As an Oklahoman by birth, the events of April 19, 1995 are very close to my heart. The story goes that Timothy McVeigh, acting alone, set off an improvised truckload of explosive and brought down the Murrah Federal Building, killing over 160 people. 

A variety of theories regarding these events have been created over the years as new evidence has presented itself. A new film which I had the privilege to view over the weekend presents some of these.

A Noble Lie: Oklahoma City 1995 investigates many of the holes in the official narrative of the OKC bombing through interviews with police officers, victims, experts, and even politicians. Many of these people step forward with stories and experiences which would seem to suggest that Timothy McVeigh had accomplices which were never brought to justice. Some evidence even suggests that he was working for the government in a false-flag operation. Events such as Ruby Ridge and the siege at Waco had added fuel to the fire burning between the government and nationwide militia/constitutionalist forces. It is logical that the government would want to calm this dissension by casting "right-wingers" in a bad light.

The only issue I immediately took from the film was that in certain segments, the actual filmmakers were interviewed with the same gravity as the experts and witnesses that the filmmakers were supposed to be learning from. I'm sure that the reasons for this were to build narrative where there was no convenient expert witness, but interviewing the filmmakers smacks of an author citing his own prior work to defend his hypothesis. 

All in all, A Noble Lie is a must-see if you want to learn more about the OKC bombing, the mysterious murders which followed it, the government sponsored tests which blow the "lone truck bomb" theory out of the water, and the government which continues to cover "someone's" tracks to this day. 

At the recommendation of a friend I dug up a very ambitious film from the Unarius Academy of Science, which Wikipedia describes as:

Some of the ideas expressed in the film are, I believe, indicative of attitudes widespread in the New Age movement.

With the obvious and overly simple moral of "Don't be a jerk and commit genocide for no reason", "The Arrival" is a science fiction film with quite enchanting visuals, yet it is only science fiction. It relies on a couple of faulty principles that I will explain.
Firstly it assumes that technological advancement will necessarily entail moral progress, but I think this is a foolish principle. The film shows us visually just how far of a moral difference lies between us and the people of the stars. Human beings are spear-chucking cavemen and the star children descend in psychedelic spaceships. But there is no evidence that morality advances along with technology. With the invention of atomic power came the first uses of atomic warfare. Unmanned aircraft are utilized in the slaughter of third world children.
Secondly the belief system purports that souls are independent of bodies and immortal, and that the act of reincarnation cycles souls through different bodies all throughout time. While this is a beautiful idea that certainly has appeal, I think that politically it is an ineffective one to have. Even if it is true, the idea tends to encourage an indifference to the problems of the here-and-now in favor of a slow progression from life to life until nirvana is reached. I am unconvinced that meditation and enlightenment are the right courses of action in a world where there is real destruction and suffering happening all the time.
Third, there is a constant belittling of "the ego" or "the self" which I find quite unsettling. I'm no Randian Objectivist (a philosophy that borders on sociopathy) but I don't think the dignity and worth of the individual can be overstated. If we are to live in a just society, we must base it on the principle that no person is a means to an end.

Believing that otherworldly beings will arrive preaching good will and reincarnation is not only overly optimistic, it is foolhardy. When the human race does make official First Contact, we should expect things not to become simpler, but infinitely more complex. We will be stepping into a vast world of intergalactic politics that will make the subterfuge and stalemates entertained by earthly governments look like playground games.

Maybe I am being too hard on Unarius and other New Age movements interested in extraterrestrial life and space exploration. For example, I am interested in the possibility of telepathically connecting with intelligent extraterrestrial life. Time will tell and more avenues will have to be explored. If you are a New Age advocate and have different ideas, please leave a comment or otherwise get in touch with me. I would love to explore this further.

ICKE. Love him or hate him, David Icke is the foremost proponent of the theory that reptilian extraterrestrials are running things here on earth. This brilliant British documentary, 'David Icke, The Lizards, and The Jews', follows him on a book signing/speaking tour.

A large portion of the film's runtime is given to opponents of Icke, who accuse him of antisemitism and attempt to thwart Icke at every turn. These "culture warriors" no doubt have good intentions, but it is rather interesting to watch their frustrated attempts to convince business owners and radio hosts to cancel Icke and, when that plan meets limited success, lamely "pie" the author in a public setting. They consider this a small victory, yet they only serve to hurt their own position. Icke, despite his seemingly strange views, is open to rational debate and defense of his position. The young protesters resort at last to what is essentially a public spectacle topped off by an immature practical joke.

Many who are new to the idea of reptilian incursions on earth quickly dismiss the proposition as preposterous. As the documentary shows, Icke has been laughed at for decades. Laughter is possibly even natural at such a original and alternative idea. Yet if Icke's and other's theories are only good for a good laugh, why has Icke become an international superstar? And more telling, why would "legitimate" groups organize in order to attack his ideas? There is something dangerous about Icke's ideology, and it's not just the possible antisemitism.

As far as the antisemite claim goes, Icke does often attack the Rothschilds and other powerful families in history, yet he doesn't give anyone in power a free pass. The Bushes and the British Royals are certainly far from Jewish, and they are his favorite targets. Opponents of Icke cite attendance at his lectures by neo-Nazi organizations. But we cannot judge an idea based on its supporters. If we are to be logical, we must take on the idea itself. Even simple ideas can be twisted and used for the purposes of alternate ideologies.