Who likes conspiracy theories? Now, who believes them? I do

[Webcomicjunkie]

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Please watch; and if you happen to scoff and laugh at how hilarious and preposterous these crazy theories are, well then, I hope you do so with an open mind. If you don't, well then, I hope you have a happy life, regardless.


-edit-
I would actually appreciate counterpoints and arguments from those who do think this is all nutty, and I promise I won't start any flame wars, but I would like to talk about it.

[Mista_B]

Eh, pretty standard 'conspiracy' fare. The writing reminds me a lot of some of the early X-Files episodes from the mid-90's, with a modern twist here probably decided by a corporate focus group.

The nefarious 'International Bankers' meme has been propagating itself since at least the mid-1800s and has long been a mainstay of radical right-wing circles where it has often overlapped with mutterings about Jewish cabals.

Mostly it's a warmed over repetition of stuff that's been repeated for years, the only new twist being the 9/11 stuff. Unfortunately, like most propaganda, it engages in willful confusion by showing TV screen shots of network or cable news with voice-overs from unidentified people not associated with the news programs. Even when quotes or sound bites are attributed to a source, there’s no way to tell if they are quoted correctly or in context.

*shrug*

Basically I figure it's a cash-grab, probably funded by Disney or something. Take a bunch of random consipracy theories from the past 200 years or so, add MTV-style flashy special effects and spooky voices = easy money.

[Webcomicjunkie]

Even when quotes or sound bites are attributed to a source, there’s no way to tell if they are quoted correctly or in context.

They do list all sources, and have links and further reading stuff on their site, so I'll look into it.

Basically I figure it's a cash-grab, probably funded by Disney or something. Take a bunch of random consipracy theories from the past 200 years or so, add MTV-style flashy special effects and spooky voices = easy money.

There's not a single donation button on the site, nor do they ask for any, and the DVD's are 5$ a pop, so I'd say that theory is debunked...

You can kill me now

[gforce422]

You can kill me now

Well, if you insist...whatever floats your boat, right?


*kills Webcomicjunkie*

[Webcomicjunkie]

BLAAARGH!!! *is zombie vampire ghost lich now*

I hope you killed me because of my unforgiveable pun, and not just for the pure sake of killing, otherwise, I'll have to lead a undead horde against you.

[Bocaj Claw]

Nein! I learned well from the British Zombie Masters and I, Zombie Jaw, am willing to give Mista B's life to stop you!

*waves cricket bat around vaguely*

[Mista_B]

Waha! Joke's on you! I have no life!

...

...

Drat.

[likeafox]

So the point of the first part of the movie was that the second coming of Jesus will be in 2150...right?

As for the rest of it, I don't know much on the subjects covered in the movie, but it's still frightening that I can't discredit any of what was said. This kind of stuff works really well for getting a reaction out of me. Better than any horror movie, because I have no idea how much of this is actually true :/

I can't argue for/against almost all of the points made. One really stuck out for me though, and that was the formation of a North American Union. I'm surprized I hadn't heard of SPP until yesterday. Since then I've been reading up on it. It really seems like a North American Union could happen, and IS happening. Since NAFTA and especially recently, trade regulations are breaking down between the US, Canada, and Mexico. Mexican trucks are now allowed to drive on American roads. A super highway is already in the works in Texas that will supposedly stretch from Mexico to Canada. In the face of being accused of dissolving US-Canada, and US-Mexican borders, Canadian Prime Minister, and US and Mexican Presidents did not deny that SPP was leading to the formation of the North American Union:
From ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 821-3.html )

Q Thank you. As you three leaders meet here, there are a growing number of people in each of your countries who have expressed concern about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is addressed to all three of you. Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?

PRIME MINISTER HARPER: Well, let me begin. And I guess I read some things from my opposition in Canada -- I'm not sure these are generally expressed concerns, but a couple of my opposition leaders have speculated on massive water diversions and superhighways to the continent -- maybe interplanetary, I'm not sure, as well. (Laughter.) I even -- there were reports of a former Prime Minister lurking in the hallways -- I have yet to see him. (Laughter.)

Look, we have an enormous trading commercial relationship. It's important that the leaders of that trading relationship get together periodically, have discussions, just as it's important at every level -- ministerial level, official level -- that they're getting together and talking and making sure they're working out problems.

You know, we had some business leaders in front of us today; one in particular said, you know, the rules for jelly beans -- he manufactures jelly beans -- the rules for jelly bean contents are different in Canada and the United States; they have to maintain two separate inventories. Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jelly bean? I don't think so. Maybe Mr. Dion thinks so, but I don't think so.

So these are pragmatic, practical discussions. In fact, it was my predecessor in the Liberal Party who initiated them. And ultimately, of course, for the decisions, we're responsible to our respective populations. We're a democratic system and, as President Calderón mentioned, I have to listen to that practical input every single day in parliament.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: (As translated.) Well, in fact, I'll be happy with one step in Mexicali and one in Tijuana. In actual fact, there are several myths about this meeting, some more jovial, funnier than others. What we tried to do is simply to meet, talk about our common problems and see what we can do in practical terms in order to improve the lives of our people. Whether it's to standardize the parameters for chocolates or medicines, I think these are common-sense things, and moreover, I think -- I'll tell you this very clearly -- I think that as a region, we are losing competitiveness in comparison with other regions in the world.

And it's not a question of customs unions, let alone having an integration that would actually encroach on the sovereignty and culture and resources of each country. We simply have to take advantage of this opportunity of being neighbors and allies in order to generate prosperity and security for our people. That is the purpose of these meetings.

Now, let me tell you, at times I would even like to work faster, review more issues, but we have to be very patient. And something that we did talk about also, which is part of my responsibility, or our responsibilities as leaders, is to talk to the people and tell them why it's important to have better trading rules, why it's important not to have so many barriers between ourselves, why it's important to resolve issues such as immigration, investment, because that could actually improve the quality of life for our people. It could mean the Mexican consumers could have better products, Canadian products, U.S. products and -- well, Mexican products also -- because there would be more investment in our country, which requires thousands and thousands of jobs in order to resolve the problems of the people. And when that happens, when there's investment -- and there's only investment when there is competitiveness. And we do have a way to go in that regard.

PRESIDENT BUSH: We represent three great nations. We each respect each other's sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they're wrong. I believe it's in our interest to trade; I believe it's in our interest to dialogue; I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.

And I'm amused by some of the speculation, some of the old -- you can call them political scare tactics. If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. I'm here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can a stronger force for good.

So I appreciate that question. I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER: (As translated.) Might I add, in French, I did not know that there were these major plots that were mentioned by the head of the opposition, Mr. Martin, a Liberal prime minister, who initiated these discussions, I believe, for Mr. Dion. It is a rather regressive step backwards to this whole question of our NAFTA discussions and SPP.

All three answers really amounted to "We just like to discuss how to solve problems. Bad problems like our countries having different products and regulations and other things that give us identity." No denial. Stepher Harper played it down innocently saying "Ohoho, you're so silly. What's the big deal? We're only talking about sharing JELLY BEANS"

I don't want to see this standardizing of regulations continue. And I certainly don't want a shared economy, currency, and completely open borders. No offense, US, but Canada is influenced by you enough as it is. Also get out Mexico.

[Webcomicjunkie]

So the point of the first part of the movie was that the second coming of Jesus will be in 2150...right?

Woah, you must not have paid wery much attention to it didja? It was to show that the basis of christianity is a myth, the same as many other myths, and thus, the power the church has (any church really) is based off of a myth, and this should not be allowed because it is tantamount to lying to people in order to control their lives.

Even without the rest of the movie, its still a very good point to bring up. Also of importance is the fact that because it is based on a myth, all those who make claims and base their politics on religion (like religious neoconseratives in the US government and the entire state of Israel)have no rational basis for their actions and therefore should STFU&GTFO before making decsions based on their religion that would effect a large number of people (for instance anti-arbortion laws, and anti-gay marriage laws).

Course, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here.

[osprey]

OMG I think aliens have invaded my mind pls respond.

[Mista_B]

So the point of the first part of the movie was that the second coming of Jesus will be in 2150...right?

Woah, you must not have paid wery much attention to it didja? It was to show that the basis of christianity is a myth, the same as many other myths, and thus, the power the church has (any church really) is based off of a myth, and this should not be allowed because it is tantamount to lying to people in order to control their lives.

Buh?

You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

myth


noun
Definition:

1. ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior

2. myths collectively: myths considered as a group or as a genre

3. idealized conception: a set of often idealized or glamorized ideas and stories surrounding a particular phenomenon, concept, or famous person
the myth of the new man

4. false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief
exploding some of the myths about dieting

5. fictitious person or thing: somebody who or something that is fictitious or nonexistent, but whose existence is widely believed in
The loving wife turned out to be a myth.

[Mid-19th century. Directly or via French mythe< modern Latin mythus< Greek muthos "speech, myth"]

Using those definitions of myth, a movie like this that relies on special effects and 'zomg drama' spooky voices and music... well, if they gotta add all that flash, there's probably not all that much substance.

[Webcomicjunkie]

Um, I can't help but point out that most of those definitions of "myth" fit most religions pretty well.

1. ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior.

So, the bible (or other religious texts) NOT an ancient story with heroes and supernatural beings (angels, demons, nephilim, etc.)which explains why things are as they are, and why humans are?

3. idealized conception: a set of often idealized or glamorized ideas and stories surrounding a particular phenomenon, concept, or famous person
the myth of the new man

And the bible (or others) is NOT a set of idealized or glamorized, stories which concern phenomenons, concepts, or famous (albiet fictional) persons?

4. false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief

Frankly, most of the beliefs held by people who worship a religion are not those found within the religious texts, i.e. the rapture, the holy trinity, purgatory, abortion opposition, etc. Not to mention, a lot of beliefs taken from religion are pretty damn backwards things to believe in this day and age.

5. fictitious person or thing: somebody who or something that is fictitious or nonexistent, but whose existence is widely believed in

Like the film points out, Jesus is simply one in a long line of Sun gods, and I would be willing to bet that most of the characters from the Abrahmic religions before Mohammed, are fictional. All gods are fictional, there has been no proof of any of them from Krishna to Yahweh, not one has any physical evidence of their existance.


As for substance, they probalbly had about 20 bucks for production, so, yeah...

I'm also giving you the benefit of the doubt here, in case I misread your post.



And Osprey? I don't believe that the Moon Nazis have set up a human trafficing ring with the Reptilians in order to gain power over the Greys who need our bodies to sustain their cloning program. But I can point you to certified kook, his name is Dr. Hobo, he can perform brain surgery with spoons...

(no, I'm not sarcastic, wherever did you get that idea?)

[Steve the Pocket]

Woah, you must not have paid wery much attention to it didja? It was to show that the basis of christianity is a myth, the same as many other myths, and thus, the power the church has (any church really) is based off of a myth, and this should not be allowed because it is tantamount to lying to people in order to control their lives.

What should "not be allowed"? Religion? The church's existence? Be specific plz.

Also, the argument that churches are unethical for this reason really only works if you can prove that the people who run those churches already "know" or believe that their own professed religion is a fallacy, and are using it to advance their causes anyway.

[osprey]

That was a rip, this Hobo charged me ALL of my spare change!

[Doc Sigma]

That was a rip, this Hobo charged me ALL of my spare change!

At least you got some brain surgery out of it. All I got was a little sticker that says "Brushing your teeth is A-OK!!!"