"What influeced Jared Lee Loughner? The media is trying to pin it on “violent rhetoric” from the right, but a friend of his disagrees.
Glenn played audio from an interview with a friend of Jared Loughner, Zach Osler. Osler said, “He did not watch TV, he disliked the news, he didn’t listen to political radio, he didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left, he wasn’t on the right,” adding, “I really think that this Zeitgeist documentary had a profound impact on Jared Loughner.”
Glenn played some audio from the documentary. Among the quotes?
- “The reality is Jesus was the sole deity of the gnostic Christian sect and like all other pagan gods, he was a mythical figure.”
- “Christianity, along with all other related theologies, is an historical front. These religions now serve to detach the species from the natural world and likewise each other.”
- “The religious myth is one of the most powerful devices ever created and it serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.”
Now that’s some pretty horrible rhetoric. Clearly right wing, right? No. Crazy and weird, but not right wing.
And Glenn doesn’t want the documentary to be pulled either, as it would be as wrong to attribute blame to the documentary. “I’m not asking for anybody to be silenced. I’m not asking for any of those things.” Glenn only brings it up because this is someone who knew the shooter saying this probably had an influence over his actions."
“More speech, not less speech. So my agenda is not to shut anybody down. The truth has no agenda. Mine is to tell the truth,” Glenn said.
What they are doing is hiding the fact that Jared most likely was one of those "militant" atheists/crypto-christians that sat on the Zeitgeist videos arguing about it's validity concerning religion part claiming the illuminati are lying to us all like I have heard a million times over.
"The two-hour video is anti-Christian, anti-American and anti-capitalist, and Jared Lee Loughner became obsessed with it. Zeitgeist, a conspiracy-theory documentary released in 2007, has spawned its own cult following. According to Loughner's friends, the accused Tucson gunman was one of the cult's most zealous converts. And many of Loughner's otherwise inexplicable obsessions -- from his fascination with currency to his rantings against illiteracy to his paranoid fears of "mind control" -- parallel ideas promoted in Zeitgeist."
"Divided into three parts, Zeitgeist begins with a half-hour assault on Christianity as a myth. The film asserts that Jesus is "a literary and astrological hybrid… a plagiarization of the Egyptian sun-god Horus." This is a thesis promoted in a series of books, including The Christ Conspiracy (1999), by author D.M. Murdock, who writes under the pen-name "Achyra S..."
So, they misspell "Acharya," and I notice that none of these stories ever include links to Zeitgeist or to Acharya's websites, as in this case. But, they have no problem bringing dumb-ass (and I mean that) JP Holding and linking to that trash.
The bottom line is that ZG does NOT incite violence and that none of the unfortunate victims of this disturbed individual had anything to do with any of the ideas in ZG, so he could NOT have been motivated by any of those ideas.
Zeitgeist did not stir up violence. It was those right-wingers with their crosshairs and alike, but of course, leave it to the right-wingers to make lame attempts to point fingers back, despite the fact they were the ones spewing hate and violence.
_________________ Mriana
Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm Posts: 2248 Location: Everywhere
I don't see so much as one comment about the ending of ZG. What about PJ stressing the interconnected and interdependent unity factor that comes with existing in the universe, which is the follow up to all of this conspiracy and the solution to see past all of the bullshit? This kid obviously didn't get the message. The point is not to get pissed off and go out and start killing people, the point is that in the deepest sense you are those people!!!!
The news doesn't seem to want to cover the deeper philosophical enlightenment aspect which is a running theme throughout all of the movies. Some one needs to do a news write up about how if this kid actually listened to PJ he wouldn't have shot anyone or harmed a dam thing! PJ explains what sort of actions should be taken and they are peaceful actions of boycotting the most corrupt banks, getting off the grid, and so on. This is complete bullshit that they're doing right now. But it's actually to their own disadvantage, like I said earlier, because any publicity is good publicity as it goes... The media is merely sparking public interest. People can watch and see for themselves whether or not ZG is a call to violence. And more and more people will have to face up to part 1 who had missed it over the first several years of it's release. So more people being directed towards Acharya's work in that sense. And they can read the work and judge it for themselves when they get around to discovering it. This could actually bite them all in the ass in the long run and there may come a day when they start wishing they never publicized ZG to this magnitude in the popular media...
_________________ The Jesus Mythicist Creed: The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.
I have no clue how they get the idea that watching Zeitgeist caused that sort of violence. I still blame Palin and her cross hairs.
_________________ Mriana
Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison
It's absurd to think that Zeitgeist was the cause of this. The seeds of evil were obviously planted in this kid long before he ever saw the film. Blaming movies means nothing. Look at the film Taxi Driver. I don't think Martin Scorsese thought anyone watching that movie would go and try to shoot the president, but look what happens when there's one crazy out of millions. And do people need reminding that things like the Bible and the Koran have inspired more acts of violence and evil than any one film, book or TV show?
Washington Examiner: Tucson shooter obsessed with bizarre Internet movie (1/17/11)..."Zeitgeist" posits a sort of Zodiac-based foundation for all faiths and gives us insights like, "Jesus' solar Piscean personification will end when the sun enters the Age of Aquarius."
This comment illustrates the derisory attitude of the general society towards astrotheology. The mocking tone assumes that the relation between Christian mythology and the stars has no basis. This prejudice is very widespread, due to ignorance of the stellar basis of ancient religion. Most people simply have no idea that the zodiac ages are an actual scientific framework of terrestrial time, let alone of the extensive presence of zodiac symbolism in ancient religion including the Bible.
It may be possible that this discussion of Zeitgeist in the mainstream media will lead to public attention to the Christ myth debate, which so far has proceeded mainly as an invisible internet and literary phenomenon.
A problem here is that the scientific analysis of religion conducted by astrotheology is widely mixed together with baseless and dubious speculation. Astrology has created a public impression that all new age thought is irrational. In the quote here from the Washington Examiner, it is easy to imagine the journalist assuming that the linkage between Christ and the Age of Pisces has a seamless connection with popular sun sign astrology, in its broadly unscientific and even anti-scientific forms.
The relation between Christianity and the Great Year of precession of the equinox is obvious to those who have done a detailed study of it, but the interdisciplinary nature of the claims, and the climate of doubt produced by the challenge posed to dominant conventions, in science and religion and also for that matter in astrology, makes the formulation of a persuasive explanation that can speak to a broad audience very difficult.
My opinion is that Zeitgeist is problematic in its linkage of astrotheology to 911 conspiracy theories and critique of the world banking system. It is too easy to run together various critiques of the dominant paradigm into a broad conspiratorial ideology, with astrotheology sucked in to a political agenda of dubious content. It underlines the need for astrotheology to maintain intellectual rigor with commitment to careful attention to evidence as the basis of opinion.
I'm finding the hypocrisy of the mainstream atheists and skeptics on this subject to be rife. On the one hand they revere the writings of Dennis McKinsey, who wrote The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, in which he says:
Quote:
"Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."
--C. Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy
And they are part of a movement, the American Atheists, whose founder's son, Jon Murray, said:
Quote:
"There was no such person in the history of the world as Jesus Christ. There was no historical, living, breathing, sentient being by that name. Ever. The Bible is a fictional, non-historical narrative. The myth is good for business."
- Jon Murray, "Who was He?" LIFE Magazine. December 1994, pp. 67-82
They also revere the writings of Thomas Paine, who said:
Quote:
"The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun." --Thomas Paine, Age of Reason
Yet, when some of us actually get that information out into the public, with tremendous difficulty, hard work and risk, we are viciously attacked by these same non-believers!
Anyway, as concerns this tragic and heinous event, the fact will remain that there is nothing in the ZG series that incites violence - on the contrary, it is very much an anti-violence, anti-war statement. While we may not agree with its conclusions, ZG is representative of pacifism. Also, none of the victims of this awful crime had any resemblance to any of the ideas in ZG, so there cannot be any causal link established, scientifically speaking.
_________________ Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:
Excellent post, Robert! I'm finding the hypocrisy of the mainstream atheists and skeptics on this subject to be rife.
Thank you Acharya.
Your comments open the problem of analyzing the philosophical assumptions of atheism. Generally, atheists accept a scientific worldview in which all religion is regarded as meaningless, stupid and delusory. This attitude is the implicit assumption of the dominant secular consensus, emerging when anyone seeks to reconcile science and religion. Scientific atheism has what can be compared to a 'Manichean' outlook. Manicheism is the religious claim that good and evil are rival cosmic powers, contrasted to the Augustinian view that the cosmos is originally good but evil is a fallen derivative corruption of an originally good nature. In the case of scientific atheism, a 'neo-Manichean' cosmology sets the modern enlightenment based on empirical observation as the horizon of the good, against pre-modern religious mythology which is condemned as evil for promoting what David Hume called 'monkish virtues'. The assumption is that any worldview that gives attention to mythology is a stagnant obsolete fantasy, condemned by association with religious error.
For astrotheology to combat this entrenched assumption, first the assumption has to be exposed and clarified in simple terms, in the manner that Wittgenstein called 'clearing the philosophical underbrush'. Wittgenstein remains a hero for science, albeit little read, for his view that all metaphysics is error. Even making this statement is likely to raise hackles, such is the emotional power and depth of the assumption that metaphysics is obsolete. However, the problem for astrotheology is that the ancients did in fact hold to metaphysical ideas, but among the enlightened these ideas were seen as allegory for natural reality, not as magical entities.
I've noticed Acharya that you have found it immensely frustrating that rational conversation is often so difficult. It suggests to me that taking a step back from the astrotheological argument, and examining the presuppositions that constrain peoples' attitudes, can be a helpful way to make progress. Words like zodiac are like red rags to a bull. It matters not in the least that the zodiac can be seen in the sky on every clear night; its cultural associations run so deep that the Pavlovian association kicks in before the conversation has even started. Similar problems attend to Christianity, and especially to the eschatological terrain that is raised by discussion of the Great Year. I have noticed that otherwise rational people begin to look like panicky rabbits when any of these issues are raised in conversation, as astrotheology is so completely foreign to everything that most people accept and understand as true and real.
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4337 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Robert Tulip wrote:
I've noticed Acharya that you have found it immensely frustrating that rational conversation is often so difficult.
I've always felt that if this info (Acharya's info) wasn't taught at someone's school (and it wasn't) then, he or she may immediately dismiss it as some conspiracy. Such individuals can't handle the thought that they paid loads of money to go to college and weren't provided this information. In their minds, if it wasn't discussed at their university then, apparently it doesn't exist. These types of atheists sometimes seem incapable of looking outside their own box. I have serious questions about the methodologies used today as mentioned by Neophyte in this post. Some atheists come off every bit as fearful of mythology and astrotheology as the theists who are fearful of Pagan religion.
Recent surveys show that many atheists and skeptics know more about the bible and other holy texts than theists. This development is largely due to the fact that most atheists were former devotees and simply studied more material outside the accepted status-quo, which is why they don't want you reading outside the accepted material - it simply can't hold up to the light of day.
The video below is just a cheap shot at the type of astrology that we already know has no scientific basis. Maybe some do need to see it, though. The problem is that some atheists and skeptics get confused and think that debunking astrology also debunks Acharya's work - it doesn't. Apples to oranges. Acharya doesn't even try to hold up this type of astrology as any sort of evidence of anything other than the fact that it was a part of human history and religious beliefs. She's not even saying that astrotheology is "true" as a factual worldview or that we should all be following it - she's just explaining how the ancients saw the world and exploring the history of this prevalent belief system. That's it - it's quite simple.
Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and James Randi thoroughly debunk Astrology
Now, compare what was said in the video to this excerpt from Acharya's book Suns of God:
Also, some theists and especially atheists have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "Conspiracy" in the title of her first book, as well as her pen name "Acharya S."
My view is this: We just need to continue teaching the facts about mythology, astrotheology, archaeology, archaeoastronomy and their relationship to the mythicist position. It needs to be taught in schools. Atheists and skeptics know almost nothing about mythology. A perfect example demonstrating that is with one of the world's most famous atheists today, Richard Dawkins discussing Zeitgeist part 1. Apparently, we need a basic 101 course written at about a 5th grade level so that even atheists and skeptics can understand it. Nobody is teaching this information even though it is a major part of human history. Maybe it's time for Acharya to write a book for kids? - so the adults can learn too.
Now we need a new survey on religious mythology, astrotheology archaeology and archaeoastronomy and their relationship. I bet 98% of both theists and atheists would fail that quiz miserably. Those who've actually read Acharya's work would ace it though.
Just read through the thread "Emails I Have Loved." Those people are having a very profound experience of true freedom of thought and enlightenment. American Founding Father and creator of the principle of 'separation of church and state,' Thomas Jefferson would probably have been quite fond of Acharya's work. Jefferson would also probably agree with her mythicist position, it seems.
Acharya really is, as a reviewer once said, the "Hypatia/Galileo of our day." It takes a monumental amount of courage to take on all the theists, atheists and academia - not least as a white American female.
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:43 pm Posts: 32 Location: Omaha, NE
All may be interested in an article titled, "Are We Too Dumb for Democracy? The Logic Behind Self Delusion." The premise of the article is that many people, when presented facts and evidence that are 180 degrees opposite of their current beliefs, become more entrenched in their belief system. The article is from a political viewpoint, but applies nicely to religion. You can find it at...
All may be interested in an article titled, "Are We Too Dumb for Democracy? The Logic Behind Self Delusion." The premise of the article is that many people, when presented facts and evidence that are 180 degrees opposite of their current beliefs, become more entrenched in their belief system. The article is from a political viewpoint, but applies nicely to religion. You can find it at...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
