film of my own. Let's concentrate on those films which are already made, and actually debate the information contained within them instead of making this a back and forth about who believes what, and who rules the world. There is plenty of information contained in the film that has simply been dismissed here on a whim.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Yo Zig's post should be tattooed onto the moon.

 

Than we should all have to say it out loud on 4/21 of every year, at around 6:20 eastern time.

[Removed]

That's fair to say, and you make valid points I don't disagree with. There is a growing portion of people who are willing to accept word for word much of the information coming from these forms of documentaries, but if you really pay attention to the way a majority of the population in society operates most people are usually accepting the information which they are receiving without even questioning it anyway. That information comes from mainstream media sources, where as this sort of information comes from alternative sources. I agree with you also, that I don't believe these sort of films are necessarily made for profit motives and that the messengers actually do legitimately believe in the message. The way I see it is, that these movies are directed at those sort of people who never even think about these sort of possibilities and issues in society, and are wrapped up in the every day materialistic concerns like sports, fashion, technology, etc.

 

However, I don't agree with you that these films are necessarily making dubious connections and fabricating realities to fit their world views. This is something you refuse to address when you shut the film off after 15 minutes, so in a way you are actually living in denial of the information that is presented because you refuse to even debate the issues being placed onto the table. Rather you would prefer to conform to your own world view that these sort of possibilities are ridiculous and don't exist, therefore you are in fact contradicting yourself when you say that you believe "there is a positive scope for film makers to engage viewers on more deeply theoretical topics than we are used to at the moment". The information presented is simply dismissed, therefore you aren't involving yourself in the debate, therefore you aren't engaging yourself more deeply into the discussion of theoretical topics society isn't used to discussing. Refusing to discuss the topic because you don't like the way it is presented, and dismissing the information because you don't believe it fits into your own personal world view, is practicing exactly what you are charging these film makers with doing.

 

Notice, we haven't discussed any of the information presented in this film whatsoever yet in this thread, only the way the film has presented the information, the creators of the film, other films that are similar to this one, etc. The information is what is important and what should be discussed. The actual reasons why you won't find much mainstream content commenting on these films is because they don't want to instigate these kind of discussions and bring this sort of information to the attention of the public, god forbid we might actually learn something.

 

And also, it isn't my job to create an argument for this information. The debate is on the information presented in this film, and others like it. If I wanted to create arguments, I would make a film of my own. Let's concentrate on those films which are already made, and actually debate the information contained within them instead of making this a back and forth about who believes what, and who rules the world. There is plenty of information contained in the film that has simply been dismissed here on a whim.

 

Ok I don't have time to make a long post, and I feel I have addressed most of what you have said here anyway.

 

Given what I have already said about the credibility of this film. I will illustrate with an analogy; If you were approached by a man on the street who displays no obvious sign to his intention until he begins to talk. The first thing he says is that ""The moon doesn't exist", the second is that "The jabberwocky painted it on the earth's atmosphere to distract people from eating cheese", the third "The president of the US is black", and the fourth "This is because he comes from an alien planet". How long would you hang around listening thinking "well I don't agree with some of the stuff he is saying, but I better stick around since it might start getting good!"? No one has the time, or interest, to thoroughly debate the ranting's of a nutcase, in the same way that no one has the time, or interest, to thoroughly debate every statement presented in these films. We as humans look to identify key indicators as to what is worth investing our time into. Would you dutifully click every piece of spam mail in your inbox that says 'you have won a million dollars' in case one of them was actually correct?A simple economic concept called 'opportunity cost' illustrates this kind of decision making process well. It goes like this; Any action I choose to take, comes at a cost of the next best choice of action that I would have performed had I not chosen the first.

 

As stated before, people with enough knowledge to be taken seriously on this topic do not have any interest in writing reviews or debating the content of this film since within 15 mins it has set off screaming alarm bells indicating that it will not be an argument that has any merit. If it is clear that film displays a lack of credibility then the investment of time into of debating it may not be worth the cost of time which would be better used doing something else.

 

I think I have said enough on this subject now.

[Zig]

Ok I don't have time to make a long post, and I feel I have addressed most of what you have said here anyway.

 

Given what I have already said about the credibility of this film. I will illustrate with an analogy; If you were approached by a man on the street who displays no obvious sign to his intention until he begins to talk. The first thing he says is that ""The moon doesn't exist", the second is that "The jabberwocky painted it on the earth's atmosphere to distract people from eating cheese", the third "The president of the US is black", and the fourth "This is because he comes from an alien planet". How long would you hang around listening thinking "well I don't agree with some of the stuff he is saying, but I better stick around since it might start getting good!"? No one has the time, or interest, to thoroughly debate the ranting's of a nutcase, in the same way that no one has the time, or interest, to thoroughly debate every statement presented in these films. We as humans look to identify key indicators as to what is worth investing our time into. Would you dutifully click every piece of spam mail in your inbox that says 'you have won a million dollars' in case one of them was actually correct?A simple economic concept called 'opportunity cost' illustrates this kind of decision making process well. It goes like this; Any action I choose to take, comes at a cost of the next best choice of action that I would have performed had I not chosen the first.

 

As stated before, people with enough knowledge to be taken seriously on this topic do not have any interest in writing reviews or debating the content of this film since within 15 mins it has set off screaming alarm bells indicating that it will not be an argument that has any merit. If it is clear that film displays a lack of credibility then the investment of time into of debating it may not be worth the cost of time which would be better used doing something else.

 

I think I have said enough on this subject now.

 

ok, but now you are simply relating the rantings of nutcases to the information presented in this film. if you feel that the film's information is equivalent to the rantings of nutcases, then just come out and say it, don't beat around the bush. that's your opinion, you're allowed to have it but remove yourself from further discussion on the topic because you aren't giving the conversation a fair chance. i personally don't believe, or relate the information contained within the film to be crazy, or illegitimate. do i take everything from the film to be 100% gospel truth? no. but i wouldn't compare it to the latter.

 

refer to my previous post about how your thinking is a form of denial.

[El Mamerro]

Frankiefiver is right. Zig is wrong. The end.

[twonpoo]

Mams is out of his mind, Frankenflaver is shutting down the ignorance in this thread. Keep goin, the loud mouth idiots are quietly backing out of the room.

[Fist 666]

last 2 pages.

 

i'm anxious to read christo's review.

[russell jones]

ok, but now you are simply relating the rantings of nutcases to the information presented in this film. if you feel that the film's information is equivalent to the rantings of nutcases, then just come out and say it, don't beat around the bush. that's your opinion, you're allowed to have it but remove yourself from further discussion on the topic because you aren't giving the conversation a fair chance. i personally don't believe, or relate the information contained within the film to be crazy, or illegitimate. do i take everything from the film to be 100% gospel truth? no. but i wouldn't compare it to the latter.

 

refer to my previous post about how your thinking is a form of denial.

 

How about this Zig, refer to a specific argument made in the film, tell us where in the movie it is, and we'll respond to it, point by point.

[Zig]

last 2 pages.

 

i'm anxious to read christo's review.

 

does this forum revolve around christo-f's perspectives? it's interesting how a lot of you have these sly remarks to throw into the thread, yet you all sit around waiting for one persons analysis and won't post one of your own on the film's topics.

 

• Iran Contra
  
• Sex rings in the white house
  
• BCCI
  
• Drug trafficking
  
• Assassinations
  
• Al CIAda
  
• False Flag Operations
  

 

i'm interested in reading his review also, but try articulating your own opinion instead of relying on christo to do it for you.

[Zig]

How about this Zig, refer to a specific argument made in the film, tell us where in the movie it is, and we'll respond to it, point by point.

 

ok, i'll bring up some of the topics tonight from the film. i'm going to watch police state 4 and then i'll rewatch invisible empire and do just that. i'm the minority opinion here, so i guess it does fall on my shoulders... but i'm basically going to be arguing to a bunch of people who already have their minds made up so i don't see what the point is in that. if you are dismissing the movie altogether, i see more of a point in you justifying your reasons and speaking on the topics then me posting about them and simply reinforcing them. whatever.

[Fist 666]

i'm not in a position to download the film, and probably won't waste my time (going into this with a bad attitude) when i get back to the states.

 

the part of 12oz does not revolve around casek, christo, russel, frankie, mams, AoD, or anyone else

but the reason this part of 12 oz exists is for intelligent debate and educated conversations w/o lolcats.

those guys, and a few others, bring some really good reading to the table.

 

i disagree w/ a good half of what i read in crossfire, but their articulation is far superior to mine and i enjoy reading their posts.

your post reminds me of me at 16...

[Zig]

i'm not in a position to download the film, and probably won't waste my time (going into this with a bad attitude) when i get back to the states.

 

the part of 12oz does not revolve around casek, christo, russel, frankie, mams, AoD, or anyone else

but the reason this part of 12 oz exists is for intelligent debate and educated conversations w/o lolcats.

those guys, and a few others, bring some really good reading to the table.

 

i disagree w/ a good half of what i read in crossfire, but their articulation is far superior to mine and i enjoy reading their posts.

your post reminds me of me at 16...

 

no, i definitely agree with that. i enjoy reading what they say because it helps me understand things from different perspectives also. it's just, i seem to be one of the few around here who defend my perspective and i am not as good of a writer as those names you mentioned. i'll do my best anyway, and focus on some of the topics from the movie later in a future post.

[shai]

i personally don't believe, or relate the information contained within the film to be crazy, or illegitimate.

 

What I take issue with is the way the facts are presented. Sensationalism isn't very objective, it tends to skew the facts in a way that leads people who aren't up to speed on the topics to believe that there is a conspiracy.

 

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Secrecy and consolidation of power/top-down power structures aren't exactly news to me, it's the way the game's been played since time immemorial. In fact, I find it surprising that it's still a revelation to otherwise intelligent folks.

 

When Christo-f and Random Hero talk politics and international strategy in here, I pay attention because their sources and background in these matters are pretty hard to beat. It's not about playing favorites...to the best of my knowledge they're considerably more informed and qualified than anyone else on 12 oz in these areas.

[cunt sauce]

this reminds me a lot of a debate i had with someone about chemtrails

[riffmasta]

this reminds me a lot of a debate i had with someone about chemtrails

what happend?

[christo-f]

Ok I've watched the first hour of it. IT was painful and I'd really prefer not to waste any more time with it.

 

The first 20 mins may as well be cut out, it is totally off point. Listen to the Bad Religion song, "Fertile Crescent", that's what it is about.

 

the context they are using it here is summed up by Francis Fukyama's theory of the End Of History. When they refer to order here, they are talking about the balance of power in the world. Since nomadic tribes started planting crops and then staying in place to defend those crops against other tribes civilisation (loosely defined) started. From here on in the balance of power, or the order can be seen.

 

The balance/order may be that the Smith tribe over the hill has 15% more people and they come down and raid the crops and livestock of the Jones clan, the Davis Tribe and the Brown crew once every month using their superior numbers to overcome resistance. In this order the Smith family has the balance of power (balance does not imply equilibrium). This is a unipolar balance/order, there is one group/pole that has power over the rest. If the Brown crew has more babies and in 15 years time grows by 12%, they start battling it out with the Smiths and taking what they want from the Jones and the Davis clans. This is a bipolar order/balance of power. More than two powers in a system and it's called multipower order/balance of power.

 

All through history we see this repeated regionally (During the Assyrian empire in the Middle East, the Peloponnesian/Greek and Warring states/China periods) where you had multiple powers battling it out in contained regions and poles of power shifted, some internally balanced by building up armies and technology whilst others externally balanced by joining forces with other city states, etc.

 

You also see it carried out globally or trans-regionally such as with the Ottoman empire, the PErsian empire, the Roman empire, the Mongolian empire, the British empire, the Soviet empire and the US empire. At the end of the Second World war the British empire had reduced as a power along with the Ottoman empire, all that was left was the Soviet Empire and the new American power. They battled it out in a bipolar order of power until the USSR lost and the US remained as a sole super power meaning that the bipolar order was replaced by the unipolar order.

 

That's what the first 20 minutes was referring to, the order of the most powerful or balance of power in the world between nation states. One of the differences between the USSR and the US was economic and social systems/ideologies. The US won that battle meaning that their system was the only one remaining, the capitalist/market/democratic system. Francis Fukiyama made the argument (he said that the victory began with one of Napolean's battles and that the Cold War was just the final victory) that now the whole world was going to move over to the democratic market system. The theory then flows that countries would eventually become so interconnected and interdependent through supply and market chains that no one would ever go to war again (neo-liberalism and democratic peace theory crosing over). That's why he called it end of history, there would be nothing left to talk about because the world would move in to a new world order of massive markets competing for dominance and military competition would be a thing of the past. The new world order being referred to there was solely referring to the global balance of power being won by the US. It had no reference whatsoever to a hidden controlling elite.

 

Go to the library, look up End of History by Francis Fukiyama and see for yourself. Dig back and read the transcripts of those interviews and public speeches in full and see for yourself. I'm old enough that I watched them all when they actually occurred.

 

 

 

 

 

That's the first element of the film that I take issue with, there are more claims that are just totally wrong and and easily disproved and I'll hit them up later.

[twonpoo]

wait, did you just watch an hour of a movie, and then talk about some tribes and ottoman empires for 5 paragraphs?

 

 

wait, wut?

 

what the fuck is going on in here, a bunch of arrogent people complaining, then getting called out to ACTUALLY watch a film, frankenflaver dropped the reality hammer on everyone, the arrogant guys tippy toed out the room and didnt watch shit, and this guy comes in and decides to recite book reviews instead of talking about the films content?

 

sorry guy, Im not convinced you've even payed attention for the hour you "watched".

[cunt sauce]

wait, did you just watch an hour of a movie, and then talk about some tribes and ottoman empires for 5 paragraphs?

 

 

wait, wut?

 

this guy comes in and decides to recite book reviews instead of talking about the films content?

 

sorry guy, Im not convinced you've even payed attention for the hour you "watched".

 

 

The first 20 mins may as well be cut out, it is totally off point.

 

That's what the first 20 minutes was referring to, the order of the most powerful or balance of power in the world between nation states.

 

The new world order being referred to there was solely referring to the global balance of power being won by the US. It had no reference whatsoever to a hidden controlling elite.

 

That's the first element of the film that I take issue with, there are more claims that are just totally wrong and and easily disproved and I'll hit them up later.

 

 

twonpoo, disregard cynicism acquire reading comprehension.

[Fist 666]

holy shit, you really are out of your element.

[twonpoo]

how about people WATCH THE MOVIE and come back and TALK ABOUT THE MOVIE.

 

 

 

 

 

are we gnna fuck or are we just gnna dance around all night with your hand on my ass?

[lord_casek]

 

are we gnna fuck or are we just gnna dance around all night with your hand on my ass?

 

I'm stealing this. Haha. Best laugh I've had all night.