Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 1 post ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: My Philosophical Critique of Zeitgeist
PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:53 pm
Posts: 135
Religion: Catholic

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 (:)). The school, originally called The Institute for Social Research, was founded by an extremely wealthy fellow, Felix Weil who, just like Engles, oddly supported Marxism (Engles 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 continualy 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! 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 Marxists 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.

"Protestants are like the Jews, they are inky theologians." -John Eck

"What is not assumed is not deified." -St. Gregory of Nazianzus

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 1 post ]   

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Servant of Guadalupe and 1 guest

Jump to: