My Critique of 'Zeitgeist' Creator, Peter Joseph

A Concise Philosophical Analysis of Peter Joseph's Worldview

By: Jay Dyer

As Zeitgeist creator Peter Joseph and Alex Jones were debating on air last week, all I could think was, "Man, this sounds just like everything I learned in my 'Marxism and Critical Theory' class two years ago."  That course was taught by a fellow who studied under intellectuals from the Frankfurt School, which claimed Marxist-olic Succession (lol). The school, originally called The Institute for Social Research, was founded by an extremely wealthy fellow, Felix Weil who, just like Engels, oddly supported Marxism (Engels was a rich stock owner).  Those decently read in the conspiracy genre know that communism is itself a creation of wealthy capitalists by design.  And, contrary to common assumptions, Marx didn't think capitalism was even 'wrong': in fact, he saw it as a progressive step of Western culture out of feudalism which would be succeded by statism and dictatorship, which would then likely culminate in the no-state utopia where every man could awaken every day to fish, paint and re-connect with "nature."

What was most interesting in Peter Joseph's attempted defense was although he continually qualified his arguments, he stressed that he wasn't a Marxist, socialist or a communist.  Now, I know that communitarianism is somewhat of an outgrowth of both capitalism and communism, but it certainly swings more in the direction of communism.  However, the gospel I heard from Joseph didn't sound different from Marx at all.

 

All throughout the semester, as we read Marx, Adorno, Horkheimer and Habermas, it was undeniable the first generation of Marxists were saying precisely what Peter Joseph is saying.  Though our professor did his dissertation on Marx, his assessment was that, at times Marx was utopian, and at other times his writings weren't.  This is because there is a kind of built-in default, where Marx posits utopianism, but qualifies it by saying it doesn't have to materialize: its not deterministic. And secondly, there is also a kind of evolution of Marx's thought over time, but, our professor argued, Marx certainly did not believe in historical materialism of the kind that arose in the Eastern Bloc (which is what most people think of Marxism as).  Marx proposed dialectical materialism along Hegelian lines, but the utopianism was not determined to occur.  The central message of Marx himself-especially the early Marx, was precisely what Peter Joseph argued for: we progressively mature to the point where we can eliminate the institution of the state, competition, money and greed.  This is possible because, in this worldview, everything is nurture, not nature.

What Joseph fails to realize is that what every one of the secular prophets who already proposed this gospel of man years ago ended up realizing it doesn't seem to work.  And in most instances, it led to some statist control entity, mob or dictator enforcing it.  Because these "philosophers" and "futurists" are completely sold on the presupposition that man is born a tabula rasa (blank slate) that is purely conditioned, Red leaders (of the Eastern Bloc nations, for example) came to the conclusion that for the good of the many, the few who remained stuck in primitive ideals like religion, private property, capital and gain, family, etc., must be classified as insane enemies of the good of the state: and they must be stamped out.  This killed dozens of millions. So while Joseph denies the enforcement of his views and thinks that the state can be eliminated (as Marx said), and while he thinks that our present capitalistic situation is really out of accord with "nature" (as Marx also said), if one really believes this gospel, doesn't it follow that some body should enforce these "truths" to bring humanity to a more progressive state? Joseph seemed to lean in this direction when he argued to Alex Jones that religious people should be "re-educated."  Once again, standard communist lingo.

Joseph is optimistic, like Marx, and thinks we could "achieve a system where there is no stratification or control."  "This is why," he said, "religion has to be eradicated," because religion (especially Christianity) is a fundamental source of hierarchy.  Again, though he wanted to qualify how his position wasn't classical Marxism, at no point did I hear anything in the course of the debate that wasn't verbatim Karl Marx: even to the point of technology being our 'savior.'  Marx said this as well. 

Beyond this, from a presuppositional, critical perspective, all through the debate Joseph continually made value-statements, yet without realizing (as most professing atheists do) that without universal moral standards, such criticisms are meaningless.  On what basis is the Federal Reserve said to be "corrupt," our system "unfair," or monopolies "inhumane"? In his worldview, there is no evil, no moral wrong.  There can only be what he brilliantly termed "bad."  But this is a misnomer: its still a value judgment.  There can be no "bad" actions because there is no purely scientific, empirical basis for value-judgments. 

Ironically, atheist empiricist philosopher David Hume gave this same criticism long ago (not of Marxism, but pure empiricism)!  To say this or that is "better," "progressive"  or "humane" assumes some kind of universal standard, which no purely empirical, scientific method approach can justify.  A good example of a way to prove this is simply to say, "What is the empirical basis for the empirical, scientific method?"  There is no experience you can have which shows you, "all true knowledge comes from experience."  ConspiracyArchive's analysis is correct, when it notes that Joseph is simply naive.  His views are not philosophically cogent or defensible: in fact, Joseph sounds like he's reading his class notes from an Intro to Philosophy class he took at the local community college.    

And in fact, the later Frankfurt School writers like Horkheimer and Adorno even made several conspiracy-like critical statements against the "elites" who maintain control through mass media (See "The Dialectic of Enlightenment" by them).  Thus, even the use of elite-conspiracy-theories is nothing new to Marxist intellectuals and individuals who are themselves members or at least supporters of the conspiracy. [As a side note, this Critical text also contains a seemingly out-of-place discussion of magic and the use of words, which raises interesting suspicions.]  But why is Joseph so intent on also attacking religion? Because, as Marx said following the atheistic humanist Ludwig Feuerbach in his blasphemous treatise, Essence of Christianity: in order to destroy the family (the key transmitter of private propterty), we must destroy the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary and Joseph). 

I heartily recommend Richard Wurmbrand's "Marx & Satan," but we don't even need to know that Marx was likely a Satanist and member of the occult elite (though its certainly telling) to figure out what's actually the foundation of this view. What is the root?  What is the central ideology?  It is that maxim that Marx found so appealing in Feuerbach: the maxim we conspiracy researchers have all heard from a certain wicked 20th century magician. And that is,  "Deus est homo: man is God."  This means ultimately, whether intentional or not, Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist, even for its good points, is really a tool of the conspiracy. 

                

Comments

[Terry]

Great post! You have an incredible handle on Marx and his minions. I have here both "The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School," by Martin Jay and Wurmbrand's "Marx and Satan." They have been on my bookshelf for a while and I've only skimmed through them when certain subjects arise that need investigating. You have finally inspired me to read them through - thoroughly, and at the same time. Thanks.

[Jay Dyer]

Thanks Terry. As usual, you've covered the conspiratorial aspect with erudite precision far better than I could, so I thought I would give my two cents as a philosophical analysis.

Jay

[Hybrid Rogue]

Dogma v Dogma...?

I enjoyed the critique, one dogma criticizing another is always entertaining.

One is not, however, and athiest by rejecting the concept of the "Holy Family", or the Abrahamic "Good Books", and one needn't be a Christian to reject the Scientific Dictatorship.

ta panta nous \\][//

[Jay Dyer]

Hybrid,

We all have presuppositions in our various worldviews, whether one admits it or not. This is the second time this week someone has claimed that I think because one is not a Christian, he/she is an atheist. I honestly don't know where this comes from. I am well aware that there are different versions of theism. A neo-pagan or Luciferian is not an atheist, if he believes the 'gods' exist.

All I said was that Feuerbach was an atheist who attacked the Holy Family, and Marx loved this idea. They were atheists and/or likely Satanists. This is in the Oxford version of Marx's early writings, btw.

I also know that one doesn't have to be a Christian to reject teh scientific dictatorship, but I believe it is the best, most consistent position.

jay

[Jay Dyer]

In other words, we all present dogma versus dogma.

[Brenton]

Technology is the savior of humanity. No matter what your religious beliefs.
It's technology that's raised the life expectancy, given you hot water at the tap, given Christians the ability to print billions of copies of the bible, etc,.

It's interesting that you would label Zeitgeist a "tool of the conspiracy," because it isn't.
But honestly, if Zeitgeist is NWO propaganda, then NWO all the way baby!

Zeitgeist IS a call for a NWO, but a totally different one to the one the elites have in mind.

All the social systems humanity has had, have all involved money, service, debt, profit, "us and them" mentalities.

Now here is why Zeitgeist is not concretely part of the elite NWO propaganda ... you have to personally awaken, in the words of Zeitgeist.

This is something the NWO propaganda of today far from requires. The vulgar masses should just shut up and behave in the eyes of the elite.

" To say this or that is "better," "progressive" or "humane" assumes some kind of universal standard, which no purely empirical, scientific method approach can justify. A good example of a way to prove this is simply to say, "What is the empirical basis for the empirical, scientific method?" [...]"
This is a false claim. What is better is that which cares for the TOTALITY of things, "with no one left behind" in the words of Roxanne Meadows. If the social system isn't doing that, then it's still got a long way to go.

[Aimee]

There is a "possible" healthy society; a right and balanced way for us to evolve. It takes time, mistakes and continued attempts for us to collectively move in that direction. Quite simply, there are entities that are still fearful and selfish. We are all connected, we are all feeling the imbalance. No need to pick at every piece of Peter Joseph thoughts. Focus on the positive, appreciate his efforts to bring a very needed conversation to the table. The word conspiracy is so overused. When something is wrong, its plain wrong. Why can't people face that. Why protect what is clearly abusing us, and thinking we don't know what's going on. There is a feeling of internal discust in America. How far from our innate nature are we? I believe in the goodness of all things, but that doesn't mean I see no evil.
You don't need all the big words and thousands of books to prove anything. Some things really are simple.

[Jay Dyer]

Aimee,

I'm not nit picking Peter Joseph, Im writing against a highly dangerous and destructive worldview: atheistic communinism. You believe in the "goodness of all things"? What does that mean? Is human sacrifice 'good'? But right before that you say that "when something is wrong its plain wrong." Do you not see a very basic contradiction in these statements?

[Phillip D. Collins]

Good critique. Paul and I dismantled many of the claims of Zeitgeist in the following interviews:

http://beyondthegrassyknoll.com/audio/neopagan1.mp3
http://beyondthegrassyknoll.com/audio/neopagan2.mp3
http://threshingfloor.onevoicemm.net/weblog/?p=1169
http://threshingfloor.onevoicemm.net/weblog/?p=1173

[Jay Dyer]

Thank you Phillip. I was enthralled by your interviews on predictive programming in pop culture, Top notch--I was in full agreement and had had many of the same thoughts.

[Andrei Rubliov]

I agree with the author.
Such worldview as "technology instead of god" shows, that film creator misunderstands the purpose of traditions and religion for human being. And completely doesn't understand a nature of human being. Are we gonna be robots, or what? So voila - chip in a hand and you are free from monetary system. It changes nothing. Is this what we want? Technology? We are slaves of our technology already.

In my opinion it's not so simple with christianity.
God's concept is the direction where to evolve spiritually for a human being, rather than waiting for a miracle from a guy in the sky.
The very basic idea of christianity is a Good Man. Honest man. Conscious man. Responsible man. Truth-loving man. These are the values which lead human beings to a strong society. Christianity has nothing to do with superstitions, rather than that it has to do with traditional education, implementing a moral values. Nobody can control a person who believes in God. That is why christians were so dangerous for Rome (only then the church became an instrument to control christians).

Every social project is utopia if it has no moral-spiritual values at the first place. Every revolution leads to chaos and destruction, if the masses do not have these values. And today they don't have it. Technology can not give this to a child. It's only a secondary tool, rather than the focus building a new society.

[Terry]

The linchpin of the entire Addendum is his scarcity and abundance trip. Even in interviews, that's all he talks about. Aren't marxists constantly harking on this point as well? Example:
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w04/msg00157.htm
At the URL above, see especially paragraphs 5-8 and compare with the ideology of the arrogant/naive/intelligentsia-wannabe Peter Joseph. Also compare it what he said in the Jones interrogations; and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD8o8VcHWYI&NR=1

[Terry]

Also, in the above part 4 video link, Joseph, towards the end, in no uncertain terms, is speaking of socialism. Scarcity = Capitalism as usual; Abundance = a utopian wonderland where all the lazy ingrates get everything they please for free.

[Jay Dyer]

Terry,

Good point.

"At a more profound level, neoclassical economics seeks to subjectively
interiorise and theorise the logic of market expansion, it is itself the
expression of "the self-consciousness of the market", market consciousness,
if that is a way of putting it. That is really what Marx means, when he
talks about commodity fetishism and so on. That is to say, market expansion
is predicated on the ceaseless attempt to discover new scarcities, for which
a new supply is necessary, a supply which can be provided for a profit.
Then, even if there is abundance, the market requires that it must be
converted into scarcity, through privatisation and monopolisation, and in
this way, all human boundaries must be redrawn, to facilitate the maximum
commodification and the maximum transformation of human labour into
capitalistically productive labour. In turn, this evokes resistance and
rebellion.

But what is the ultimate fetish ? Well, it is that the very relation of
abundance and scarcity is completely inverted in consciousness, such that
abundance is perceived as scarcity, and scarcity is perceived as abundance,
with terrible consequences for the development of the human species. If you
look at it psychologically, it is clear that human consciousness can become
very twisted (including my own consciousness) because of anxieties about
scarcity, disbelief and uncertainty about abundance, inability to regulate
consumption, needs and desires in a reasonable way, and so on. Thus the
healthy human behaviour would become twisted out of correct shape by this.
Nothing might be lacking, yet humans experience something is missing, but
the whole the thing becomes rather mysterious and mind-boggling, what it is.

>From this follows, that revolutionary class consciousness, the consciousness
of the future oriented, progressive, advanced producers, is basically about
culturally redrawing the boundaries of what is really scarce and what is
really abundant, because the decaying old ruling classes and their
ideologies have no possibility anymore of making an objective evaluation of
this, or, even if they have that ability, are unable in their position to do
anything about it, and sow confusion to protect their position. The
subjugated classes are educated in the belief that there are certain things
they cannot have, and other things that they can have, a morality is devised
for this, but this is an ideology, a sort of religion, which functions to
keep people in their place, in their station in life, and prevents the
actions necessary to guarantee human survival, and honour the first premiss
of economic science, i.e. the optimal allocation of resources. There you
have the strategy."

[Teutiaplus]

So has anyone done anything here but talk? The Fed is still collecting interest while you give pieces of paper for beer and pizza. I with my brother are building the technology to solve the problems we all face. You should get off your butts and insolate your house or build a windmill or even a better mouse trap. I could give a rats behind for "empericism, marxism, satanism or any other -ism" My only criteria is: "Am I working to make the world a better place." All the talk I see on the site is about as useful as discussing whether Excalibur was given to Arthur by the Lady of the Lake or by if he took it out of a boulder.

[Jay Dyer]

We should certainly do more that talk.

[Adam]

Reviewer wrote: "even to the point of technology being our 'savior.'"

I write: I do not remember when he said specifically that 'technology' is our 'savior', but that 'We must protect the Internet at all times, as it is truly our savior right now' at about 1:53:20 . Would you change that in your critique to be accurate, or cite a specific point in the movie where he said 'technology is our savior'?

****

Reviewer wrote: "On what basis is the Federal Reserve said to be "corrupt," our system "unfair," or monopolies "inhumane"?"

I write: on the basis of whether or not it is meeting universal human needs (although I may choose not to words such as corrupt, unfair, or inhumane) .

****

Regarding the topic of concepts such as right/wrong, good/bad, evil/righteous, I highly recommend NVC by Marshall Rosenberg, the title interpreted as Ghandi used it.

[Jay Dyer]

Adam,

Thanks for stopping by. You wrote:

"I write: on the basis of whether or not it is meeting universal human needs (although I may choose not to words such as corrupt, unfair, or inhumane)."

Jay: This is begging the question. Why should one 'meet universal human needs'?

First, on what basis, in this worldview, is one obligated to meet universal human needs? Second, how does one know what a universal human need is? Third, how do you know that its universal? Fourth, what ontological status do these needs have? Are they variant or invariant? My argument is that Peter Joseph's worldview cannot make sense of these claims.

As for the 'savior' issue, he explicitly stated in the debate with Alex Jones that "we owe everything to science and the scientific method."

Jay

[Adam]

Hi Jay, that he states "we owe everything to science and the scientific method" I appreciate seeing a direct quote.

Why should one 'meet universal human needs'? No one 'should'; it is simply an invitation if people would like to possibly contribute to making life more wonderful (and there is no guarantee that any specific action will, as it can only be determined on an individual basis if someone found another action helpful).

"how does one know what a universal human need is?" It's common sense, a question asked to oneself maybe of what is in common with all living 'humans'; that is, a need is never to be mixed up with 'a specific strategy'. Strategies may come in handy when one is making a clear, doable, in the positive 'request' for meeting a need( 'in the positive' as opposed to requesting something by saying 'don't do' , but rather what to 'do'. It's hard to do a don't). Here's an example of some needs: http://www.cnvc.org/en/what-nvc/needs-list/needs-inventory

'how do you know that is universal?' See above.

"Fourth, what ontological status do these needs have? Are they variant or invariant?" As life is not static, as well as language and circumstances, I'm imagining there would be change over time, however it is always relevant and not determined by an 'authority' as it is common sense. If a certain term doesn't work for someone to describe a specific human need, maybe they are requesting another option that better meets their desire to be heard more accurately.

*****Copied from message about 2 posts up:

Reviewer wrote: "On what basis is the Federal Reserve said to be "corrupt," our system "unfair," or monopolies "inhumane"?"

Adam wrote: on the basis of whether or not it is meeting universal human needs (although I may choose not to words such as corrupt, unfair, or inhumane) .

******* and just to get back to this topic, for me it is very obvious that the 'Fed. Reserve' is not meeting many of my needs (as opposed to just calling it names, or evil; the needs focus the consciousness to how we can make life more wonderful if we would like to choose that, vs. just complain (not saying you are, but the vast majority of our current society, as I perceive, is just 'complaining' without looking at strategies (driven by our life force: needs) to choose other ways/actions, as if they're hoping that the 'nanny state' will take care of it for them)). Example: Some needs of mine that aren't met by things I have seen/learned about the F.Reserve : trust (not federal, no reserves, unconstitutional as far as I know...), compassion/community (I have observed many accounts it supports dividing people rather than increasing cooperation and concern for others), security/stability (obviously not met considering under the 'guidance' of the Fed. there have occurred such things as the Great Depression, a loss of value in the dollar from 1$ now equal to 4 cents of what it was worth, the current foreseen debacle (just ask Peter Schiff or Ron Paul..), honesty/integrity, on and on.