A realistic look at the economic calculation problem.

A realistic look at the economic calculation problem.

By Neil Kiernan

The economic calculation problem is at the core of debate between free market advocates and socialists. And because a Resource Based Economy suggests distribution of resources to people absent a price tag we find ourselves not only being labeled socialists, but the same arguments being leveled at us that are leveled at socialists. So we have the economic calculation debate. At it's core is the question:

“Will we be able to efficiently distribute resources absent the price mechanism?”

First lets get some background on the positions of the Austrian/Free Market school of thought and then talk about how this relates to our own arguments on the subject.

So how does the price mechanism supposedly function insofar as distributing resources?

The idea behind the price mechanism is that in in the market resources will be given a value by the market. This value would be calculated based on the cost of production which includes resources expended and labor. And then finally consumer demand. The theory is that if a producer of a given product charges too much for that item then no one will buy it. Hence forcing the producer to lower the cost. Competitive forces also play a part here as rival producers of a given product will vie for dominance in the market by offering competitive prices.

So breaking this down into an analogy:

Bob produces widgets. Bob calculates a price based on the cost of the resources that were used in making his widgets, including how much he had to pay his employees at the widget factory. He of course wants to make a profit so he charges a price that is above and beyond the costs involved in production. If he gets too greedy then people instead may buy a rival product that has a lower price.

So Mises and the other Austrian economists basically contend that this is the most efficient way to distribute resources. And in fact is the only way that would actually work. Lets get into why.

From Wikipedia:

Ludwig von Mises argued in a famous 1920 article "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" that the pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if government owned or controlled the means of production, then no rational prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods in a socialist system and not "objects of exchange," unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily inefficient since the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently. This led him to declare "...that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth."

And:

“Without money to facilitate easy comparisons, socialism lacks any way to compare different goods and services. Decisions made will therefore be largely arbitrary and without sufficient knowledge, often on the whim of bureaucrats.”

But what about the inefficiencies in the price system? Just how good of a job does it actually do when it comes to efficiently distributing resources? Lets take a look.

Mises suggests that no rational prices can be reached without a price system. But are rational prices actually reached within a price system? No. The reason? The entire price engine is driven by the profit motive. And profit by no means depends on rationality.

First of all, lets talk about advertising. Advertising has evolved over the years into what amounts to outright brainwashing. They specialize in ensuring that consumers have irrational desires for products that they do not even need. Or are even harmful to them! The work of Edward Bernays in assisting the cigarette companies in their quest to give women the irrational desire to smoke is an example I have frequently brought up on V-RADIO. Documentaries such as “Psywar” and “Consuming kids” really dig deep into the very dark reality of advertising and it's ability to target our minds in a way that causes us to feel “needs” for objects that have no rational purpose.

One such industry is the fashion industry. A never ending cycle of convincing people that unless they wear certain clothing, (and more specifically are willing to pay a higher price for it) they are worth less as a human being. The $3,000 hand bags mentioned in “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward” are just one of many absurd fashions that resources are devoted to. A company named Louis Vuitton will also be happy to sell you a shoulder bag for $8,000. A pair of sneakers for $1,000. Or a belt for $3,000! The price mechanism has attached to it elements of social stratification. This brings us back to the reason that Air Jordan shoes that were purchased at Foot Locker were somehow more valuable then those purchased at K-Mart. Solely because the person could afford to pay the price. It was therefore more fashionable.

The fashion issue goes beyond clothing. Accessories. Cars. Houses. Etc. The entire system is designed to tell people that the higher price paid the better. But we are not talking about the higher price paid meaning the better the product. We are talking about an industry that convinces people that the higher price someone paid the more value someone has as a person! Psychological and Sociological research is done by advertising firms to plug their products into our self esteem, our attractiveness to the opposite sex. And our status within society. If your carrying a $8,000 shoulder bag then it means you are superior on a fundamental level to the person carrying a $30 shoulder bag.

The price system is subject to corruption in other ways. Planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence of goods is also built into this system to ensure that people are forever in stores moving inventory. Products are made to break down or to not be easily fixable intentionally for the sake of profit. The price to fix a given product is set in such a way to artificially make it more expensive to simply repair an item then it is to buy an entirely new item. The price system creates the motivation to do all of this contradictory to the ecological and environmental impact of such wanton production. Because it is a system for an economy with profit as the motivator producers of given products are encouraged to find as many ways to cut corners as much possible when it comes to ecological safety of their products. Products are made without recycling in mind because a product that is easy to take apart to be recycled is in many cases easy to repair. This would allow the consumer to simply repair their products rather then buying new ones.

The price system because it is based solely on the whims of consumers also permits the production of goods completely irrespective of the long term effects of using up given resources. The consumer at the counter of a store does not consider, nor are they encouraged to consider the long term implications of their purchases. What will buying all these plastic products do to the environment? What if this useless junk I am purchasing has resources in it that will be required for mankind's survival? What impact will the fact that I purchase a new I-Pod every year have on my grand children? Or their children? None of this is taken into account in the price system.

Because you want to be able to offer your goods at the lowest possible prices the price system also encourages worker exploitation. Wal-Mart's goods made in sweat shop factories can be offered at a far lower price then products produced locally. And the profit motivated price system will only serve to perpetuate this. Outsourcing to more and more desperate economies where people are willing to accept a lifestyle no better then conventional slavery.

Another example of corruption of the price model is when businesses collude to sell a vital product at an ever increasing price. Take the oil industry. The oil companies formed a cartel to cooperate on what the price of gasoline should be. They agreed to compete by no more then a few cents at the pump. The benefit of this is that profits in all of the oil companies collectively went up to record heights. It was to the benefit of everyone in the cartel to see this happen. And because gasoline is not an optional commodity they were able to get away with it. It was not as if the consumers could simply choose not to drive to work.

A further proof of the price mechanism's failure is that outside of the stores that sell these products there are often homeless people lying on the street. People who could feed themselves for MONTHS if they had even a quarter of the money spent on a single item purchased at the prices above. When it comes to a system of allocating resources the billions of people starving on this planet are a testament to the absolute failure of the market system to give any option to these people. There is no mechanism in the market or the price system that will distribute resources to these people despite the fact that technologically we could provide for them.

When attacking any centrally planned system, the Austrian economists point to examples such as the various instances of mass starvation supposedly created by centrally planned economies. They point to death camps and gulags as the inevitable solutions of failed centrally planned economies. That when scarcity exists we will be forced to somehow depopulate. Of course they leave out that a great deal of these death tolls were created by fascist regimes trying to stay in power. But they go on to heap praise on the market system with it's price based economies with an absence of death camps and gulags. They leave out of course that even in the free markets there would still be huge pockets of poor and starving people. The “death camps” of the market system are places like Africa. Where hundreds of thousands of people starve every day. The price system has no place for people who cannot find ways to be useful to people who have more. Basically, suggesting that centrally planned economies lead to starvation ignores the blatantly obvious truth that the market system does the exact same thing. But far more insidious is that the entire time people are inclined to think it is a fair system that is leaving all these people to die. And even encourages people to think that it is somehow their fault for dying. If they just worked a bit harder or started their own business they would be fine. They sell everyone the pipe dream that they too can be rich and famous if they just apply themselves. And this delusion helps everyone agree to be part of a system where 1% of the population has 40% of the wealth. And where statistics are greatly against people who are not part of that 1% ever becoming part of it.

It's ironic that the same incident of the rules suddenly changing in the book “Animal Farm” that was supposed to be a story about communism applies just as well to people living in a capitalist system.

“All animals are equal. But some animals are MORE equal then others...”

Mises and his disciples stated that centrally planned economies fail due to the fact that the resources would be distributed according to the “whims” of bureaucrats. And that apparently instead we should allow resources to be distributed according to the “whims” of consumers. Consumers who's “whims” are being controlled by a profit motivated system. If we were talking about a world of infinite resources this might work. But as was demonstrated earlier, the “whims” of consumers in a profit motivated world are not by any means rational. And the fact that there is anyone anywhere who on a whim will buy an $8,000 shoulder bag while people are starving outside of the store they purchased it in is testament that the price mechanism is not efficient at all. And that “rational” prices are not being achieved. There is nothing rational about an $8,000 hand bag. Period.

So lets look at the obstacles that Mises and Hayek suggest we will never be able to overcome.

The knowledge problem: Will we be able to effectively get the information we need as far as the needs of our consumers within a society? Mises seems to think that this is an insurmountable problem. That we will never be able to get enough information to be able to make rational decisions about what to produce. This like many other Austrian theories is obviously way out of date. Information technology is vastly superior to anything that Mises would of even conceived of in the 1920's when he said this would be impossible.

The other notion that is presented by Hayek is that people would have no incentive to share information they have. Which simply does not make any sense. Obviously in a resource based economy the incentive is we want to eat. We want shelter, clothing, etc. So we share that information so that the system works.

Another argument against Austrian economists from Wikipedia:

“It has also been claimed that the contention that finding a true economic equilibrium is not just hard but impossible for a central planner applies equally well to a market system; As any Universal Turing Machine can do what any other Turing machine can, a system of dispersed calculators (i.e. a market) has no in principle advantage over one central calculator.

Austrian economists emphasise that a central planner cannot have access to all the necessary information (including local conditions, know-how and changing individual preferences) to feed into such a central calculator.”

As I have already illustrated earlier the price mechanism has many failures and is far too open to corruption. So they were never operating from any sort of superior system to begin with. As pointed out above there is no special advantage to mankind operating as a mob of people making economic decisions based on whims. And the claims that any centrally planned economy would fail due to lack of information is based on a completely out of date idea as far as what information any central planner would have access to.
The idea that desires are infinite or irrational:

This concept basically works on the assumption that people's desires are infinite and are not trackable or understandable. And this assumption is flawed. The needs of human beings are in fact calculable. And in fact once all of the noise that has polluted the “desires” of mankind is gone, (advertising, fashion, etc.) deciding what to produce will be far easier. The reason it is hard to calculate now is because mankind has an inflated idea of what it “needs” that is based largely on the conditioning we are given through advertising from the earliest ages. This entire industry of convincing people to consume things they do not need will vastly change the amount of resources expended. I have already felt this myself as my own consumption habits have changed once I became aware of the vast propaganda machine that was put in place to make people believe that the act of consumption in of itself was an expression of freedom. I watch now as people chain themselves to debt for endless amounts of junk that is designed to be sure to fail as soon as it is paid off. My entire perspective changed on what I buy and why. There is no reason the rest of mankind will not experience this as well.

So what is different between what we suggest and other “centrally planned” economies?
Well first of all, all of those systems advocated force or coercion to achieve their goals. Every one of those systems were run by people who did not understand the environmental impact on human behavior. They relied on laws, prisons, etc. to deal with the inevitable problems that arise from circumstances of scarcity.

Secondly, and more importantly the points that Mises and Hayek used to point to failings in those systems do not apply to ours. There are no “whims” being used to decide the allocation of resources. All of those systems were microcosmic attempts at human opinion based central planning. As pointed out previously it was at the “whims” of bureaucrats. And no such whims will exist in our system that is based on the scientific method. Every citizen of the society would be acutely aware of the state of resources on our planet and the implications of their consumption.

Thirdly, the technology available to us is vastly superior to what was available at the time that any of these monetary thinkers were contemplating their limitations.

Even without the modern technology we have today this was achievable. In early 1970 the government of Chile asked a British operations research scientist named Stafford Beer to develop a system for tracking information all over the country for the purposes of a computer controlled economy. The system was highly advanced for it's time and did work. It was called Project Cybersyn. When I was doing research on it I was not surprised to see that several conservative bloggers have made really bogus reports as to it's success. But without fail people who were actually involved in the project came forward and refuted the nonsense that was being portrayed. Chile had decided to nationalize it's copper production. In typical “economic hitman” fashion the United States didn't like that very much and eventually went out of it's way to cause problems for the socialist Chilean government. The following is from one of the accounts of someone involved in the project:

“Across Chile, with secret support from the CIA, conservative small businessmen went on strike. Food and fuel supplies threatened to run out. Then the government realised that Cybersyn offered a way of outflanking the strikers. The telexes could be used to obtain intelligence about where scarcities were worst, and where people were still working who could alleviate them.(ref Andy Beckett/Guardian)
The interconnected telex machines, exchanging 2,000 messages a day, were a potent instrument, enabling the government to identify and organize alternative transportation resources that kept the economy moving.”

Because of project Cybersyn, the Chilean government was able to keep their economy running using a fraction of the resources previously demanded. And the strike that was an attempt to get rid of the president who had the audacity to think that Chilean copper should be used for the people of Chile failed.

I am hoping to get someone who was involved in this project on V-RADIO at some point. But suffice it to say, with some ancient telex machines they were able to keep their economy moving. And that technology is dwarfed by the capabilities of our information technology now. More complex versions of Project Cybersyn's style of cybernetic management are already being used by blue chip corporations all over the world to maintain their own infrastructures.

In conclusion, it is important to remember that the Austrian school of economics and the opinions of Ludwig Von Mises are not infallible. They represent limitations that are set by men who have limitations in their understanding of the capabilities of technology. Those limitations are inherent in mankind as technology always manages to exceed our expectations. The Wright brothers were making flying machines while the intellectuals of the day were being paid to write books about why man would never fly. It is important to understand when your dealing with people who are advocates of this school to remind yourself that the Austrian school of economics is a fringe philosophy. It is not embraced by the majority of economists and is in fact rejected as a mainstream school of economics because of the attitude in the philosophy of throwing one's hands up in the air and letting everything just play out what way it may. “It won't work because Mises said so!” is not an argument anymore then continuing to quote the physics experts who said man would never fly would be a viable argument today. Something to consider when people are quoting Mises as if they are quoting something empirical and infallible:

"‎Mises wrote of his economic methodology that "its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts."

So in other words. He made it up. This is why Austrian theory is rejected by the mainstream. 

During my presentation during the Agora conference I used the analogy of a space ship. When a space ship is going on a prolonged trip there is no free market economy set up on board to determine how the resources on board will be used. They are calculated by scientists on the ground before the vessel ever gets underway. Though mankind lives on a really big spaceship we call earth, the more our population grows and the more our technological capability to impact our environmental conditions the “smaller” the earth effectively gets. In a situation of limited resources allowing the “whims” of anyone to determine resource allocation would not only be dangerous. They would be suicidal. And the danger of anyone “owning” those resources exclusive to themselves with a profit motive as a factor would be obvious. Nobody should have such power. You wouldn't let anyone own all the oxygen on a space ship you were on. The oxygen should be considered the common heritage of everyone on board.

In the end I have noticed a trend while debating these topics. People don't want to consider that they might not be free to buy whatever their hearts desire. The market system and it's price mechanism allow people to continue to look at resources as something that will always be at the store waiting for them. They see people like us pointing out these limitations and they project that we would want to enforce some limitations on them. They fail to see that no matter how free they believe they are if there are only six ounces of a given resource left on the earth they don't have the right to take seven. Not because we are going to force anything on them. But because there are only six ounces left. And if great care is not taken in the use of those limited resources nobody will have access to them.

Then there is the very real issue of the "Golden Billion" effect. A theory  that points to the fact that the "Western world" is consuming resources at a rate that far exceeds the rest of the world. It is through imperialism that we have maintained this circumstance of a few privileged countries gaining all of the benefits of civilization while we loot resources out of any country that might wish to use it's own resources to better itself and the standard of living of the people in it. In an article called: "A clash of civilizations: A possibility?"  by David Bryan he describes this issue:

"Under the once popular “golden billion” theory, people living in the economically advanced European nations, Japan and the United States enjoy in full measure the fruits of civilization at the expense of their less lucky brethren sweating elsewhere in the world. These days this “golden billion”, is being increasingly diluted by a steadily widening influx of migrants coming in from the Third World which means that we are now talking about a considerably larger number of “privileged” ones whose comfortable existence the rest of the world may no longer be will to ensure. Which may also mean that we are in for a new redrawing of the global map say, by China, which is working so hard to get rich and is already setting its sights on global leadership."

The people you see who are addicted to the lifestyle that they have brainwashed themselves into believing is "fair" are trying desperately to ignore the fact that we cannot hold on to 40% of the world's resources in the hands of a small percentage of the population forever. And we can only keep that hold through imperialism masked as "Making the world safe for democracy..." There are not enough resources for everyone on the planet to live the wasteful lifestyle of the average American. World wars have always been the means by which these struggles for dominance have been waged. From the Roman empire to WWII. And with technology getting more and more dangerous we are now looking at destruction on a scale never seen before.

Mankind has to rise above this idea that fighting for the position of dominance in the world economy is acceptable. We need to rise above the idea that any one nation should be better off then the majority of nations. The reality is that the lifestyles that we enjoy in the 1st world are not due to the magic of the market system. The entire system is upheld through imperialism. And the rest of the world is not going to put up with that forever. The market system spreading to such a global scale would either A. set the stage for an apocalyptic WWIII or B. drag the standard of living of everyone on the planet down. The market system hinges on the idea of equal opportunity. And there quite simply is no equal opportunity for the entire world to live the wasteful selfish lifestyle we do in the west. The resources do not exist for this to happen. But a society designed using the scientific method to come to rational values, strategic access of goods, and an egalitarian approach can provide a great lifestyle for everyone.

The price mechanism is no more based on rationality then a bureaucracy arbitrarily deciding how resources should be expended. And neither the whims of bureaucrats in a centrally planned economy nor the whims of consumers in a price mechanism profit motivated economy are sufficient for adequately deciding how resources should be allocated on a planet with finite resources. We don't as a species have the freedom to use resources irrespective of what impact it will have on the earth we all live on. And that is why we must use the scientific method for social concern if we are going to survive.

It's just a game.

A review of the soon to be released documentary film "Returning Fire
Interventions in Video Game Culture" by Professor Roger Stahl.

Professor Roger Stahl is someone I am glad to call my friend. His work on the documentary film and book “Militainment Inc.” really helped me to open my eyes to the reality of how our culture here in the United States and in many other countries we are continually bombarded by war as a form of entertainment by the media. Through his work I was able to realize the realities of such terms such as “Techno Fetishism”. That is the idea that we can actually look at weapons of war as beautiful. I spent a lot of time on Air Force bases growing up as my older brother was an Engineer working for the United States Air Force at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio. I remember very clearly looking at the various planes as things that looked “cool” and contemplating on how the A-10 Warthog was my favorite because of the destructive capacity of the main cannon mounted on the front of the plane. I remember in those days all I wanted to be was a fighter pilot. My walls were covered in promotional posters of various fighter planes my brother would bring home for me. In retrospect I remember that all of these posters also had the names of the various corporations that made the planes in question. I used to be able to list them off. McDonnel/Douglas, Boeing, etc. I knew which company made each plane.

I also remember my various toys. G.I. Joe was highly popular at that time and I recall the reverence I treated my “Cobra Raven” bomber jet with. I took it everywhere with me and I remember quite clearly my mother's complaints about having “that monstrosity” (It was a very large toy) on her coffee table while I was sitting in the living room watching the G.I. Joe cartoon. The funny thing about all of these memories though is that I had largely forgot about them until I watched Professor Stahl's film “Militainment Inc” and had the privilege of having him on V-RADIO.

When Jacque Fresco talked about how we are formed by our early environment, I decided to go on a journey into my past by going back and watching the movies I watched when I was very young. And one of them in particular I had watched shortly after watching “Militainment Inc.” and right before my first interview with Roger, a film called “The boy who could fly.” Now, the only reason this film is relevant to this particular article is the main heroine of the story had a little brother who was extremely militarized in his focus. He wore camouflage all the time. His room was decorated with nothing but G.I. Joe, he had virtually every action figure and vehicle. Hell, even his big wheel (Small plastic tri-cycle) was the G.I. Joe version. When re-watching this film I remembered distinctly being in huge envy of that kid's collection when I was a young boy watching that film. I remember when wearing camouflage was actually fashionable.

And I remembered the cold war. I remembered watching “Red Dawn” with my family and how we would play “Guns” or “Army” with toy guns and one side would be the United States, and the others of course would be the “evil” Russians. I remembered how when I was in school they would give you these forms to fill out to tell the school system what you might be interested in being when you grew up and I put military on every one. I had my whole life planned out. Was going to graduate, become a fighter pilot, and then afterward the only other interest I had left from my childhood pre-militarization was to fly the space shuttle. To be an astronaut. Thanks to the combination of the media, my toys, etc. all of my other thoughts of what I wanted to be when I grew up kind of faded to the way side.

A lot of things happened to me during my time in high school that I at the time figured were bad luck. The school I went to was highly overcrowded and in a very low income area of Pontiac, Michigan. Metal detectors on the doors, school shootings fairly prominent. I got involved in a rock band and my musical mentor was an older fellow named Tyrone Scott. He had a love of guitar and playing chess. So he took me to the public library, where there was often a large number of homeless people who were rather good at chess. They were also largely Viet Nam veterans. I sat getting to know these people and got a very real dose of what the end of the road looks like after a military career. Suddenly my attitude about joining the military started to change forever. There was nothing glorious about being homeless and forgotten and spending time in a public library not because you wanted to read, but because it was warmer in the library then it was outside. And you could play chess for free.

Roger's work on “Militainment Inc.” came to me at a time when I was already becoming more aware of just what had been done to me and most of my generation. But it added a whole new dimension to what that meant. And after 911, I realized we didn't have the Soviet red scare anymore. We had the terrorists. And the war was not cold anymore. But the media's approach to it made it look like more of a video game then reality. After watching that film I never looked at the TV news the same way again. And it contributed a great deal to why I don't watch it at all anymore other then in select clips on YouTube. And why I don't intend to expose my kids to it either. But that of course brings us to the natural progression from Roger's first film to his new one. “Returning Fire Interventions in Video Game Culture”. I was grateful when Roger gave me access to a sneak preview of the film so that I could review it for our upcoming show about the film. And I am going to share my feelings on it here and why I feel this film is another must see for anyone who wants to understand the war propaganda machine and the dark place humanity is headed if we continue to desensitize ourselves to the reality of war.

Professor Stahl tells three stories in his film. If I had any criticism it would only be that I wish he had done more. I was engrossed from beginning to end and found myself motivated to look into more examples of the sort of activism the three people he interviewed for his film had engaged in. Two of the people in question did various provocative things while logged in to two popular first person shooter games. Including the extremely obvious recruiting tool known as “America's Army” a free online first person shooter put together by the U.S. Army. In watching the stories I remember thinking to myself that there was a time that I could have been one of the players in the games in question.

The first story revolved around an internet activist named Joseph DeLappe who logged in to “America's Army” with the name of “Dead_in_Iraq”. As people spent hours clicking away and shooting at the virtual avatars of other people he would list off the names of dead soldiers who had died in Iraq, along with the dates of their deaths. The reactions he got were mixed and I won't spoil the film for you, but I do wish to take one compelling point that came up when the brother of one of the soldiers he listed off while playing who had died in Iraq went out of his way to stop him from using his brother's name. The two ended up debating on a radio show about it. The brother of the dead soldier said that this activists actions were in some way trivializing the death of his brother. The activist countered with the very powerful point. The fact that there is a game wherein you play a United States soldier and are frequently killed over and over and over again is trivializing the death of his brother. And every soldier who dies in war. The fact that such a tragedy could be part of a “game” in of itself was a trivialization.

One of the powerful points that was also brought out in this segment was that these games go out of their way to try and capture the realism. I remember very distinctively in the past actively seeking out war games based on this. But as Mr. DeLappe pointedly stated, there is a serious element of realism that is always left out. That would be the fact that when you get shot in war you are often maimed for life, and spend the rest of your life dealing with the VA, and being in a lot of pain. If you survive. In real life, you don't get to respawn in a few seconds. And this recruiting tool of course doesn't have a segment of the game where you are being pushed around in a wheel chair for the rest of your life, or the glory of becoming part of the statistic of being 1 in 4 of the homeless in the United States, or watching your own funeral wherein your loved ones are mourning you and they hand one of them a folded American flag. Any video game that featured this part of the soldier's career would not be a good recruitment tool for the army. And it certainly wouldn't sell a lot of video games.

In the second segment we move on to an interview with Anne-Marie Schleiner. She was part of the former internet activist group “Velvet-Strike” which made quite a ruckus on various servers for the popular first person shooter “Counter-Strike”. Ms. Schleiner and her fellow activists would log on to “Counter-Strike” servers and use the game's ability to spray your own graphics into the game to put anti-war messages all over the virtual battlefield. A couple of things struck me when I was watching this segment. The first was the reaction that her group of activists from the community within the game that was in some cases extremely negative including death threats. One hate mail in particular came from someone who had watched the twin towers burn during the September 11th attacks who used the game “therapeutically” to get the sensation that he was getting back at the terrorists who carried out the attacks on the twin towers. The final line of the email that hit me the hardest was the person saying “Please don't ruin my game.”

I have a roommate who played more “Counter-Strike” then any human being should ever do anything. I remember him coming home from work stressed out and angry at people and going into his room and shooting people to get out their aggressions. I remembered doing the same thing myself with video games while I was working on the fast food industry which can be a highly stressful and frustrating job. This lead me to truly appreciate one of the major concepts that both “Militainment Inc.” and “Returning Fire” try to convey. And that is that these video games allow us to distance ourselves from the conflict. To make it “normal” to shoot people. And to dehumanize people who are killed in war. The whole thing reminded me of a very old episode of the original Star Trek TV series wherein they came to a planet that had been in war for thousand's of years. And the reason was that they had decided it would be more humane to wage war via a computer simulation. People who died in the simulation would voluntarily go and disintegrate themselves if they were listed as “killed” during these simulations because it had been determined that they would of died if the combat were real and that it was better for their planet as a whole to do this rather then wage real war. Their society had become completely detached from the bloody and grizzly aspects of war. This again brought me back to considering the vast difference in the way wars are covered now. As pointed out in “Militainment Inc.” the differnece between the way the Viet Nam war was covered and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is staggering. No pictures of wounded soldiers. War becomes video screens of bombs being dropped on buildings that are shown on low quality video so as to be blurry. Rather different then the video of an Apache gunship shooting people on a street corner released by Wikileaks. It allows us to forget that there are real people with real lives who had real families and real friends who were blown to pieces in those video clips.

The third and final segment was certainly the most powerful, but it was also different then anything I had ever seen. And it kind of brought this last comparison I made to that Star Trek episode very much to the forefront of my mind. The segment about an Iraqi artist and activist named Wafaa Bilal. His father was killed by a missile fired from a Predator drone in Iraq. What many people don't know is that these drones are often operated by pilots who are thousands of miles away from the action here in the United States. Totally disconnected from the action. I learned about that while watching a lecture by Professor Robert Sapolsky, one of the behavior experts featured in “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward” when he was talking about the vast differences between the way that animals make war and the ways mankind does in this currently sick system. As war becomes more mechanized, it becomes less real, and more “clean”. And therefore easier to ignore.

The story of Wafaa Bilal was certainly one of the most unique activism stories I had ever seen. Inspired by the remote control means that was used to kill his father, Mr. Bilal fashioned a remote control paint ball gun that people on the internet could fire at him. For the project he locked himself in a room for 30 days allowing people to make the decision to shoot at him, or not shoot at him. His original name for the project was going to be “Shoot an Iraqi”. I again don't want to get into too much detail as you will get a far greater impact by watching the film when it comes to this story. But suffice it to say by the time it was done, something as absurd as someone rigging a paintball gun to be fired at them via the internet was not funny at all. One thing I will mention was during the segment Mr. Bilal was featured on a talk radio show hosted by Mathew “Mancow” Muller. The reason I am going to mention it is I hope someone shows this particular radio host my blog so that he can read the words here wherein I will describe the image of my middle finger being extended at him. The plus side of that part of the film is that it reminded me of one of the most important reasons that I am helping make the “TROLL” documentary. The fact that people actually make money be being extremely poor examples of humanity on purpose is intellectually offensive. If you want to know why I say this, watch the film and you will understand. However, there was a heart-warming end to this segment wherein some internet activists took action.

In conclusion I will wrap up by saying that “Returning Fire” is a must see for any anti-war activist. I think it should also be viewed by any parent considering buying their children a video game about war. I think anyone considering joining the military should watch both of Professor Stahl's films before they make their final decision so that they can get an idea for where their motivation to join the military likely came from. As I said earlier I only wish the film was longer. And I look forward to any further works by Professor Roger Stahl.

TO ORDER A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE VISIT: this website.

About Roger Stahl:
Roger Stahl is Associate Professor of Speech Communication at the University of Georgia. His work has appeared in publications such as Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Encyclopedia of Political Communication, and Critical Studies in Media Communication. His latest book, Militainment, Inc.: War, Media, and Popular Culture, has just been released by Routledge Press.

Al from Mexico's article for V-RADIO 3/9/2011.

The transition is "my transition".

It makes me kind of angry when I hear many people asking about the "transition"

How is that going to be?.....when will the transition begin?.....who is going to
lead the transition?........the transition........what should we do to
accelerate the transition?

People often get caught up in the confusion of "perhaps something will happen
right?", I mean, somebody needs to do something"....."maybe something big is
about to happen", maybe someone stronger than us will come to the rescue, let's
keep waiting, let's keep praying, let's keep on having faith, let's just keep
pretending and looking the other way until suddenly out of the blue things get
better.

Thanks to the monetary system we've been using for centuries, we have come to
the conclusion that we are powerless, defenseless, voiceless, mindless, to a
very profound level.

We tend to forget that every change, every transition, every revolution, every
new invention, starts with only one person...And that person is YOU.....You are
the transition.

So if you want to accelerate the transition, break those credit cards, cut them
all in a hundred pieces like I did a few years ago, I grabbed the scissors and
practically shred them to ashes. I finally learned to be in control of my life,
and it felt so good to get rid off the banking chains that enslaved me for over
10 years.

And of course, we could talk about many other actions that would harm and weaken
the system, such as making your own clothing and manufacturing your own home
products and foods, we could go really far as to how much we can do to get off
the grid.

But we don't need to scare away many people that are still extremely attached to
the goods they think they need in order to be "happy".


So going back to the credit cards and loans issue that we can actually get rid
off today, we can do so much damage to the current system, because they depend
on credits and loans in order to justify the phantom value they have invented.

We dont even need to force it, is already happening around the world, more and
more people find themselves unable to pay the interests from their loans
therefore they are constantly educating their kids about the dangers of getting
in debt.

Therefore we can actually accelerate the transition by just that single concept
of getting off the credit mechanisms, because the entire system relays and
depends absolutely on having you as a monetary slave.

Without debt governments can't control you, without debt nations can't bring
other nations to their knees, without debt this whole aberrant system will
collapse sooner than we think. Without the need of an old fashioned armed
revolution and without having to spit a single bullet.

You could keep on buying stuff from wherever you want, you can keep on
pretending and dreaming that things will somehow get better with hope, you can
also live upset and depressed about everything, spending 90 percent of your time
working as someone else's slave and spending only 10 percent for yourself and
your family.

But if you keep your credit cards in your pockets, you'll remain miserable,
you'll keep your family in constant uncertainty and fear ... deprived of all the
things you could have, and all the places you could go if you finally learn to
have absolute control of your finances.

We cannot be redundant enough on this issue Neil, money is debt, money depends
on debt to exist, because money is a phantom value system of exchange, that
relays on your ignorance in order to keep you as a slave.

We live stuck and deeply attached down to the few possessions we own, because we
feel that we need to protect them from others, we deprive ourselves from having
healthy meals because all we can afford is fast, high collesterol cheap foods to
keep us going.

We haven't yet realize how deep in the mud we are at this point in time because
of our absolute dependency on money, people kidnapping and killing other people
for money, people selling drugs and sickening others for money, doctors
prescribing deadly medicines for money, corporate leaders throwing thousands of
tons of toxic waste in the rivers and oceans to save money, fishermen using mile
long fishnets destroying coral reefs and hundreds of thousands of whales,
dolphins, turtles, seals, sharks and everything in their way for money.


Companies getting sued, harrassed or kicked out if they try to create products
that can last twice as long as their counterparts in the competition for money.

The list goes on and on and on, and money keeps on destroying humans, animals
and the very soil we step upon. To most people all this problems seem kind of
"impersonal" , all those things are happening to "someone else" to "something
else", as long as a soldier doesn't break in our house we can keep our fucking
mouth shut and keep watching the football game and then the soup opera.

It seems as though people have become so lazy minded that they will protest and
stand up only if the bullet hits them directly.

Perhaps until they see their own teenager daughter getting sexually abused on
the internet, because the poor girl couldn't find a decent paying job to fill
her economic needs, so she decided to try her luck in the pornographic industry,
filled with human degradation, physical and verbal abuse, drug addictions and
finally depression or suicide.

Or perhaps that isn't hard enough to wake people up to realize the sickness of
our current society worldwide, maybe until one of their kids gets kidnapped to
be used in the child pornography industry which exists also in the richest
countries and which generates hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

Or maybe when their soldier son comes back from overseas inside of a coffin, and
then realize that he lost his life to maintain the privileges of those in power.

Or maybe when they realize that their kids weren't allowed to move on to
College, because their grades are so mediocre for having lazy mediocre teachers
that can't be fired from schools for having the protection from the teachers
union.

Or better yet, your kids are given a full month vacation, again because there
was another local school shooting spree were many students died.


And then Another church priest, and another wall street broker runs away with
the lifetime savings of hundreds of naive retirees and entire families.

And then another teenager girl dies, trying to look as slim as those starving
drug addicted models on the magazinne cover.

And then another truck delivery driver crashes and kills a bunch, because he
didn't sleep in 2 days feeling the pressure of getting the shipment on time.

Thousands of sea animals die every year unable to digest the huge amount of
plastics in their bodies, because throwing trash in the ocean is a lot cheaper
for the corporations than giving waste proper handling. Hundreds of thousands of
tons of computer waste and cell phone trash are shipped to the beaches of africa
every week.

Thousands of people were killed and many others injured and intoxicated for life
in Irak and Afganistan, because the invaders are using "depleted uranium" in
their missiles and artillery, because this highly effective explosive is able to
cut through steel and solid rock like butter. Regardless of the toxicity of this
atomic material which is able to remain active in the ground for several
decades.

And yet.....Free market economists say "It's impossible to live without money",
"It's impossible to calculate the cost of new infrastructure projects",
....."It's impossible to allocate resources without the use of
money"......."It's impossible for the world to get rid off money"

Well, if you are a free market economist and or a Capitalist advocate, let's see
how you calculate all this death and destruction in your equations.....The
selfish nature of greed for money, is not worth our existance itself.

Are we to believe that we can just look away from this mess and try to build our
own companies to keep competing and stepping on each other's heads forever?

Let's see for how much longer we can keep this aberrant and sick society.
Let's see how many prayers will be enough to wake up those Gods living in the
paradise of our insecure minds.

Let's see how many more war-glorifying video games are enough to teach our kids
a thousand ways to kill somebody. And never how to help someone in desperate
need.

I'm a 3d animator and CG modeler myself, and back in 2006, I was awarded "first
place" in a challenge that was about creating a video game cinematic, I wrote an
original story that was about a video game in which the main characters are sent
to rescue missions around the world, these characters could only use none lethal
weapons to deal with their enemies, they could use explosives and hi-tech gear,
but only to break their way in their rescue missions of people in disaster
situations and such.

I was quite surprised that the president from the Game Developers Conference
himself, gave me the award personally in San Francisco, I was so glad that I got
the message across and went home with a big smile.

However, the empire, the pentagon, hell-i-burton, General Electric, Lockheed
Martin, the ATF, they have a little more power and resources to manipulate the
video game industry than the little of me,... hundreds of war glorifying video
games have flooded the stands of video game stores around the world ever since
the very first game consoles appeared.


Bored teenagers who have spent half their lives in front of the tv and a game
controller in their hands, begin to believe that killing another human being is
easy and actually entertaining, unaccounted for, and actually end up as hero's
that the whole world loves, and then they join the real army, full of empathy,
patriotism, or just the need for the money....Just to comeback later with an
amputated extremity, severely traumatized, drug addicted and a few years later
totally forgotten and unknown begging for coins sitting on a wheelchair on the
streets. With a big budweiser in a paper bag. But hey, those are the real hero's
war creates.

So, let's see for how much longer we want to live in constant fear and distrust
with each other

Wether we are rich or poor, its the same......the rich ones live in a permanent
state of competitive neurosis trying to raise their profits every year, they
live afraid and insecure from their associates, their partners, their employees,
so they feel the need to be always watching their backs.

They spend fortunes in security personal, bodyguards, anti-assault vehicles,
expensive surveillance equipment. they buy several homes and real state around
the world, to make sure they will always have some back up value in case
something goes wrong, in case they need to escape from a fraud or from a legal
problem.


The poor ones on the other hand, live in a constant struggle in order to
provide the basic needs for their families, in a constant neurosis to gather the
money for the rent, the electric power, water and energy bills, ...taxes,
clothing, food, school items, etc

And the vast majority, the ones at the very bottom, digging in the trash,
stealing scraps, selling stuff on the streets, begging for a few coins, stealing
cars, cell phones, wallets, and the most terrifying of all....stealing people
for money.....selling people for money.....buying people for money......killing
people for money......"

Now, If all the previous information is still not enough to make you rethink
your life and our society, and start living without monetary debt, and wether
you support the Venus project or not.......Then, keep waiting, there are a lot
more reasons to make us change waiting to be added in the long list of human
failures.

We'll never be perfect, we are still just humans, but we have to learn to make
changes in our direction and our lives, or just keep following the tail of the
sheep ahead of us.

The choice is ours.

A post I shared on Rick Ross's anti-cult website.

Putting this here for ease of sharing:


1. One of the reasons for the confusion over what our organization is is because we state that we are not a "political movement". But in practice we are a political activist organization in the same context as Green Peace, Veterans for Peace, etc. We advocate an economic model designed for ecological sustainability. Not a religion, superstition, etc. (In fact a lot of our members are atheists.) We suggest people use the scientific method to test ways of fixing the world's problems rather then relying on politics or superstition.

2. Activity as far as membership in TZM consists of signing up for a mailing list. Optionally chatting on forums or using voice chat. (The vast majority of people signed up for the newsletter and mailing list do not do this.). We attend public events to try and engage in dialog about our ideas in the same way other activist groups do. Some groups of people have meetings in person to talk about this stuff but they are not secret cabal meetings in forests or something. In fact most of them are in public places like libraries and such, again like most activist groups. If someone "leaves" the group it would actually probably go completely unnoticed. If someone was friends with a given member they might inquire as to why they didn't see their friend at a meeting but there is no protocol suggested or even implied that we would go track people down and try to guilt trip them into attending meetings again. And removing yourself from our email list is as easy as it is for any other activist organization.

3. Peter Joseph does not paste his personal information and his financial records everywhere. And while I can understand why this is often a concern with a given organization, there are no "membership dues". He gives away all of his films on the internet for free, including files to allow you to make your own DVDs. If people buy DVDs from him it's generally because they don't know how to burn them themselves. He could easily charge $20 for these and he only asks for $5. He sells T-shirts but he is not making a killing on them. And in fact spends a lot more money on this activism then he ever gets out of it. To say nothing for the hours of his time he puts into making activist films. There are hundreds of indy film makers who do the same, but make a hell of a lot more money then he is. Michael Moore comes to mind.

4. There is no "abuse" going on. I have challenged Mr. Wish to produce any sort of evidence of "abuse". He seems really fixated on our internet forums and not much else. He uses a lot of language like insinuating that people could die, get hurt, or their "blood" could be on someone's hands and to be blunt, this is all really silly. The vast majority of the interaction that people have in the Zeitgeist movement goes on in public places or on the internet. Nobody is being molested, sexually harassed, intimidated, or mentally abused. And when he came to our forums and made that broad and vague accusation of "abuse" even users who are critical of our moderation team because they are anarchists philosophically and wish we didn't have moderators still came forward and told him he was being unreasonable.

5. The first Zeitgeist film did contain a lot of stuff about conspiracy theories. But it was put together by Peter when he was in college as a music major. It was part of an artistic presentation he did and never really expected it to be anything special. The most controversial portion about religion was based on a book he read by an author named Acharya S. and was not his own research. But he was an atheist so he liked it and included it. Some people liked it and suggested he put it on the internet. He never expected it to get the following that it did. This said, when he made that film he had no idea what a Resource Based Economy was, or who Jacque Fresco was. He stumbled across the idea when he was looking for solutions to the perceived problems he saw in the world that he talked about in the film. Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project do not endorse the first film. And belief in conspiracy theories is by no means required to support the ideas Fresco presents. You will notice there are no conspiracy theories presented in the orientation guide. And while some members still watch the first Zeitgeist film it is not relevant to anything we spend time talking to people about.

6. With the advent of the internet there are a lot of cultural factors as far as to what the internet is still being ironed out. If you own a given website it is fully within your rights to set rules for how it will be used by other people. Just as you are within your rights to set rules for what topics you don't want talked about in your house. We run into new territory when people do not agree with things being said on a given website. But the analogy I came to realize applied better was this: Imagine you have decided to have a civil rights meeting at your house. A racist comes over and starts to disrupt the meeting and is very clearly not in support of the purpose of the meeting. So the owner of the home asks the person to leave. That is what goes on when we ask someone to leave our forum. It is meant to be a meeting place to talk to other people interested in the same topic. None of us would ever advocate censorship of dissent elsewhere. Just as it is the right of that racist to go to the street corner and protest our civil rights meeting if that is what he wants to do. Some of us have taken action against people who's "dissent" includes what amounts to little more then cyber-bullying and harassment. But that is done on an individual basis and not the organization as a whole.

In conclusion:

I would hope that the people who frequent this forum while being concerned about cults would also be concerned about the kind of damage you can do to well meaning organizations by labeling them cults too quickly. I would ask you to think very critically of what it is your reading about the Zeitgeist movement and be skeptical of the other side of the argument as well. Internet harassment of different organizations is becoming more and more common. And words like "cult" are extremely easy to abuse. You may not agree with the political views of the Zeitgeist movement but that does not make it a cult. And I hope you also realize that the internet is full of angry people making unfounded allegations towards one group or another that they feel has done them wrong, or just to amuse themselves. And that is what is going on here. I found out about this conversation because one of the people who does this just to amuse himself (including taking people's personal photos, their personal information and warping them to engage in schoolyard mocking behavior) had the link posted on one of his websites. In other words, they are hoping you will label us a cult not because anyone is being hurt or is in any danger, but because they would get the same sadistic pleasure they do when they photoshop pictures of members of our family to humiliate them out of this. You will notice if you study it further that most of these people are also just as concentrated on people who have moderated them on the forums.

[thezeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com]

This page is an example of the kind of childish cyber-bullying i am talking about. You will notice the endless mentioning of my weight, and very little in the way of intellectual content. At one point he posted a video of me and my three year old son playing together to insinuate my son was stupid. This is the kind of harassment I might add that is the reason we have anonymous moderators. This person spends a great deal of time in their life doing this. And chases us all around the internet doing things of a similar intellectual value. And it is people like him that is where this "cult" business started.

While I do feel we need to be concerned about people being hijacked into "cults". I would also caution people to be equally concerned that they might also be hijacked in the lynching of innocent organizations that just angered someone who is behaving petty who might use your efforts for their own amusement. I keep thinking of "the crucible" and how in Salem a girl who felt scorned used the Christian religion to get back at her "enemies".

V-RADIO review of "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward"

Review of Zeitgeist Addendum
By Neil Kiernan

The official showing here in Michigan is not until the 20th, but thanks to Peter I was able to watch the movie online for the purposes of this blog review. I had meant to do this earlier but a lot of things got in the way.

In any case, what follows is my review of the various chapters of this great film which is arguably Peter's best to date.

The film starts out with one of my favorite speeches that many of you may remember from “Capitalism Epic Fail”:

“You have to ask yourself: When you finally get the ultimate possession, when you’ve made the ultimate purchase,when you buy the ultimate home, when you have stored up financial security and climbed the ladder of success to the highest rung you can possibly climb it, and the thrill wears off–and it will wear off–then what?”
– John Ortberg

After this we get into some powerful imagery. Some time ago I read an article about this area in New York where the wealthy spend their time shopping for $3,000 hand bags while people are lying homeless on the street. They casually walk by these people with no interest at all in their predicament. I remember giving a link about this out to people in the movement. It was powerful to see Peter Joseph put that place to imagery, and he later mentions the handbags later in the film. I wanted to let people know that the imagery presented actually represents something real.

After some awesome animation about Jacque Fresco's early life and an epic quote that I will not spoil for you if you have not already seen the film, we launch right into the act of intellectually kicking the notion of “human nature” right in the balls. With interviews with multiple professionals who are experts in the field of human behavior and genetics including one from Stanford University, a comprehensive picture is painted of exactly how human behavior forms. And that it is entirely influenced by your environment going all the way back to the womb.

One of the experts in question quotes an article that describes the “genetic” argument and therefore the “human nature” argument is an explanation for the way things are that does not threaten the way things are. Another of the experts condemned the notion that violent behavior is inevitable.

At one point in the film it is even pointed out that someone's genetics themselves can change through life experiences. Generally obvious in victims of traumatic experiences, but it was obvious that this would also apply to positive experiences. This is not just in regards to behavior, it also had serious impact on the body as well. A fetus that is growing inside a mother who is being starved are found to develop a tendency to store all of their sugar and fat. I thought further about the implications of this, and it occurred to me that the obvious proof of this notion is clear in evolution. Particularly in the different races of humanity. Skin tone, and other various attributes of race were obvious adaptions to the physical environment of the people in question. Black people for example adapted darker skin to deal with the hotter weather in Africa.

This all clicked into my head in a powerful way. The reason people's “genetics” adjust to violent behavior when they come from violent backgrounds is their personal evolution preparing them to survive in a violent environment. If you are not exposed to violence you will have no need to develop that behavior to survive. You can see this obvious point when you consider that most of the best participants in violent sports such as Boxing or Football come from cultures where violence is more common or even encouraged. I realized finally that every aspect of who we are adapts to our environment. And a child who's parents are violent who is not exposed to violence while having genetics from those parents, is found not to develop violent behavior unless they also are abused.

This whole segment of the film also had a profound effect on my attitudes about parenting. I suddenly became very sensitive to any sort of environmental stimuli in the lives of my own children. And I urge parents to consider this as well.

All of the work that Peter did in this film does an excellent job of providing tangible and credible sources to the material in his “Where are we now?” and “Where are we going?” lectures he did previously, along with some of the information of the orientation guide that was not contained in “Zeitgeist Addendum”. And this was very vindicating for those of us who have been using those lectures as a source in our own debates.

In the next segment of the film we again look at the monetary system. Getting into the origin of the idea of “private property”. Further reflections point to the fact that the GDP of a country does not by any means reflect the quality of life of people living in that country. Further exposing the way we have been conditioned to think that being a consumer is directly linked to our happiness.

A really detailed analysis that is still very easy to listen to exposes a great deal about the falsehoods in the market system, and the inevitability of collapse of the money system. I got another happy moment when an article I had linked to Peter and Roxanne made it's way into the film as MIT did a study about how machines are in fact stealing jobs.

Further analyzing the direct effects of social-economic status of people and their health. With all the excuses other then the lack of equality directly impacting the health of people completely debunked.

The film then launches into what I would have to say is one of the best and most complete descriptions of a Resource Based Economy. Including how resources should be viewed, and a strong explanation of how it will work. Including a great description of how the circular city model works.

I won't get into deep descriptions of this, but there was some humor in the film that absolutely took me by surprise and caused me to laugh so hard I had to pause the film while I was watching it. It really takes someone who is a veteran of Peter's typical dark and mysterious storytelling style by surprise.

The ending was also powerful, and emotional. I have had multiple people tell me they were in tears because of it. But they are tears of joy.

In conclusion “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward” I think does an excellent job of finishing what “Zeitgeist: Addendum” started, while completely divorcing itself from any of the controversial aspects of the first “Zeitgeist” film. It did an excellent job of putting all the pieces together of Peter's various other lectures and other information that we have had to previously always have to link to anyone who had only seen “Zeitgeist: Addendum”.

Excellent film. I have heard that the internet release that has yet to come is going to be even longer. And I am looking forward to it.

Exposing the connection between Jerald Loughner and the Zeitgeist films.

Exposing the connection of the Zeitgeist Movement to Jared Loughner
By Neil Kiernan.

When terrible things happen, people do their best to make sense of them. We are desperate to find answers to the question of “Why?” So why did Jared Loughner buy a gun, and shoot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords? Why did he then turn and shoot everyone in sight including a nine year old child?
Recently Fox News interviewed someone named Zachary Osler who claims to of been friends with Loughner. And this is what brings us to talking about the following quote:

“I really think that this ‘Zeitgeist’ documentary had a profound impact upon Jared Loughner’s mindset and how he viewed the world that he lives in,” he said.”

Fox went on to elaborate that the Zeitgeist series of films railed on currency based economics. They also pointed out that this fellow had not spoken to Loughner in about two years. Meaning it's highly possible that Loughner had never seen “Zeitgeist: Addendum” and obviously never would have had the chance to see “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward” before these attacks. But even the first Zeitgeist film did not condone or suggest violence.

Initially when this tragedy went down the right-wing conservative “Tea Party” movement and their extreme views was blamed. There is one place where the Libertarian movement and Zeitgeist intersected. And that was the portion of the first film about the Federal Reserve. I myself learned about Zeitgeist because a lot of people who were supporters of Congressman Ron Paul suggested that part of the film to explain the Federal Reserve's origins. This portion of the film is also what put Zeitgeist on the government's radar, as we have seen law enforcement documents that link the first film to militia movements, and other organizations suspected of possible terrorist activity.

Since then, Peter Joseph went on to make the film “Zeitgeist Addendum” and now “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward” which both take a stance that is vastly different then the Free Market Economical ideas advocated by Libertarians, Right-wing Conservatives and the Tea Party movement. In fact both of these later films are highly critical of the Free Market ideology. And rightly so.

Anyone who has actually taken the time to watch the Zeitgeist film series knows that there is nothing in any of these movies that suggest violence as a means to achieve political ends. Point of fact the Venus Project which the Zeitgeist Movement is the activist arm of, openly condemns violence or coercion as a tool to reach any social goals. Not only because it is immoral and wrong to engage in such activity, but because it doesn't even work. Acts of violence are a great way to cast your views in a negative light. And that is exactly what is happening here. The difference is nobody in the Zeitgeist Movement, or affiliated in any way with the Venus Project committed these acts of violence. They are being falsely attributed to the Zeitgeist films and therefore the movement itself.

The Right-wing Conservative movement is now seizing an opportunity to save itself by pointing the finger squarely at the Zeitgeist Films. Rush Limbaugh in all of his bluster had this to say:

“It wasn't just Zeitgeist. " According to reports, Loughner's favorites included little-known conspiracy theory documentaries such as 'Zeitgeist' and 'Loose Change' as well as ... 'Donnie Darko' and 'A Scanner Darkly.'" Now, Zeitgeist is "a 2007 documentary that asserts Jesus Christ is a myth, that 9/11 was orchestrated by the government, and that bankers manipulate the international monetary system and the media in order to consolidate power."  So a conspiracy movie (put together by deranged leftists, it turns out) appears to be, according to his best friend, the most influential media of this young man's life.”

Limbaugh's other statements basically go to blame the whole thing on the “Left”. In typical fashion we watch as the people who are still duped into believing that being “Right” or “Left” actually means something point fingers at each other in desperation hoping to use tragedy to sway public opinion against their opposition. This of course goes both ways. The left was very quick to point the finger at the right as well. Which is what provoked Limbaugh's response in the first place.

So lets break this down a bit further. Does it even make sense that someone supposedly inspired by “Leftist Conspiracy nuts” would take a mind to shooting a Democratic Congresswoman? Considering the Democratic party is deeply rooted in the left? Obviously that's silly. In the recent 2010 election Congresswoman Giffords was a political target for the right-wing Tea Party movement. This is where the infamous “cross-hairs” pictures associated with Sarah Palin and her political action committee came from. On the website there were cross-hairs over a picture of Giffords along with other members of the Democratic Party in Congress. The Tea Party rallied in support of her opponent in the race, a Republican by the name of Jesse Kelly. So again, why would someone inspired by extreme leftist views decide to shoot her?

It is true that the first Zeitgeist film was very critical of the government. But that is not something that by any means is exclusive to the left. As I previously pointed out I found out about the first Zeitgeist film because of my previous deep involvement with the right. “Loose Change” is not what I would call “Left-Wing”. In fact the filmmakers work closely with Alex Jones who is quite obviously on the right, and advocate of Free Market ideology who frequently has Congressman Ron Paul and the new Senator Rand Paul on his show. “911 Truth” is not right or left. There are people on both sides who have this interest.

“Zeitgeist Addendum” is a film that is critical not only of governments but of corporations. And the monetary system itself. It goes after the bankers, and then it goes after money and the profit motive. It then goes on to suggest that war, corruption, poverty, etc are all caused directly or indirectly through the use of money. It strongly advises that people look into renewable energy sources, and ecologically sound practices. These messages are also conveyed through the Venus Project. First, lets take a look at the reported political views of one Jerald Loughner.

Jerald Loughner was really big on the Constitution.

In a video called “Introduction: Jared Loughner” he writes, “No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver!”

In his youtube video series he seems to go back and forth between the idea that we should bring back the gold standard, and the idea that people should just make their own currency. His videos are largely full of rambling. At no point has he ever suggested a Resource Based Economy as proposed by the Zeitgeist Movement.

The idea of returning to a gold standard is highly popular in circles on the right, Ron Paul and his followers have spoken highly of such an idea. The idea of getting rid of the Federal Reserve is very popular in that circle. A gold standard however is not at all suggested in “Zeitgeist Addendum” or “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward”. Neither is the idea of making one's own currency. We advocate using technology to evolve mankind beyond the need for currency or monetary exchange at all.

Fox News claimed it had seen a Department of Homeland Security memo which said Jared Lee Loughner, 22, had ties to American Renaissance, which is staunchly anti-immigration, anti-government and anti-Semitic. 

Arizona Republican Gabrielle Giffords, the target of the mass killing, is ‘the first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the US government. She was also opposite this group’s ideology when it came to immigration debate,’ according the DHS memo.

There is not a shred of anything racist, much less anti-Semitic in any of the Zeitgeist films. The Zeitgeist movement seeks a world that will eventually be without borders, and obviously has no issue therefore with immigration policy.

So taking all of this into account, lets look for a moment at what kind of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was. She was given a progressive (left) score of 41 out of 100 by “That's my Congress” due to her voting record. She was only given a Conservative rating of 11 out of 100. Again, this is not making a good case for the idea that some evil leftist documentary convinced someone to kill her.

Most of her voting record was fairly typical politician. She supported a lot of centrist views. But was really big on one issue that was very important to most members of the Zeitgeist Movement. Renewable energy.

She voted in favor of and sponsored several bills in support of renewable energy, and always praises efforts of various government agencies to switch to renewable energy. This is a statement from her website:

“I believe we need to move towards energy independence both for our national security and for the safety of our planet.  That is why my sixth vote in the 110th Congress in support of H.R. 6 was to repeal subsides for oil companies and invest those funds in renewable energy.
As a member of the House Committee on Science and Technology and its Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, I remain committed to making energy independence one of my top priorities in Congress. 
Ending America’s addiction to foreign oil, investing in renewable energy—especially solar—and achieving energy independence is the Apollo mission of our generation.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration states that Arizona’s large desert areas offer the highest solar power potential in America.  Arizona has over 300 days of sunshine every year, and, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, we have the potential to produce over 150% of our state’s energy demand with solar energy.
Solar energy is clean, safe and noiseless.  However, we currently only get less than 1% of our energy from solar power.  We should do much more to make Southern Arizona the “Solar-con Valley” of the nation.  I have introduced two bills in Congress to make this vision a reality and developed my Community Solar Energy Initiative—a four point plan to promote solar energy, including: legislation, education and outreach, accountability and transparency, and a solar energy advisory committee.   
  I am determined to lead America in energy independence.  I support:
a goal of 20% renewable energy use by 2020;
increasing fuel economy standards for our vehicles to save drivers money at the pump, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases;
increasing and extending federal tax credits for homeowners and businesses who install solar panels;
encouraging the development of fuels like ethanol and bio fuels, and
increasing research and development for renewable energy, such as solar, wind, and geothermal.
The road to energy independence will take cooperation and leadership at the local, state, and federal levels of government.  I am committed to working across the aisle to make it possible for our children and grandchildren enjoy a clean, healthy environment in our beautiful state of Arizona and across the nation.”

On that same website pictures of solar panels decorate the top margin.

I would point out that her support for renewable energy projects is directly in line with the principles of the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement. Would be nice if she would catch up issues like the Iraq War. Though she does support a reasonable time frame for withdrawal, but not an immediate one.

In short, I see no reason at all why anyone influenced by any of the Zeitgeist films would hate this woman. Let alone want to shoot her. It's pretty clear people on the right didn't like her politics.

So what motives do we have that are likely?

Well, for one Loughner was known as obsessed with lucid dreaming. And did a lot of hallucinogenic drugs. Friends of his stated that he used a lot of Salvia. And an ex-girlfriend recently interviewed stated he used hallucinogenic mushrooms. He was extremely into the idea that people could mold their own reality. And therefore showed a lot of signs of being out of touch with it. People stated that he had an interest in rocking the boat and pushing people's buttons. Supposedly this is why he listed Mein Kamph as one of his favorite books. He apparently had a lot of problems with authority in general. And like many people who have gone down that road he also seemed to feel that the authority of reality itself should not apply to him.

For this reason Jerald Loughner's crime can exist without a tangible motive. Meaning that whatever he may of dreamed up in his head could have been the cause. His shattered sense of reality could of produced any number of reasons that did not in any way have to adhere to logic. As Peter Joseph stated in his own statement on the matter, the real culprit here is the system that creates these people.

In conclusion, I am sure many of you have heard me say on my show and in my blogs that the right or left paradigm is a distraction. As people rush to point their fingers at the opposing side in situations like this the real root causes will be forever lost to most people. The right will continue to say it is the fault of the left. The left will continue to say it is the fault of the right. When the real culprit is the elephant in the room. The problems that both the right and the left ignore or leave out of their ideologies. And like many other situations just like this the truth of the matter will be buried underneath layer and layer of propaganda. Forever blinded by their need to gain rank over their opposition, reality of these situations is a casualty of war, the war for your mind.

In exposing this "connection" as the media has called it, we find no connection at all.

Public statement from Peter Joseph about the recent shootings in AZ.

PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM THE CREATOR OF THE “ZEITGEIST FILM SERIES”, PETER JOSEPH:

RE: THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ASSOCIATION CREATED BETWEEN “ZEITGEIST” AND THE TUCSON MURDERS.

It has come to my attention that various mainstream news organizations are beginning to run an association between my 2007 performance piece/film, “Zeitgeist: The Movie” and the tragic murders conducted by an extremely troubled young man in Tucson, Arizona. They are also slowly beginning to bleed the obvious line between my 2007 documentary work, my film series as a whole and The Zeitgeist Movement, which I am the founder. Frankly, I find this isolating, growing association tremendously irresponsible on the part of ABC, NBC and their affiliates - further reflecting the disingenuous nature of the America Media Establishment today.

It appears to have begun with a comment on NBC news referencing my film along with other “influential” films as well, such as Richard Kelly's film “Donnie Darko” and then spreading to ABC News where it singled out "Zeitgeist: The Movie" and the Series itself, stating:

“Osler pointed to an online documentary series called "Zeitgeist" as a possible influence on the man.
The series rails on currency-based economics.
"I really think that this 'Zeitgeist' documentary had a profound impact on Jared's mindset and how he viewed that world that he lives in," Osler said.”

abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-shooting-friend...ed/story?id=12597092

When we reflect on the history of seemingly random violence or other forms of highly offensive, irrational, aberrant behavior, we see a common pattern of reaction from the public and media in their attempt to explain such extreme acts. Rather than deeply examining the Bio-Psycho-Social nature of human social development and the vast spectrum of influences that create and morph each of us in unique and sometimes detrimental ways, they take the easy way out. The first thing they do is simply ignore all modern scientific, social understandings of what generates human motivation in both positive and negative regard, for to do so can only call into question the social system itself and hence the “zeitgeist” (meaning: spirit/intellectual climate of the time/culture) at large.

Generally speaking, it is historically accurate to say that the Mainstream Media simply isn't in the business of challenging the Status Quo. The limits of debate are firmly set. Virtually all ideas, persons or groups who have succeeded in changing the world for the better, later to be hailed as heros in the public mind, started out being condemned by those in the Mainstream Media who latch on to the dominant world view of the time. Even Martin Luther King Jr., a peaceful, loving, wonder of a man who contributed more to our social progress than likely any humanitarian in the US history, was followed by the CIA and publicly humiliated as a “Communist” which he even had to defend in front of a Congressional Committee. In fact, you can rest assured that if King were alive in the current paradigm today and seeking an equal form of justice - he would be given the name: “Terrorist”.

So, again, rather than taking the scientific view, the Mainstream Media often seeks out or implies one point of blame and runs with it. After all, it is much easier, presentable and more simplistic for the public to think that the troubling reality of seemingly random acts of mass murder is the result of a “singular influence” and hence the logic goes that if that one influence is removed, then the world will be back in balance. This gives the public a false resolve and position of focus in an otherwise ambiguous, complex world of social and biological influences. And as far as the scapegoat itself, very often any group, media or dataset that is counter-culture or even hints at wishing to challenge the status quo, is a magnet for such blame.

For example, musical groups of a counter-culture nature have been a favorite scapegoat for acts of murder/violence historically. In 1990, the rock band Judas Priest was actually taken to court for their “role” in the self-inflicted gunshot wounds in 1985 of 20-year old James Vance and 18-year old Raymond Belknap in Reno, Nevada. In 2008, the band Slipknot was publicly tied/blamed to a high-school murder in South Africa. Even the Beatles song “Helter-skelter” was associated to the murders incited by Charles Manson. It goes on and on... and, frankly, it's simply pathetic - avoiding the true nature of the problem - which is the Socio-Economic Environment itself.

Make no mistake: The Social System is to blame for the rampage of Jared Loughner – not some famous online documentary which is known as the most viewed documentary of all time in internet history. Are the other 200 million people who have seen the film also preparing for murder sprees? I think not.

In my new film: "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", I feature a prominent Harvard Criminal Psychologist by the name of Dr. James Gilligan who headed the Centre for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School for many years. In his life work of personally engaging the most dangerous, violent offenders the US system produces, he found some basic trends. The most common is the social issue of “shame”. Our socio-economic system inherently breeds social division and there is a natural demeaning of others generated as a result. It is a scientific fact that mass murderers and those who many just dismiss as “evil” today, are the product of years of being shamed, humiliated and demeaned. Their acts of violence is a reaction from these highly oppressive feelings and the real resolve to such acts can only come from removing the real source of such emotional hurt. You will notice that most other countries don't come close to the level of violence we see in the United States. The US is the capital of violence with 30-300 times more acts of violence than any other country. We have produced more serial killers in America than all other countries combined. Why? You will notice the Mainstream never asks this question.

If anyone would like to understand why more and more people in the modern world end up like Jared Loughner and why these patterns are only going to get worse as time goes on in this system, I suggest the book “Violence” by Harvard Criminal Psychologist Dr. Gilligan.

In conclusion, let it be stated that the Zeitgeist Film Series is about critical thought regarding various social issues which challenge many erroneous notions held as fact in the modern culture. It also explicitly promotes non-violence, human unity and prosperous human development based on truth and science.

Anyone who wishes to really understand the works can view them for free online at zeitgeistmovie.com and my new film, which will detail how a new, humane social system can work, will be in 315 theaters in 60 countries and 30 languages starting Jan 15th 2011. www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com

I am also in contact with my legal team and considering legal action against ABC.

-Peter Joseph