Why Are Peter Joseph and Alex Jones Opponents?

To anyone reading this who has not availed herself of the new political activist movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, I highly recommend you watch it. This is one of the most profound works of film I have ever seen. Be warned, there are some inaccuracies in the film, but on the whole it seems to accurately characterize the spirit of the times. In fact, parts of this post assume some familiarity with the film, so if you won't watch it for yourself, at least watch it for me.

I just watched the debate between Alex Jones (of The Alex Jones Show) and Peter Joseph (creator of Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist: Addendum) on Alex Jones' show in a four-part You Tube series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I have to say that there is an important event happening right now, which this debate outlines. These two men each represent a social movement which is attempting to build up support. Alex Jones' movement has sped up lately and Peter Joseph entered the scene with a bang. What is interesting about these two movements is that they are almost parallel in their criticism of the status quo.

Both have been accused of being conspiracy theorists, and therefore they live on the social margin. Alex Jones believes that the Bilderberg Group is a self-conscious tyrannical entity. This group is populated by the very most powerful persons in the world, and Alex Jones' movement believes that this group uses the corporate machine (most notably the American economy, which in turn affects to all other economies) to control and herd the less fortunate masses. Details about this can be found in Alex Jones' documentary Endgame.

Peter Joseph, on the other hand, believes that the conspiracy is more organic and less self-conscious. Peter Joseph may or may not believe that they Bilderberg Group is responsible for all tyrannical governmental and corporate acts, but he does believe that there is a de facto social stratum which has enslaved the rest of the population. For Peter Joseph, the Bilderberg Group is considered to be the most powerful of the elite stratum which does the enslaving, but that does not make it the only autonomous such group. Peter Joseph seems more inclined to think that the Bilderberg Group is simply a powerful symptom of the tendency to tyranny which the practice of using currency ushers in. For Peter Joseph, in the end the corporate elite end up ruling the world because they have all the money. They probably do not sit at a large round table to discuss how they can further enslave the world and commit other such evil deeds.

What is interesting about these two is that they are both highly critical of the received story of 9/11. Both believe that it was a set-up which was agreed upon by those who rule -- the difference is how they believe it was conceived. For both men, the point of the attack was to push legislature through the system via scare tactics. They might even agree on who ordered the attack. What they disagree about is this: for Alex Jones, the attack was a plot to enslave the world; for Peter Smith, the attack was a plot to increase profit which ultimately ends up enslaving the world.

But what does this difference amount to? It amounts to a great deal. Alex Jones believes that the men in charge are highly intelligent, but evil. For Alex Jones, the Bilderberg Group knows nothing that we do not know -- it's just that they have no qualms with destroying us. For Peter Joseph, the Bilderberg Group, or what he calls the "corporatocracy" is not self-consciously evil. For Peter Joseph, the corporatocracy are merely corrupt. This conclusion is a natural result of the claim that the ethical code of the corporatocracy is the maximization of profits, regardless of te consequences.

This difference highlights an issue on which these two movements butt heads. There are a few such issues which I wish to address in this post. The reason I want to address these issues is that these two movements have been trying to undermine each other lately, which is obviously folly. There is so much in common between them that the fact that they cannot have a rational debate makes them both look foolish. For both sides actively support rational debate and critical thought. Consider, for example, this post which collects much criticism of religious claims in Zeitgeist. One can also check ConspiracyScience for many good critical points about claims throughout Zeitgeist, (and, by association, Loose Change). What is particularly absurd about these sorts of critics is that many of the people who actively try to debunk claims made in Zeitgeist are Alex Jones supporters. ConspiracyScience even goes so far as to claim that Peter Joseph is a member of the NWO (hence he is evil). On the other hand, those who subscribe to the Zeitgeist Movement typically criticize Alex Jones followers as adopting too religious of a tone.

So why do these two sides not try to find some way to cooperate? Well, this is not too hard to figure out, though it seems as if many of the constituents of these movements, in fact, have not found out. Alex Jones and his followers tend to be religious types. Why? Because the claim is that the NWO is an evil empire of Illuminati Satan-worshippers. The only way to construe today's Tyranny (the Bilderberg Group, for Alex Jones) as both intelligent and Satan-worshipping is if one can construe them also as evil. In other words, only if one accepts that Satan exists in the first place can one actually bring oneself to believe that the most powerful people on Earth are Satan-worshippers. To an atheist or an agnostic, it is just foolhardy to believe such a thing. The most powerful people on Earth are probably also some of the most intelligent, so if one does not accept the existence of Satan, then it seems rather implausible that such an unpopular religion would dominate the elite. What is even more absurd about the claims that Alex Jones' followers make is that it seems as if anyone who is against Alex Jones is part of the NWO. Sounds like a cult to me -- or at least a self-fulfilling prophecy. And I won't even begin with the Biblical prophecies derived from the Book of Revelation or the prophecies attributed to Nostradamus. Frankly, the strangely hypocritical closed-mindedness of the followers of Alex Jones (and Alex Jones himself) will likely be the downfall of this movement. In any case, it seems as if Alex Jones has lost himself in his own bizarre dogmas, so at the end of the day we might have to dismiss him as an eccentric.

Peter Joseph, however, is also not free of blame. If anyone claims to be a friend of truth, it is Peter Joseph. Yet the first part of Zeitgeist is now famous for asserting a multitude of inaccuracies about the history of religion. In the movie, Joseph claims that the Christian religion essentially plagiarized most of its central features from other previously existing religions. The support he gives for this, though, is mostly found in non-scholarly New Age works with an anti-Christian lean, such as the infamous Acharya S. (whose views are nevertheless admirable). In any case, a rather poor scholarly showing in Zeitgeist has undermined Joseph's claim to be a harbinger of truth. Of course, we must ask the question whether Peter Joseph knowingly included misinformation. If he was simply a poor researcher, then he may be forgiven (for he is an artist by trade). However, if he is consciously distorting the facts, then his motives may be questioned.

So how do we decide which of these is true of Peter Joseph? Well the answer is not so clear. All one needs to do is watch an interview of Peter Joseph to see that he truly believes what he is saying. Based on the way he speaks, it is really quite difficult to believe that he is trying to distort the truth. He really believes that there are problems with the status quo, the popular religions, and dogmatic claims in general. Is he willing to sacrifice his integrity as an advocate of truth in order to attack what he conceives as the demons of the world? That's a question that Peter Joseph himself must answer (publicly, in my view). Nevertheless, his worldview is a generally healthy one, provided that a few aspects are modified. First, he must distinguish between religion and spirituality. Joseph is frequently accused of advocating a world religion, but what he really wants is a recognition that spirituality can be achieved without the need for religion at all. His opponents do not see the distinction, so they accuse him of being a religious figure. It is, therefore, a burden that Peter Joseph must bear to explain this distinction. Second, he must relinquish his ties to conspiracy theories like the 9/11 conspiracy theory he advocates in Zeitgeist. His message is powerful enough that he does not need a controversial conspiracy theory. His theory about the de facto conspiracy, a conspiracy which is not conscious of itself, is a much more plausible theory.

Given these modifications, I can accept Peter Joseph's (and the Venus Project's) vision as the most profoundly beneficial and progressive vision advanced thus far. Unfortunately, I don't think that the world is ready to accept such a vision. As much as I would love to begin building a world where there is no money and where machines can take care of the menial tasks that people are employed to do, I don't think it is yet possible to convince people to let go of money. We've buried ourselves too deeply in money to simply jump out of the grave; we must climb. Therefore, we ought simply to focus on wrestling control of the world from corporate hands. Perhaps when this happens, a Rawlsian vision of the world may be realized. And we will see what happens from there.

-Priam's Pride