MovieChat Forums > Politics > Frank Zappa Knew Where We Were Headed Ne...

Frank Zappa Knew Where We Were Headed Nearly Forty Years Ago!


Truly a man ahead of his time...


https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxzBtjZL9Dd/

reply

Amazing prediction of the Tyrannical Fascist presidency of Joe Biden.

https://ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GettyImages-1420018789-scaled.jpg

"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty."
-- Thomas Jefferson

reply

So if tyranny is "law", when are you going to start rebelling?

And why hasn't The Daily Wire and Fox News been shut down?

reply

Wrong...

Obama, clinton... nuff said

reply

You think Obama and Clinton were steering us towards a Fascist Theocracy? Please elaborate...

reply

What I mean is if Zappa was right, Clinton and Obama wouldn't have been elected. Even Bush and Trump weren't leading us to fascism/theocracy much less Reagan.

Zappa's comments are stupid.

reply

Ok, that's a valid point...

reply

Joke's on Frankie boy... the people he supported turned out to be the fascists! Just like my sig used to say!

And regarding communism... ask all of our Cuban and Venezuelan immigrants how they feel about communism.

reply

And yet, everything he regurgitated is been demonstrated by the libs/dems.

reply

The Trumptwats that have responded to this don't seem to be addressing the "Theocracy" part of Frank's statement...Not that I'm expecting thoughtful nuanced answers from the pack of delusional cultists!

reply

TDS = Trump's Delusional Supporters. The only reason they worship Trump is because he wants revenge on the Democrats. Trump has no platform nor ideas to help Americans and he's facing 91 felony charges mostly for being a traitor. Trump will never be president again.

reply

magas never address ANY of the things they illustrate being in denial about, whether that be personal, professional, political, or ESPECIALLY theocratical.

Which once again illustrates the very plausible likelihood that the main reason the right-wing has gravitated even MORE towards promoting the idea that America was formed as a "Christian nation" is because of how society has been conditioned to just accept the idea that questioning the religious (or those just PRETENDING to be religious) is somehow taboo just BECAUSE they are religious...which of course makes absolutely no logical or rational sense due to the fact that so many people subscribe to such beliefs.

Since religion is based on what people "believe" to be true, an apt analogy of how a majority is not always right would be an insane asylum. The majority of people at such a facility at any given time are its patients, but that obviously doesn't mean their beliefs should be followed for running the facility.

reply

It's ALWAYS been about revenge to Trump supporters. All Trump ever was to them was revenge for the Dems electing "President N*gger" for two terms. They believed the only reason Obama got elected was to stick it to the right wing. Trump's political career began in 2011 when he started being a childish bully about a birth certificate. All he is to his supporters is a big orange middle finger to shove into the left's face. Talk about derangement syndrome.

reply

haha this backfired...

reply

Well, of course you support a Theocracy, you're a sky daddy believer!

reply

you believe in nothing and that the universe somehow created itself from nothing.

if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

reply

you believe in a god that somehow created itself from nothing. Two can play at this game, right?

>if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-universe-expanding-into/#:~:text=Ever%20since%20the%20Big%20Bang,sobering%20answer%20is%20simply%3A%20itself.

reply

God can do anything, he lives outside of time and is past, present and future. you should read the Bible and find out for yourself.

God existed before time, He created time, and He will exist even when “the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire. a thousand years like a day to the Lord, but a day is like a thousand years.

basically that article is saying the universe is expanding into itself and the universe is infinite. which means there is no end. scientists cant even figure if Pluto is a planet or not and yet they can speculate on the size of the universe.

scientists used to think that asbestos was a good idea.

what existed before the big bang?

reply

>God can do anything, he lives outside of time and is past, present and future. you should read the Bible and find out for yourself.

Right, so you just invent an exception. "My assumed being is special". It's literally just special pleading. It's not an answer to anything. You just look at the universe, note that we don't know everything and then just assume that "a special power being that I define as having characteristics that make it beyond query" must therefore exists. It's completely unsatisfactory and fundamentally unevidenced.

>basically that article is saying the universe is expanding into itself and the universe is infinite. which means there is no end. scientists cant even figure if Pluto is a planet or not and yet they can speculate on the size of the universe.

You do realise the question of "planet" is purely that of astronomical object classification, right? The scientific community updated classification guidelines and standards to include "dwarf planets". They did this because otherwise the Solar System would have like 20+ planets.

And for your sneering of science, it is literally the field of study and experimentation that eventually culminated in the modern society we see today. Religious ideologies did not provide us with modern technology.

>scientists used to think that asbestos was a good idea.

Okay, so should we just stop bothering to research anything? After all I guess we could all be wrong about what we think now, so therefore we should have just remained living a tribal life. Is that what you are intimating here?

>what existed before the big bang?

We don't know.

reply

I didnt invent anything. its literally explained in the Bible which is God breathed. men wrote it, but God supplied the words. all the places and people listed in the Bible are real, have you even bothered to read it and study it? if God isnt real then please provide evidence that proves otherwise.

God provided us with technology but giving us wisdom and knowledge. if human beings are so smart then why did it take 10,000 years to invent a combustion engine? and if humans are so smart then why do we kill each other?

we think people from 1923 are stupid and cant reason how they survived. in 2123, people will think the same thing of us. thats if we dont destroy ourselves.

God speaking the words is the big bang. our existence is too perfect to just happen by accident. our Universe and everything in it is unfathomable by our tiny brains.

reply

>I didnt invent anything. its literally explained in the Bible which is God breathed. men wrote it, but God supplied the words. all the places and people listed in the Bible are real, have you even bothered to read it and study it? if God isnt real then please provide evidence that proves otherwise.

I didn't reference the bible when I said you were special pleading. I don't give a fuck what your bible says, nor your apologetics for it. No reason to believe that "god supplied the words". That people in the past who wrote things down can reference real places and real people doesn't mean their assertions about the universe are automatically true.

>God provided us with technology but giving us wisdom and knowledge.

No reason to believe this.

>if human beings are so smart then why did it take 10,000 years to invent a combustion engine? and if humans are so smart then why do we kill each other?

When did I say "we are so smart". We're smart enough to do those things, in the end. How long do you think a "smart" species would invent a combustion engine?

>we think people from 1923 are stupid and cant reason how they survived. in 2123, people will think the same thing of us. thats if we dont destroy ourselves.

I don't think people in 1923 were stupid.

>God speaking the words is the big bang. our existence is too perfect to just happen by accident. our Universe and everything in it is unfathomable by our tiny brains.

We're not perfect at all. You observed that yourself by noting how stupid we (apparently) are. Our planet is not perfect.

And yes, the universe is very hard to understand. So?

reply

please provide evidence that God and the Bible isnt real.

why did doctors endorse smoking? I thought humans were super smart?

reply

>please provide evidence that God and the Bible isnt real.

You don't understand the burden of evidence. You made the claim. Should we just assume everything is true until it's disproven? Does that mean that Islam is true unless I can prove the Qu'ran is false?

>why did doctors endorse smoking? I thought humans were super smart?

Because we discovered via the *scientific method* that smoking was bad for you. Are you saying that unless we know everything, that we know nothing?

reply

There you go, worshiping the cult of "Scientism."

What is it called when you believe in science instead of God?

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

reply

That's not worship, nor a cult.

The scientific method is literally a framework to study the natural world and universe. A basic definition: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Are you denying that advances in technology are due to scientific inquiry, and experimentation?

reply

Is scientism a religion?

Mathematician Alexander Grothendieck, in his 1971 essay "The New Universal Church", characterized scientism as a religion-like ideology that advocates scientific reductionism, scientific authoritarianism, political technocracy and technological salvation, while denying the epistemological validity of feelings and ...

reply

I don't really give a fuck what Alexander Grothendick says.

And you did not answer my question. And what "scientific authoritarianism" am I proposing? What "political technocracy" am I proposing? What feelings did I deny?

reply

Science is the best system we have to know ANYTHING. If you can suggest something better by all means lets hear it, until then I would rather put my trust that process rather than religion or some guy on the internet.

reply

If you can suggest something better by all means lets hear it

Try "common sense."

reply

So your 'common sense' is a better system of discovering truth than the scientific process?

That explains so much about you.

reply

Science can be manipulated.

You rely on others to tell you what the truth is instead of using your own common sense and critical thinking.

You are an NPC.

reply

Of course science can be manipulated, it can be wrong in a million different ways. It is still the best system we have for figuring things out. Your 'common sense' is not.

reply

Than you should use 'common sense' to determine that instead of allowing yourself to be manipulated and controlled by others with scientism.

reply

If you don't use the scientific process to discover the truth about things how can you claim to have any common sense?

reply

Because 'the scientific process' can be manipulated and be deceptive.......If you had any common sense you would know that.

reply

You're both trolling.
Halali. ☺

reply

Thankfully that is why there is peer review, to hopefully catch those manipulations. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it is the best we have.

reply

Peer review papers/articles can be biased/funded which is why CS is still required.

reply

So is evidence at all important to you? What if evidence disagrees with your common sense?

reply

How so? Like, people can lie, sure - but what's your point? People can lie about anything.

reply

You think "common sense" is a better tool than the scientific method for discovering new technologies, and inventing new products, and testing hypothesis?

reply

Common sense is required in testing hypothesis.

reply

We have discovered many things to be true that subvert our "common sense", nevermind that the concept is not exactly rooted in any objectivity.

reply

Nevertheless; common sense is critical.

reply

Sure. And how is it ignored in science?

reply

This guy keeps painting himself into a corner.

reply

Everything has a creator except the main creator.

The 'whole of creation' is proof that there is a creator.

99% of all creations have a creator/producer; from the universe down to a cell.
Even atheists intuitively understand that concept regardless that they refuse to assign the main creator the title/label of any specific deity.

If there is a creation, there has to be a creator behind it.
The universe did not just pop into existence from nothing.

reply

>Everything has a creator except the main creator.

This is just special pleading. You invent an exception. I have no reason to believe this.

>The 'whole of creation' is proof that there is a creator.

This is begging the question. You *assume* that the universe is "the whole of creation".

>99% of all creations have a creator/producer; from the universe down to a cell.

You mean *99% of things* "have a creator". There's simply no way to believe this.

>Even atheists intuitively understand that concept regardless that they refuse to assign the main creator the title/label of any specific deity.

I don't believe in any "main creator" as you describe. That's why I am called an atheist.

>If there is a creation, there has to be a creator behind it.

*If*.

>The universe did not just pop into existence from nothing.

No-one said it did, but at the same time you believe apparently that god "popped into existence from nothing".

reply

I forgot that you have no filters for common sense and interpretations.

reply

Nice rebuttal dude. Just pathetic childish insults, as usual.

And I responded directly to your claims by pointing out their fallacies. Could you be any more of an anti-intellectual? You seem to despise philosophy and science, despite the latter being directly responsible for you typing to me right now.

reply

There were no fallacies, you lack filters to properly interpret anything and you lack common sense because you are an NPC cultist follower of scientism.

reply

I specifically outlined how there were fallacies.

Define "scientism". How am I in a cult?

Are you actually going to back up your claims or are you going to continue replying like a little babyman who throws insults and accusations at everyone he disagrees with?

reply

Just a few of the religions that you worship:

- Liberalism
- Wokeness
- Leftism
- Socialism
- Scientism
- Statism
- Transgenderism
- Climatism

reply

None of those things, in so much as they exist are religions.

reply

Yes, they are religions and cults that you also worship.

reply

No, they're not. No reason to believe this.

And I "worship" none of those things.

reply

If you're an atheist does that immediately make you "woke"

reply

That's a rhetorical question, I guess.

reply

They usually are.

reply

It's always nice to meet another Zappa fan.
But being a good musician and lateral thinker doesn't make Zappa a fortune teller. 🧙‍♂️​

Here's to hear what Zappa said...because I never trust the subs of a random Instagram user.
https://youtu.be/fam5wRXcoQE?t=79
(Zappa 1986 about "Fascist Theocracy")

reply

Yeah, that's a longer version of the same clip...

reply

In fact, it's shorter because it starts when Zappa starts to talk and he didn't say much.
Or my PC was hanging at Instagram.

reply

He starts talking near 0:55. He really blew that Reagan prediction!
The debate was about censoring music lyrics, which may just have meant rating albums like movies.

reply

I didn't doubt that Zappa said that, because I heard it myself.
Zappa is even for people well to understand for whom English is the 2nd language.

I doubted the subs of a random Instagram user (some like to change and add a little).
And I still doubt Zappa as a fortune teller. 🧙‍♂️​

reply


The debate was about censoring music lyrics, which may just have meant rating albums like movies.


Which was ultimately pushed through by democrat Tipper Gore and her Parental music resource center.

I would say it had the opposite effect though, as the parental advisory didn’t hurt sales, and it allowed artists to push the envelope even further since the label meant the music was meant for an older audience.

reply

I won't even click on a link from instragrm

reply

2016 Presidential Election
Joe Biden, 2019: “I absolutely” agree that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”
Hillary Clinton, 2019: The election was “stolen.”
Jimmy Carter, 2019: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interference on his behalf.”
Kamala Harris, 2019: “Absolutely right” that Trump “didn’t really win.”
Karine Jean-Pierre, 2016: It was a “stolen election.”
Jerry Nadler, 2017: It was a “tainted” and “illegitimate” election.
Nancy Pelosi: The 2016 election was hijacked.

reply

thats 7 times people said something out of context ,

vs 40 million magas screaming from the rooftops all the time

reply

It was just Trump and me that said the election was stolen and you took our comments out of context.

I just hope the 2024 election isnt stolen too.

reply

yes indeed .

Its a bit hard to know how to guard against that though.
It could be ninjas coming through the skylights in the middle of the night with ballot papers.
.... or Trucks of immigrants or corpses coming in to vote .

reply

I agree, we have to watch out for all those things as well as Putin using his Santa powers and going to every polling station and changing the votes.

reply

Lol, Santa powers! hana

reply