A German's perspective on Alex Jones

In yesterday's broadcast (Alex Jones Show, 2/21/13) Mr. Jones was unusually focused and almost briefed his audience on the situation. I want to seize this rare event and write a few words on my thoughts on his.

My main concern with the r3VOLution movement is the impossibility to turn back time. Revolutions, in the sense of the word, do occur, but only on some levels, while on other - higher - levels progress continues.

That doesn't mean that I consider it impossible that over 10,000s of years knowledge might be lost, but I do consider it impossible that people will go through a previous state that they know again without something changed that opens up new possibilities for them, which could not be seized in the first pass.

And so the question arises what has since changed and what can now be seized, what could not be seized before. What is there to gain for those who the process since the last pass has pushed to the sides? For if there is no such thing then the current process continues, pushing its undesirables ever more to the sides until it finally fails on the faults of its design, as always happens, since no design captures reality.

But such a failure ends a culture, it's no revolution within one, but one above cultures, where past memories are the ashes out of which the Phoenix of a new design arises. This is not what Alex Jones and Ron Paul are aiming for - although Joel Skousen might.

However this may be, it is of course reasonable to fight decay or the loss of one's power, but for the individual already bereft of all his power it is just as reasonable to stand by and watch passively, since the only hope for this individual for any betterment lies in a public insight that changes the rules of the game. And in this spirit a woman listener of the show called in, pleading for an admission of one's lack of power so as to allow powerless people to recognise each other and the situation they're all together in, hence giving them the chance to organise themselves.

Mr. Jones was quick to change back to his perspective, seeing passivity as no way to stop an onslaught on people's power, assuming, of course, that there's still enough of it.

Now, you'd have to ask: Enough under which circumstances?

There is the problem of technological progress, also covered extensively in yesterday's show, and I certainly don't see how armed citizens could stop Ray Kurzweil's singularity from coming to pass - or the tightly linked Terminator scenario, but neither do I see how the United Nations would do any better. Actually, in my analysis, the United Nations' plan to distribute global power is geared towards World War III, because there won't be general trust in the crippling of national potentials amongst nations. A stable world order has to rely on trust in ability, not inability, because nature drives towards it.

But although I have a rather good notion of what the solution to the problem of technological progress will be, I will for the sake of the present discussion simply ignore this point. Assuming technology would not be a problem, what else needed to be taken care of by the people so as to create an environment, in which they could handle things?

Mr. Jones' focus seems to be on tough love, making people fit again by exposing them to adversity. This would of course make people also more ruthless, the crime rate would only increase and if the answer to that would not be more police, then the answer would be clans. A break down of the general order is to be considered a failure though, in my opinion.

Tough love can do good things though, but only if there is a way. I don't like to judge its application generally, but in the current situation there needs to be, in my opinion, a gaining of common ground amongst people, in order to allow them to overcome their economical difficulties, because you need solidarity in such times, but solidarity can only succeed, where it is not being exploited and for it not to be exploited there needs to be common ground.

The degree of division is already too high to run a society by unintrusive means, not too high perhaps to fight the current system, but too high to have peace afterwards. And in this light the question poses itself, whether the new government would, after a while, resort to the same means as the old. The current system certainly divides, but it also forces together and this is being done with an eye on the stability of the system. It would be a mistake to underestimate the degree to which these measures are driven by necessity.

But again you'd have to ask: Necessity under which circumstances?

So my thinking always returns to the foundations of a society, the way people view and treat each other, the common ground that they can establish between each other. When things turn bad enough there will be a time of reckoning, of admitting of one's nature and a readiness to engage again in responsible contract with each other. It's the sort of knowledge that only hardship convinces a man to learn.

For Americans, if they're thinking about restoration, that means that they have to ask themselves what went wrong the last time and why. To answer: We just didn't live up to the expectations of the Founding Fathers. is a pathetic thing to do. You are what you are and you'll stay what you are. Start from there.

As for the pre-tribulation rapture thing, it's bizarre for someone outside of the United States to learn of this doctrine. You'd have a point to question the way things are handled in the U.S. right there. But it is also bizarre that no-one in the European churches is speaking out against this, probably owed to the fact that they think by themselves that there won't be a second coming of Christ one way or another, because how else could they be silent about heterodoxy of this magnitude?