Watch this.

[scottish]

Very well put together. It is two hours long, but it's well worth the watch. I advise to take some time out and not leave your computer for it.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95115331&hl=en

"What does Christianity, 911 and The Federal Reserve all have in common?"

It shows how disgustingly stupid we are, and is backed up very well. Sorry for not including more information, it's just easier to watch.

[Kilroy_x]

I'm at the part where nothing is happening...

Edit: 7 minutes in and already highly suspicious of this.

[SithCait22]

ima watch tomorrow

[Doug31]

I quit after about 3 seconds, and I couldn't figure out what made this critical thinking, also.

[Kilroy_x]

Religious suppositions. Interesting, but...

and 9/11 conspiracy supposition... holy hell

[Hollus]

Some real critical thinking. Richard Dawkins is my hero. Along with Devonin. And Kilroy_X, but not so much.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...arch&plindex=0

Do you have faith in the teapot?

[Kilroy_x]

ahhhhhh

Well, the larger narrative seems mildly plausible if not virtually unfalsifiable. Section 3 on economics makes some statements I can confirm as false though.

As for the Matter of Dawkins, he's my hero too. Teapot scenario was Bertrand Russel though, IIRC.

[Lvytn]

Too much information. Good thing i am not religious. I now want to share with all the believers. Although, they probably wont change there minds. Yes, i havent finished it yet.

[scottish]

Anyone else see it yet?

[Baka05Carl]

2 hours long, I only watched 5 munites of it O.o It's inhumane how we people do all this things

[cry4eternity]

Well, after the first 33 minutes... wow. Just, wow. It all makes such sense and fits together so perfectly. Thanks for putting this up, I always find relgious things like this interesting. And just for your information, I consider myself an agnostic leaning towards atheism, especially after watching the first quarter of this. I may watch the rest later but i gotta head to bed now. I encourage others to watch at least the first 33 minutes. It's all just pictures until about 5 minutes in, and then there's this cartoony and comedic kinda thing, then it really starts.

[noviceanimeartist]

It doesn't seem like a lot of people have watched it for much more than a half hour. I'm still watching it at 1:44 and I can already summarize what has happened in the movie. The first section besically tells you how religion is directly related to Astrology, and then tells you how Christianity is the first religion designed to control the minds of any unsuspecting people.

The second part tells you that 911 was planned, that the destruction of World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 (Number 7 wasn't hit by a plane, nor was there much debris hitting it, but it still fell anyway) were actually controlled demolitions, and the proof on it.

What was really shocking (To me at least) was Part 3. This part of the movie explains that the government isn't even in control of the country after a bill was passed, without even realizing it, that a group of nameless people in charge of the bank, now owns the entire country. They've caused the U.S. to participate in World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War and now the Iraq/Afghanistan War for profit. That and they purposely keep it going as long as possible to maximize their profits. Not only that, they started the 'income tax'(which you don't have to pay since it's not against the law to).
There's more. Have you ever heard of the "North American Union"? It's the first time I've heard about it. Apparently, there's an arrangement made in 2005 that's bringing Canada, the U.S. and Mexico "into one entity". There will be a new currency called the "numero".

I can't really summarize this movie much more. You'll just have to take some time to watch, as it's actually pretty interesting, and could probably be extremely important. I'll finish watching the movie before I add any more to this thread.

Edit: Finished watching. All I can say is, this pretty much sums up what the main idea is about:

Originally Posted by scottish

It shows how disgustingly stupid we are, and is backed up very well.

Based on the movie, the media, controlled by that same group of nameless people, have been making us believe things that they want us to believe, and they're doing a pretty damn good job of it. This also brings up the question of whether this movie is entirely true. Considering all the evidence going for it, along with the sources (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm) that they've included in their website, I'm inclined to believe it. I hope that that doesn't make me ignorant because I'm believing something that's shown to me through a computer screen. It just seems to make more sense than what they show on American television.

On another note, if Canada, the U.S. and Mexico combine to form the North American Union, would that truly mean that the same group of nameless people that's in control of the U.S. will be in control of all of that as well? If so then that would mean that Canada and Mexico would be completely screwed along with the U.S., not to mention all of the other international arrangements they have planned.

[devonin]

Well your summary has made it abundantly clear that I have no need to watch this movie at all. Given what you've described, it seems like nothing more than a loosely associated pile of conspiracy theories. That it has a lot of references doesn't make it valid or correct. I can point you to references in support of virtually any point you care to make.

I'm going to respond just to your synopsis of the movie, as I really have no desire to burn 2 hours on what sounds to me to be precisely nonsense.

Part 1: Religion as Astrology Christianity (as someone who has been a roman catholic their entire life) has pretty much nothing in common with astrology. I've never seen numerological theories applied, I've never seen support for things like horoscopes, or ideas that those of us born at certain times have a propensity for certain traits, all of which are hallmarks of astrology. Things like astrology are usually dismissed by christian teachings as occult nonsense. As for christianity "controlling minds" I'd argue that any system that requires you to take concepts on faith has an element of control to it. Christianity wasn't the first and certainly wasn't the last.

Part 2: 9/11 So it was just an unplanned coincidence that planes -also- hit the towers at the exact same time as these "controlled demolitions"? I'm not sure what "proof" the video went ahead and presented (I remember nebulous claims that some group or another had pointed out that a controlled demolition -could- bring the towers down, but this was theoretical, at the time of construction) but uh...thousands of eyewitnesses, many of whom made corroborating film independant of one another say that it was planes, and I'm rather inclined to believe live footage.

Part 3: Shadow Government You know who started the idea that "The people who control the bank are secretly controlling America"? At the risk of being Godwin'd that would be Hitler theorising that the Jews controlled America through the banks. I suspect this is why your video implied "nameless people" because if it tried presenting a pipe dream of the nazi party as a reality, they'd justly lose some credibility.

The war entry conspiracies are cleverly chosen simply because there is a wacky conspiracy you can point to in all of the cases, but I find those particular conspiracies less than compelling.

WW1 had the Zimmerman Telegram which may or may not have a) existed or b) been legitimate, but at the same time, there was -plenty- of desire on the part of Americans to enter the war simply because German U-boats were sinking unarmed American merchant ships. President Wilson was opposed to war just on the grounds of the attacks, but the telegram convinced him, but I would argue that even without the telegram, continued attacks from Germany onto American shipping lines would have been enough to push them into the conflict.

WW2 had the wacky conspiracy that the Americans were somehow "in" on Pearl Harbour happening, but there are perfectly valid reasons explaining it as well. The US had already stated its support for the Allies against the Axis powers without a formal declaration of war which put them on some bad sides. Also, the US had been placing embargos on Japan over events in China. In addition to the attack on Pearl Harbour, the Japanese also launched an attack on various sources of Oil in the Pacific as well, since the American embargoes were putting a stranglehold on oil and scrap metal going into Japan. Realising that the embargoes were capable of ruining the Japanese economy, and fearing an American start to hostilities over what was happening in China, the Japanese launched a full-scale attack against Pearl Harbour. There's not a need or a want for a shadowy conspiracy in these events.

The Vietnam war was one of many conflicts that was encouraged by the Cold War tensions between the United States and teh Soviet Union. Vietnam was looking to be unified under a communist government, and American political theory at the time suggested that once countries started following suit with the USSR and becoming communist, a domino effect would result that would see wide-spread communism. (As an aside, the chain went China->Korea->Vietnam->Laos->Cambodia->Thailand->Malaysia->Indoneisa->Burma->India) This domino effect has been used to justify american intervention all over the place, and Vietnam was no different. Many battles during the Cold War were functionally cold-war-by-proxy where the US propped up one side, and the USSR propped up the other (Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, Afganistan) and once again, the threat of communism neither needs nor wants a wacky shadow government conspiracy.

As for the Income tax: The Income tax was first implemented during the civil war, based on Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution which gives congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" Later, the sixteenth amendment to the contitution was ratified and read: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

What these two things combine to say is this: The government can tax your income, and it is legal for them to do so, and any such tax is uniform across the country. As for the claim that you don't have to pay income taxes because "its not against the law to" not pay them...yes it is. The charge is called "Tax Evasion" and interestingly, one of the largest proponants of the "you don't have to pay taxes" movement is currently serving 17 years in prison for, of all things, not paying his taxes. Sounds like its against the law to me.

All of the arguments presented against income tax being valid or legal have been shot down in multiple courts multiple times.

Also...um...there is no movement from 2005 to combine the United States, Canada and Mexico into one country. Or more to the point, if some random group -thinks- that it is somehow going to bring that about, they are ten kinds of mistaken. The United States would -never- allow Mexico to become part of one country with them. Economically, they just lose lose lose by inheriting millions of people and very little by way of benefit from that. They -might- go for an amalgamation with Canada because Canada is so rich in natural resources including one of the largest oil reserves in the world, but Canada has prided itself on being "Not America" for so many years, that nothing short of a military invasion would bring about such a combining.

At the risk of being a little flamey, I think Scottish's quote and your agreement with it that it "shows how disgustingly stupid you are" isn't especially far from the mark, just not in the direction you seem to be saying it is. Conspiracy mongering is a long and proud tradition, but closer examination almost always reveals the flaws. You say the video was "backed up very well" but I'd put money on the fact that if you investigated some of their sources you'd find a) That many of the people have been widely discredited over the years and more importantly b) That they all routinely reference each other in their books. If Book A makes a claim, citing proof from book B, and Book B made the claim by citing the proof in Book A, nowhere in there do you find actual proof. As both sets of premises rest on one another, and not on something more concrete.

Conspiracies are compelling because our television-influenced hollywood-movie watching minds like to make things as overly complex as we possibly can, especially for important things. This is why Da Vinci Code sold so well. But things don't need to be that complicated. Is it really a stretch to say that the US entered world war one because Germany was sinking American ships? Is it really a stretch to say that the US was attacked by Japan, because the US was busy screwing Japan over? Why does the crazy far-fetched shadow government conspiracyhave to be the correct one, when simple observation holds up the existing theories?

[scottish]

Devonin,
You definitely hold your point within your argument, and probably could hold many points up with your knowledge, but a lot of your argument is also relative.
I'm not going to pick and argue each point, because most of what you said above the combining of America with Mexico and Canada can be found as proven facts among a numerous historians and documents, but after that point, most of which you said is a bit subjective, unless you believe that everything is relative, in which there's no point in arguing at all.
As for

[Part 1: Religion as Astrology Christianity (as someone who has been a roman catholic their entire life) has pretty much nothing in common with astrology. I've never seen numerological theories applied, I've never seen support for things like horoscopes, or ideas that those of us born at certain times have a propensity for certain traits, all of which are hallmarks of astrology. Things like astrology are usually dismissed by christian teachings as occult nonsense. As for christianity "controlling minds" I'd argue that any system that requires you to take concepts on faith has an element of control to it. Christianity wasn't the first and certainly wasn't the last.

Once again, there is more than one standpoint here. Coming from someone who's been a Roman Catholic their entire life, you I'm speaking of, it might be a bit difficult to believe in something that would defy your faith that you have held for twenty something years in a matter of just placing "astrology" as the prime subject in which Christianity, along with a lot of religions before Christianity, are just based off of. You say most of the Christian teachings dismiss things relevant to astrology as conspiracy nonsense, yet the entire religious standpoint only stands by one, and does not allow new ideas or ideas that go against their beliefs within the system. It works that way with every religion. Saying that these "conspiracies" are just a pile of crap, loosely put together to have people who think and make things to "complex" than they really have to be is also far-stretched. Once again, that is really subjective, considering many people consider these conspiracies nothing more than the obvious, and would consider religious standpoints the over thought out complex things. I'm not arguing that either of us are right or wrong on this point, but it can be argued either way, both of which will have people stand behind in. Obviously Christianity will have more people stand behind it because it by far has a higher number of believers. It is the majority, which will preside over and small beliefs a small number of people have any and every time, that is why things get shot down, mainly, conspiracies.

Part 2: 9/11 So it was just an unplanned coincidence that planes -also- hit the towers at the exact same time as these "controlled demolitions"? I'm not sure what "proof" the video went ahead and presented (I remember nebulous claims that some group or another had pointed out that a controlled demolition -could- bring the towers down, but this was theoretical, at the time of construction) but uh...thousands of eyewitnesses, many of whom made corroborating film independant of one another say that it was planes, and I'm rather inclined to believe live footage.

You have to watch this part before even standing against it. Half of what you said in there has nothing to do with what the movie stated, so you're arguing a point that wasn't even made. I'll go ahead a clue you in that, yes planes did actually hit the tower. The movie doesn't argue that, and would honestly, have no place in arguing that. The movie states, with evidence which I find believable, that the towers were brought down with the help of demolition, not demolition alone. I'd really suggest watching this movie before arguing it, you lose half of what ever you're arguing when you don't even know what you're arguing. It took you a decent amount of time to write that up I suppose, yet you are so quick to shove it down when you don't even have the feel of what you are arguing against. You blatantly say,

Well your summary has made it abundantly clear that I have no need to watch this movie at all. Given what you've described, it seems like nothing more than a loosely associated pile of conspiracy theories. That it has a lot of references doesn't make it valid or correct. I can point you to references in support of virtually any point you care to make.

Since when did Novice, or anyone in that case, become the summarized version of the movie? Please watch it, before you start shooting everything down.

As for the last section,

At the risk of being a little flamey, I think Scottish's quote and your agreement with it that it "shows how disgustingly stupid you are" isn't especially far from the mark, just not in the direction you seem to be saying it is. Conspiracy mongering is a long and proud tradition, but closer examination almost always reveals the flaws. You say the video was "backed up very well" but I'd put money on the fact that if you investigated some of their sources you'd find a) That many of the people have been widely discredited over the years and more importantly b) That they all routinely reference each other in their books. If Book A makes a claim, citing proof from book B, and Book B made the claim by citing the proof in Book A, nowhere in there do you find actual proof. As both sets of premises rest on one another, and not on something more concrete.

Closer examination, depending on what you view as the truth, or who is credible, etc. etc., always will reveal flaws in any system you choose. Once again, you say widely discredited, but by who? When? Why? Say if one man, was discredited by 50 people over the years. The man's point was to argue that Christianity is wrong. People started reading it, argued, and backed it up with their own evidence to come to the conclusion that he is not credible. The next 49 people to do it all did the same thing. Now lets say the majority of these people are Christians. Now, you're going to tell me, that a source isn't credible because of the people who say it is not? Once again, that is subjective. What you may find to be a "truth", someone else may not, and neither of you have any place in saying one is right and one is wrong in that point.

I'm not trying to argue you down completely, because there are things in which I also find hard to be true, but I don't eliminate the possibility because someone or something tells me to. Try to watch the movie, then argue all the points down, and then I probably wouldn't be so upset that someone is completely shutting something down before even knowing what they're talking about. And no, a synopsis is not the same of watching a movie. A synopsis is put into someone else's words, and summarized.


EDIT: Forgot to mention. Yes, saying that it "shows how stupid we are" is a little bland and subjective, but I was trying to summarize the idea of the movie, not my beliefs. Sorry if I made that a bit unclear.

EDIT 2: I'm glad some of you liked it by the way. I put this up as just a "movie" to watch, not to prove anyone's standpoint or beliefs wrong. I have watched things that I don't completely agree with, but still have found interesting.

[noviceanimeartist]

What I posted was just a very undetailed summary whereas I did not include any specific evidence to support the claims that were given. It was just to give an idea of what's inside the movie to hopefully encourage them to watch to find out the details. I suppose I did do a pretty bad job of that. Besides, I wrote that at around 4:00 in the morning. Sorry if I did anything wrong.

[scottish]

Novice, don't be silly. You did absolutely nothing wrong. You gave a quick summary in your terms to have people get a small understanding of what the movie was about, which is totally fine in my book.

[Verruckter]

Wow... incredible! Everything fits so perfectly! I'm not sure how much of it is true.. But damn, I'd wish all of it were.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by scottish

Devonin,
You definitely hold your point within your argument, and probably could hold many points up with your knowledge, but a lot of your argument is also relative.
I'm not going to pick and argue each point, because most of what you said above the combining of America with Mexico and Canada can be found as proven facts among a numerous historians and documents, but after that point, most of which you said is a bit subjective, unless you believe that everything is relative, in which there's no point in arguing at all.

Fair enough

As for Once again, there is more than one standpoint here. Coming from someone who's been a Roman Catholic their entire life, you I'm speaking of, it might be a bit difficult to believe in something that would defy your faith that you have held for twenty something years in a matter of just placing "astrology" as the prime subject in which Christianity, along with a lot of religions before Christianity, are just based off of. You say most of the Christian teachings dismiss things relevant to astrology as conspiracy nonsense, yet the entire religious standpoint only stands by one, and does not allow new ideas or ideas that go against their beliefs within the system. It works that way with every religion. Saying that these "conspiracies" are just a pile of crap, loosely put together to have people who think and make things to "complex" than they really have to be is also far-stretched. Once again, that is really subjective, considering many people consider these conspiracies nothing more than the obvious, and would consider religious standpoints the over thought out complex things. I'm not arguing that either of us are right or wrong on this point, but it can be argued either way, both of which will have people stand behind in. Obviously Christianity will have more people stand behind it because it by far has a higher number of believers. It is the majority, which will preside over and small beliefs a small number of people have any and every time, that is why things get shot down, mainly, conspiracies.

Actually, just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I'm in any way a practicing or believing christian any more. I was simply speaking to the fact that as someone who was -raised- as a christian, I was not raised to believe in anything to do with astrology, and was taught in fact, that things like astrology were silly nonsense.

You have to watch this part before even standing against it. Half of what you said in there has nothing to do with what the movie stated, so you're arguing a point that wasn't even made.

Well, as I said, and as you quoted, I was responding to Novice. And even explicitly stated "I am responding To your [his] synopsis of the movie." Obviously if his synopsis left things out or was inaccurate, the specific points I addressed would likewise be inaccurate as an objection to the movie, but still stand, in my mind, as an objection to the concepts presented.

I'd really suggest watching this movie before arguing it, you lose half of what ever you're arguing when you don't even know what you're arguing. It took you a decent amount of time to write that up I suppose, yet you are so quick to shove it down when you don't even have the feel of what you are arguing against.

See above. I explicitly said that I was responding to the synopsis, not the movie itself. So holding what I say against the movie instead of the synopsis is granting me a larger scope than I intended.

Since when did Novice, or anyone in that case, become the summarized version of the movie? Please watch it, before you start shooting everything down.

Well...he became a summarized version of the movie at about the point where he said "I can already summarize what has happened in the movie."

Once again, you say widely discredited, but by who? When? Why?

I said that I would wager, as is so often the case with conspiracy theorists, that if you looked into them, you would find that they had likely been discredited many times before. Not that they absolutely already had.

Say if one man, was discredited by 50 people over the years. The man's point was to argue that Christianity is wrong. People started reading it, argued, and backed it up with their own evidence to come to the conclusion that he is not credible. The next 49 people to do it all did the same thing. Now lets say the majority of these people are Christians. Now, you're going to tell me, that a source isn't credible because of the people who say it is not? Once again, that is subjective. What you may find to be a "truth", someone else may not, and neither of you have any place in saying one is right and one is wrong in that point.

If you put forward a claim, and someone mounts a body of evidence against your claim, and you cannot address that evidence in a satisfactory way, then you have been discredited regardless of who does or doesn't mount that criticism. If you are going to claim that "truth" is subjective, then any discussion becomes meaningless because you will claim any criticism is just someone's subjective opinion. But uh...the claim you are purporting would also just be someone's subjective opinion also.

I'm not trying to argue you down completely, because there are things in which I also find hard to be true, but I don't eliminate the possibility because someone or something tells me to.

Whereas in addition to not discounting things because someone tells me to, I -also- don't -believe- things just because someone tells me to.

Try to watch the movie, then argue all the points down, and then I probably wouldn't be so upset that someone is completely shutting something down before even knowing what they're talking about. And no, a synopsis is not the same of watching a movie. A synopsis is put into someone else's words, and summarized.

I suppose gauntlet dropped, whether you meant to or not, so I'll give it a viewing, but I suspect most of my counterpoints will be either the same ones I already described, or ones you will just continue to cry 'subjectivity!' over. Also...a synopsis is putting it into someone else's words and summerizing it? And this makes it invalid? You know...somehow I think that the entire content of http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm being made into a 2 hour movie also counts as being put in someone else's words and summarized. So which is it? Valid or invalid?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Part 1: Religion as Astrology Christianity (as someone who has been a roman catholic their entire life) has pretty much nothing in common with astrology. I've never seen numerological theories applied, I've never seen support for things like horoscopes, or ideas that those of us born at certain times have a propensity for certain traits, all of which are hallmarks of astrology. Things like astrology are usually dismissed by christian teachings as occult nonsense. As for christianity "controlling minds" I'd argue that any system that requires you to take concepts on faith has an element of control to it. Christianity wasn't the first and certainly wasn't the last.

The concept the video espouses isn't what you presume it to be. It attempts to show fundamental similarities between specific details in various religions, then attributes these similarities to a common ancestry, paegan spiritual beliefs and astrology. The argument against institutional religion is that it perverts the original symbolism to which Christianity owns its ancestry in order to achieve control, by means of tying in to deep seated psychological biases.

Part 2: 9/11 So it was just an unplanned coincidence that planes -also- hit the towers at the exact same time as these "controlled demolitions"?

Not at all. Purportedly, the financing of the terrorists can be traced to US allies, the actual hijackers of the planes are demonstratively not who was assumed, the ability of the planes to hit the tower was based on coordinated events which included US Air force anti-hijacking training exercises scheduled on 9/11 to confuse the defense system, and the force of the planes was physically provable to not be enough to bring down the towers. In addition, the video cites a physics professor who claims that not only do the details not add up, but Thermite explosive compounds can be scientifically proven to have been present in the building.

I'm not sure what "proof" the video went ahead and presented (I remember nebulous claims that some group or another had pointed out that a controlled demolition -could- bring the towers down, but this was theoretical, at the time of construction) but uh...thousands of eyewitnesses, many of whom made corroborating film independant of one another say that it was planes, and I'm rather inclined to believe live footage.

You would interject "Common sense" into a debate that should be framed entirely in physics? No one is arguing that the planes didn't hit the world trade center. I think you are being a little bit more dismissive of arguments than you have room to be.

Part 3: Shadow Government You know who started the idea that "The people who control the bank are secretly controlling America"? At the risk of being Godwin'd that would be Hitler theorising that the Jews controlled America through the banks. I suspect this is why your video implied "nameless people" because if it tried presenting a pipe dream of the nazi party as a reality, they'd justly lose some credibility.

It actually does suggest specifically that the Rockefeller family has something to do with it. In this section I can state based on my knowledge that some of the claims made were overly simplistic and some false, although the federal reserve is a horrible system, just not for the reasons given. In addition the US governments monopolization of currency (AKA, the fiat nature of the dollar) gives individuals within the government amazing power over the economy, and of exactly the wrong sort. I expect the reason the video blames nameless people is because the maker of the video doesn't actually understand economics, although having read enough economic literature I can state that even when people don't have a good grasp of mechanics, they can often still point at least at some problems, albeit with shotgun inaccuracy.

WW1 had the Zimmerman Telegram which may or may not have a) existed or b) been legitimate, but at the same time, there was -plenty- of desire on the part of Americans to enter the war simply because German U-boats were sinking unarmed American merchant ships. President Wilson was opposed to war just on the grounds of the attacks, but the telegram convinced him, but I would argue that even without the telegram, continued attacks from Germany onto American shipping lines would have been enough to push them into the conflict.

The video claims the sinking of the Lusitania was precipitated by both American business interests, which owned the ship and therefore decided its pattern of operation, and by individuals within government.

WW2 had the wacky conspiracy that the Americans were somehow "in" on Pearl Harbour happening, but there are perfectly valid reasons explaining it as well. The US had already stated its support for the Allies against the Axis powers without a formal declaration of war which put them on some bad sides. Also, the US had been placing embargos on Japan over events in China. In addition to the attack on Pearl Harbour, the Japanese also launched an attack on various sources of Oil in the Pacific as well, since the American embargoes were putting a stranglehold on oil and scrap metal going into Japan. Realising that the embargoes were capable of ruining the Japanese economy, and fearing an American start to hostilities over what was happening in China, the Japanese launched a full-scale attack against Pearl Harbour. There's not a need or a want for a shadowy conspiracy in these events.

The video argues that actions such as the embargo were made with the intention of precipitating escalation. Unfalsifiable, but not out of step with what anything you just said.

As for the Income tax: The Income tax was first implemented during the civil war, based on Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution which gives congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Which even in this phrasing is violated by virtually all of the current tax system. However, the issue is specifically why a person has to pay taxes, not whether or not congress has power to vote taxes into existence.

Later, the sixteenth amendment to the contitution was ratified and read: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So we see the constitution rewrites itself to avoid an issue that arose from public sentiment. Hardly an iron-clad document. However even this still doesn't mandate that individuals actually pay taxes, it just gives congress the authority to collect them.

What these two things combine to say is this: The government can tax your income, and it is legal for them to do so, and any such tax is uniform across the country.

That third part is false. Actually the entire thing fails to distinguish between local and federal taxation.

As for the claim that you don't have to pay income taxes because "its not against the law to" not pay them...yes it is. The charge is called "Tax Evasion" and interestingly, one of the largest proponants of the "you don't have to pay taxes" movement is currently serving 17 years in prison for, of all things, not paying his taxes. Sounds like its against the law to me.

There's a difference between the law in text and the law in action. You also can't honestly say that punishment -> crime. As a side note, there is a couple in New Hampshire right now under seige by the Feds for tax evasion, even though they said they would pay taxes if the law was just presented which showed they had to do so.

All of the arguments presented against income tax being valid or legal have been shot down in multiple courts multiple times.

Then perhaps the courts are illegitimate.

Economically, they just lose lose lose by inheriting millions of people and very little by way of benefit from that.

You don't understand economics. To be fair, neither does anyone who would advocate government, including the supposed plan in discussion.

You say the video was "backed up very well" but I'd put money on the fact that if you investigated some of their sources you'd find a) That many of the people have been widely discredited over the years and more importantly b) That they all routinely reference each other in their books. If Book A makes a claim, citing proof from book B, and Book B made the claim by citing the proof in Book A, nowhere in there do you find actual proof. As both sets of premises rest on one another, and not on something more concrete.

This is very likely true.

Why does the crazy far-fetched shadow government conspiracyhave to be the correct one, when simple observation holds up the existing theories?

The conspiracy theory in question is actually just the existing theories, plus a few additional purported details.

[jewpinthethird]

Yes! A solid minute of militaristic destruction. Yes! And orbital shots of the earth and random nebulas! Yes! Oh man! And CG galaxies! Is there anything this movie doesn't have?

So, it takes about 5 minutes to get to the title card and I've already lost interest. God, now this guy is talking...and talking...and talking...and god, f*ck this movie. Seriously. I'm going back to watching the Root of all Evil. And while Richard Dawkins is my hero and all, he's still kind of an asshole.