Aaron Russo’s around for a while, and has been thoroughly debunked.
The “international bankers” conspiracy is the broad, all-encompassing one that we’re all familiar with. The bankers and the Federal Reserve have controlled every major development in the last couple hundred years of Western history. They started all the wars, kicked off the Great Depression, and found a way to manipulate (and profit from) each significant historical turn.
The most recent of these films, Zeitgeist, breaks new ground by adding a fourth major thread to the conspiracy. It starts with a long segment explaining how religion, and Christianity in particular, has been used as a tool to control us. Jesus did not even exist as a historical person, according to this movie. He was invented by the powers-that-be and used as a tool to prevent us from thinking clearly and asking questions.
If you dip your toes into the portions of the internet where these movies are currently being watched and discussed, you find a vibrant, large-scale, active debate. In terms of numbers, the Truthers seem to have the advantage. The sheer number of folks who watch these things and share with their friends is staggering. The number of new people emailing their friends every day with messages like “Have you seen this? It truly opened my eyes!!!” is apparently quite sizeable. A few months ago, when Rosie O’Donnell started spouting 9/11 conspiracy stuff on The View, it was most likely part of the cultural backwash of this red hot viral internet phenomenon.
Looking at the current online debate, especially the folks taking the time to argue against the Truthers, I get the broad sense that they share some classically centrist qualities. A number of them have this powerful, unshakeable focus on getting the facts straight, along with a basic sense of balance in the way they evaluate information. Sites like Snopes.com attract the sort of folks who want to know the bottom line and are determined not to be spun. They’re pretty busy dealing with the influx of Truthers over there.
Of course, these aren’t qualities we can ascribe to centrism in any sort of exclusive fashion. There are folks on the left and right who are reasonably tough-minded and fact-based in their basic approach to the world around us. A blog called Screw Loose Change was started by two Republicans who engage in daily debate with the Truthers, while the site Debunking911.com was started by a liberal who wants to clearly document why these conspiracy theories aren’t true. The funniest piece written by a skeptic was the one by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone, complete with a purported script by the 9/11 conspirators.
In this, there seems to be a drive that flows right along the empirical lanes we centrists tend to travel. Let’s figure out what’s really happening in the world around us first, regardless of who gains or loses from that assessment. Let’s not walk around with alternate sets of simple facts about the world, particularly if those facts can be checked.
Of course, the concept of “truthiness” was recently developed by a prominent liberal, Stephen Colbert, as a critique of guys like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, who seem to derive their sense of what’s real from “gut feelings” and are rather adept at sweeping aside inconvenient facts.
Moving the “truthiness” concept into this debate would seem perfectly appropriate, both linguistically and logically. If we begin to sweep in the bogus theories on the left, like conspiracies that claim George Bush planned 9/11, we may someday end up with a concept of “truthiness” that helps weed out the gross factual inaccuracies on both sides of the aisle.
It seems to me, with a mass phenomenon like the Truthers currently underway, that centrists can make a contribution by helping to tug these folks back to some semblance of reality, while giving a boost to those segments of the left, right, and middle who want to build real standards of factual accuracy into the public debate.