I often hear Alex Jones and others (such as his friend Jesse Ventura) talking about how politicians interact with each other and for the cameras. Their belief seems to be that because they're polite to one another that therefore must mean that they aren't really enemies, but rather working behind the scenes to do evil.
Just because international or even national policy summits don't look like this:
Doesn't mean they're working secretely to dominate the world. To put it in terms that would make more sense to most conspiracy theorists: when is the last time you saw Ron Paul or Peter Joseph spitting on, shoving, or screaming at people from a few inches away when they disagree? I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that Ron Paul is in on the NWO as well, but apparently him having some level of manners must mean he is.
Oooooh NOW I get it. See I thought the only way you can disagree with someone was punching them in the face. Seriously though I was JUST thinking about Jesse venturas little comment in that AJ movie about "behind the scenes". Weird. Coincidental. Conspiracy? Yeah. Weird + coincidental - research = true conspiracy. (w+c)-r=tc.
Edward Reply:
November 8th, 2009 at 13:04
Pretty much everyone Jones interviews who he disagrees with he either yells at and/or makes fun of them. For example Peter Joseph, creator of the Zeitgeist movies, they agree probably 90% of the time, but Jones yells and makes fun of him anyway because he disagrees and makes terrible arguments. Noam Chomsky is another example, where Alex Jones actually does well during the interview and disagrees, but after Chomsky goes off the air Jones spends the next hour talking about how Chomsky is a "shill for the NWO" and is "very sneaky", mostly because Chomsky pointed out that the founding fathers weren't infallible messiahs sent by God as Jones seems to believe, and that guns kill people.
Brenton Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 05:05
@Edward, I'd have to respectfully disagree that Edward and PJ agree 90% of the time. I think they come from totally different points of view, just as Chomsky generally does with Jones, and that that's why he attacked Peter. Everyone watching -that- interview knew that he had NO idea what Peter was talking about, so he just accused him of being quote 'New World Order'.
Which is, of course, ridiculous.
Edward Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 05:06
@Brenton,
If you take End Game and Zeitgeist, they're almost identical.
Brenton Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 05:35
@Edward, You mean the first film? Peter has obviously rejected almost all of the notions he put forth in the first film, and I'd also like to restate (as I have elsewhere on here) that the first Zeitgeist film has nothing to do with the Movement.
I'd honestly have nothing to do with the Movement if it did, because I regard EndGame as being one of the most ludicrous films I've ever seen. I'd be embarassed to share that film with anyone, to be honest.
I nearly laughed at someone when they offered me a copy of 'Fall of the Republic'.
Edward Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 05:37
@Brenton,
When has he rejected them? Even if you say the first film has nothing to do with the movement, that's not how everyone else sees it, especially when PJ is still promoting the first film on the main site and selling copies of it.
Comment by sonoluminescent — November 8, 2009 @ 11:40
@Edward:
But, the 'main site' zeitgeistmovie.com is not a movement website, it's Peter J's website for his movies and that's it. We need to remember that he obviously had a huge change of perspective upon meeting Jacque Fresco and being exposed to the ideas inherent in his work. I used to have an old copy of a Peter J e-mail from long before Addendum in which he spoke strongly in favor of free-market Capitalism and putting forward all those traditionalized arguments as to why 'it's the solution'.
He's certainly no infallible person and I can't wait to see his 'directors cut' version of the first film because I'm sure he'll have a lot of explaining to do.
He has never promoted the first film on the Movement website, and that's really very important. He could be promoting it and making money off it from lots of conspiracy theorists and other such ilks, but he's not. He's clearly distancing the work of the Movement from his past film.
And thank goodness for that.
Comment by Brenton — January 28, 2010 @ 06:05