Zeitgeist: The Movie, or Conspiracy: The Product

One might think that there aren’t many conspiracy theories about Christmas, and one would be wrong. Today, however, I will not talk about them. Rather, I hope to show you something that rarely gets an in-depth look in book in books on conspiracy theories: their production and audience. To do so, I’ll with some words about one of the most influential conspiracist movies: the Zeitgeist trilogy, produced by Peter Joseph. Not only is it a good illustration, but it mentions Christmas.

The first part of the trilogy, entitled simply Zeitgeist: the Movie, released in 2007, became a phenomenon in itself. Millions of people watched it on Google Videos, and in a sense it paved the way for other such feature-length “alternative” documentaries that, while not “fit” for mainstream distribution, made their success on being easily available to anyone with an Internet connection, and for free. Not only that, the general Internet-savvy demographic overlapped with each other, bumping the statistics. But what made the first Zeitgeist’s success were the conspiracy theories.

The documentary consists of three parts, all of them barely related for the inattentive reader. The first is one of those “heavy-duty” eye-openers: Jesus Christ did not exist, at least not in the form we know today. A big claim to make, to be sure, but Zeitgeist strives to prove, step by step, that the story presented in the Bible is just a reinvention of an ages old myth about a Sun Deity, present in virtually any culture. That would be quite ok, if not for the fact that since the advent of Christianity as a state religion in the Roman Empire, it had become a tool for manipulating the masses.

The second part is probably the most well known; I have colleagues for whom this is the 9/11 Truth documentary (however untrue it might be). This section gives the almost classic by this time “inside job” theory, claiming that the U.S. government could stop the attacks, but chose not to for personal gain. Together with Loose Change it became the most widely watch documentary about the alternative views on 9/11.

Finally, the third part is a head-on critique of the current economic system, with claims that it essentially is the root of all evil. Not only does it thwart creativity, as we do only the things that can become profitable and we make no innovations unless we get paid, but also drives the governments and “international bankers” to lie to the people, cause wars and suffering for the sake of profit, and many other. The movie ends with a relatively short description of the “Venus Project” headed by Jacque Fresco, which it lauds as one of the ways to escape the current vicious circle of monetary economy.

The documentary was peculiar in its reception. The first part got a lot of flak for inaccuracies, quite justifiably, as it did simplify a lot, and in some places outright twisted the facts to fit the thesis. The second part made it popular and memorable; in 2007 Dylan Avery’s Loose Change went into its “final cut” version, and Zeitgeist provided “more of the same”, but in a new ideological package. Moreover, Avery paved the way for Joseph, and by 2007 the widely understood 9/11 Truth organizations became a respected, if notorious, social phenomenon. The third part, the real crux of the whole movie, the original thesis, the “new thing” (at least for the popular audience, as Joseph’s theories are not something new, only presented in an accessible way) was largely ignored. In 2007 the War on Terror was all the rage. But then the late 2008 happened.

In interviews and statements Peter Joseph claimed that the first two sections of Zeitgeist: The Movie were to demonstrate the specific pathological effects of the money economy. If they were, this demonstration was unnecessary after the 2008 market crash. The next two movies, Zeitgeist: Addendum from 2008 and especially this year’s Zeitgeist: Moving Forward needed no such examples. Both of them strongly downplayed the conspiracy theory element, with the last one even outright ridiculing those who claimed that to change the world one must expose some nefarious conspiracy. So why was this element dropped? Probably it was never the focus, but was used to win over an Internet so keen on new conspiracy theories. Now the audience knew that the bankers were evil. People became hooked, the name got exposure in the media, so now Peter Joseph would go for the real deal.

In the grander scheme of things, Zeitgeist demonstrates one thing: conspiracy theory is a product. Like a logo, a catchy tune, or a witty advertisement it can help to sell a product. And it does so through the same mechanism as your favourite brand: familiarity. People who went to watch Zeitgeist already knew most, if not all, of the theories about 9/11 presented therein. Yet still they watched. Perhaps they wanted to hear their convictions reiterated by an authority, or perhaps they simply liked the narrative. Maybe they simply did not want anything changed. The same mechanism makes conspiracy theories so frequently used in popular fiction, from novels to computer games. Like a primal myth, an archetypal scenario, we love to watch it repeated endlessly, for it reaffirms our view on the world (which does not mean such people are “crackpots” or “conspiracy buffs”, a future post will try to prove).

Fluoridation - From poisoned
wells to poisoned vaccines

Historically, such reinvention of conspiracy theories happened many times. The myth of the Illuminati was used in Europe to vilify the French Revolution, but it got “imported” to the newly created United States to claim that moral degeneration will bring a like revolution and slaughter. Every anti-war conspiracy theory since the First World War is alluringly similar. And every economic crisis in America’s history brings almost the same rhetoric. It is not only because the problems are, in general, like those in decades past, but because the makers of conspiracy theories use and readapt the old motifs, and the old enemies and scapegoats.

We, the audience (if not believers) accept or reject the content, we click the “like” or “dislike” buttons, but we watch. Like with the “adult” or modernised or steam-punk or science fiction retellings of the Tales of Brothers’ Grimm or Shakespeare plays, we do so not to learn something new, but because we want someone to tell us again about the cowboys and the Indians, the gangsters and the feds, about how good will ultimately triumph over evil...

Merry Christmas.

From the Boston Tea Party to the Tea Party Movement

„What can you tell us about the historical impact of the French Revolution?” - a journalist supposedly asked a professor of history. „To early to tell” - replied the academic. This is of course one extreme, but the principle applies to some relatively recent events. Take the Tea Party protests of 2008 and 2009. Can we really tell what mark will this movement leave in the annals of American history and politics? Did its influence end with the 2010 Congressional elections? Will it have an effect on the 2012 presidential elections? Rather than answering those questions, this post will try to analyze the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement. We all know that it opposed the Democrats, then newly elected president Barack Obama, and the way they dealt with the economic crisis, but what is even more interesting is the particular style (also paranoid) and themes that dominated the rallies. 

A word of warning: I am writing from a outside perspective, based on what I read over the Internet. I've not participated in any of the rallies, I haven’t talked to people doing so – a mistake no doubt, and if any of you did, please drop me an e-mail, such experience would be very valuable for me. Taking this into account, remember that I am not siding with anyone here nor will I attempt to sort out the various organizations that comprised the Movement. I am just tracing some historical background. 

  

The basic precept of the symbolism used by the Tea Party Movement seems quite innocuous; as the very name implies it is a reference to a particular event from American history. Of course, it went deeper than the name – you can easily google images of people dressed up like 18th century soldiers, wearing tricornes next to protest signs full of quotes from the Founding Fathers. 

The historical Boston Tea Party of 1773 has been mythologized to a degree, but most would agree that the act of dumping a transport of tea into the Bostonian harbor was brave, if a bit foolhardy, act of defiance against unfair taxes and tariffs. After all, said ship contained tea that was to be sold by the East India company effectively free of the tax, the Tea Act written so that it would help the Company get out of financial troubles. The colonists, however, would continue to suffer this and other taxes. 

Laws written specifically to benefit the establishment at the expense of the majority may ring a bell, but the seeming similarities do not end here. In the decade after the end of the Seven Year’s War Britain imposed a number of taxes on the Thirteen Colonies. The rationale was pretty straightforward – North America was one of the main theaters of the war, but France was defeated, its territories (current Canada) became British. The American colonists were now safe, so free of danger thanks to the British army, is it stands to reason that they could cover some of the expenses. 

Problem was, the colonists did not feel this way. They did not feel the need to pay, now that they were safe, and additionally, they looked down upon legislations passed by a Parliament in which they had no representatives. Moreover, some started to suspect some conspiracy aimed at them, from the Stamp Act to the “Intolerable Acts”. Edmund Burke at one point stated that “The Americans have made a discovery, or think they have made one, that we mean to oppress them”. Likewise, George Washington asserted that the tax laws of 1760s were “the result of deliberation, and attempted to be carried into execution by the hand of power”, at the same time stating that “the acts of a British Parliament are no longer governed by the principles of justice”. 

A radical vision came from John Allen, a Baptist minister who came to America in 1769, and four years later wrote a short tract entitled “American Alarm”. Therein he identified a “despotic” and “tyrannical” conspiracy in the form of a “ministerial power” that “has for years been seeking the destruction of [the Americans’] rights” through their legislative omnipotence. The final goal of this “plan” was to deprive the citizens the right to govern themselves, and finally enslave them through taxation and a subsequent confiscation of goods. 

So, by the time of the War for Independence many American believed that they are rebelling against a government subverted and infiltrated by a conspiracy. This cabal was interested only in their own gains, disrespected the rights of its citizens, and wanted to make literal slaves out of them. This may seem farfetched, but is relevant even today.  A small selection of Tea Party protest signs attests to that: 

“High Taxes + Big Government = SLAVERY.”

“$11 Trillion - Now That's a Lot of Change!” 

“We Want Freedom From Tax Slavery! ” 

“Taxation: The New Terrorism .” 

“3 Simple Words: WE THE PEOPLE” 

“Capitalism Made America, Not Government” 

“S. Save; O. Our; S. Sovereignty” 

“Clinging to My God, My Guns, and My Money” 

In these posters we see history making a full circle. The Federal Government of the early 21st century became the supposedly corrupt British Parliament of the late 18th century, a total opposite of the American Ideal. At the same time, the protesters saw the only remedy to the economic crisis in returning to the idealized beginnings of the country, shortly after the penning of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Then, it would seem, America did not need any other legislations, but when they appeared, the “City upon a Hill” lost its purity. A defunct banking system of the type George Washington condemned in his Farewell Address; the unnecessary growth of the Federal Government, which overstepped the Congress; finally, the new carbon taxes as a recent weapon in the arsenal of those who want to ruin the American economy. 

To give some examples, the Boston Tea Party "supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues", and opposes its increasing for any purpose. The Tea Party Patriots claim to be “inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land.” Americans for Prosperity: “We hope future Kansas lawmakers will put taxpayers above any feel-good environmental legislation that will wreak havoc on our economy.” Finally, a New York Times/CBS News Poll found that only 19% of Tea Party supporters said that global warming is an environmental problem that is having an effect now. The connection it would seem, came easily. As Stephanie Jasky (founder of http://www.fedupusa.org/) claimed in 2009: "I was looking for answers – I wanted to know what had happened. The more I looked the more it became clear to me that the problem was our government, that the government had become the criminal. (...) All these bailouts and stimulus packages — it was taking our money and spending it without our permission. Taxation without Representation. Isn’t that what the Revolutionary War was all about? Doesn’t anyone remember King George?”

In essence, the Tea Party Movement, regardless of the veracity of their claims, seems to represent the best and worst in American society, however cliché it might sound. Their stern belief in the power of democracy is underpinned by a paranoid fear of its corruptibility. Their belief in the possibility of changing the world through protests and rallies is counterbalanced with a conviction that their enemy is equally potent at influencing reality. 

The similarities between pre-Revolutionary rhetoric and that of the Tea Party movement go deeper than the symbolism, and some of the elements of the paranoid style are visible in both. Either was born in reaction to a very particular sociopolitical problem, but soon branched out to include other related issues and construct a political antagonist. This antagonist, and all-powerful, evil entity has to be utterly destroyed to heal the country. Finally, both, despite the misgivings of their rhetoric, identified a very real problem that the authorities failed to properly address.