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-jared-loughner-speaks-motive-alleged/story?id=12597092
 
When we reflect on the history of seeming 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 sometime detrimental ways, they take the easy way out. The first thing do it 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 condemn 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 was 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 biologic 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 with 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. Why? We have produced more serial killers in America than all other countries combined. 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 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 315 theaters in 60 countries and 30 language starting Jan 15th 2011. www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com
 
Author: Peter Joseph

WikiLeaker Julian Assange celebrated his first day out on bail yesterday by vowing to keep spilling secrets like a sieve -- including insider information on banks around the world.

Assange also estimated there is an "80 percent" chance he'll be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges.

The Internet tattler, who is staying in a 10-bedroom mansion under house arrest for the next two months, boasted that he was ready to dump tens of thousands of additional documents that could "take down a bank or two."

"We have been attacked, primarily not by government . . . although things are heating up now, but by banks," he said.

"Banks from Dubai, banks from Switzerland, banks from the US, banks from the UK, so, yes of course, we are continuing to release material about banks," he told CNBC.

Assange, who yesterday said the media attention he has been getting made him "feel like Paris Hilton," earlier hinted that Bank of America would be a target.

While Assange believes he will be indicted in the United States, he insisted he couldn't be convicted of conspiring to steal diplomatic cables because he doesn't know who gave them to his group.

"Our technology means we don't know who is submitting us material," he told Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News.

Assange is charged with sexual assault in Sweden. He claims Swedish investigators have evidence that would exonerate him of charges he sexually attacked two women.

Source: nypost.com

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange speaks to the media outside Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, England, the home of his friend, journalist Vaughan Smith. Photo: Reuters

WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange says he fears the United States is getting ready to indict him, but insists the secret-spilling website will continue its work, despite what he has called a ''dirty tricks campaign''.

Mr Assange spoke on Friday from snowbound Ellingham Hall, a supporter's 10-bedroom country mansion close to the city of Norwich, about three hours' drive from London, where he is confined on bail as he fights Sweden's attempt to extradite him on allegations of rape and molestation.

Mr Assange insisted to television interviewers that he was being subjected to a smear campaign and ''what appears to be a secret grand jury investigation against me or our organisation''.

He has retained the services of an unnamed US law firm.

Mr Assange has repeatedly voiced concerns that American authorities are getting ready to press charges over WikiLeaks's continuing release of about 250,000 secret State Department cables, which have angered and embarrassed US officials worldwide.

US officials are investigating WikiLeaks and considering charges against Mr Assange, a case that, if pursued, could end up pitting the government's efforts to protect sensitive information against press and speech freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

A High Court judge freed Mr Assange on bail on Thursday on condition he live at the estate in eastern England, wear an electronic tag and report to police daily.

Mr Assange has described his bail conditions at the 18th-century mansion owned by former British Army officer Vaughan Smith as ''hi-tech house arrest''.

Although Mr Assange promised to focus on clearing his name, he said his first priority was to his work.

''Now that I am back to assist the directing of our ship, our work will proceed in a faster manner,'' he told the BBC.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

“They weren’t bad people. They let me eat, they let me sleep, they gave me my life”

— A hostage from Flight 847

One way of describing this site would be “strange beliefs people have and how they got them.” A curious footnote that doesn’t seem to fit in nicely on any of the other pages is a phenomenon known as the Stockholm Syndrome.

In the summer of 1973, four hostages were taken in a botched bank robbery at Kreditbanken in Stockholm, Sweden. At the end of their captivity, six days later, they actively resisted rescue. They refused to testify against their captors, raised money for their legal defense, and according to some reports one of the hostages eventually became engaged to one of her jailed captors.

This struck some folks as weird, and as a way of coping with this uneasiness, as they started seeing more examples they named this class of strange behavior the “Stockholm Syndrome.”

Notorious in the United States is the case of Patty Hearst, who after being kidnapped and tortured by the Symbionese Liberation Army, took up arms and joined their cause, taking on the nom de guerre of “Tania” and helping the SLA rob banks.

The Stockholm Syndrome comes into play when a captive cannot escape and is isolated and threatened with death, but is shown token acts of kindness by the captor. It typically takes about three or four days for the psychological shift to take hold.

A strategy of trying to keep your captor happy in order to stay alive becomes an obsessive identification with the likes and dislikes of the captor which has the result of warping your own psyche in such a way that you come to sympathize with your tormenter!

The syndrome explains what happens in hostage-taking situations, but can also be used to understand the behavior of battered spouses, members of religious cults, Holocaust victims, household pets, and perhaps even users of Internet Explorer. I think it may also help explain the popularity of government and of the mass institutionalization of young people.

Upon reviewing the actual events, it seems that much of the confusion centers around Clark Olafsson’s involvement. What really happened? A mentally disturbed individual (Olsson) tries to hold-up a bank, fails, and ends up taking four hostages. Olsson then tells the police that he wants his friend (Olafsson) to join him, and so, in the interest of a peaceful resolution, Clark agrees to become the second “captor.”

The original supposed victim of “Stockholm Syndrome” is Kristin Ehnemark, who appears to have kept her head while managing, with Olafsson’s assistance, to keep Olsson and an army of trigger-happy police from an all-out fire fight.

Here lies the source of the “syndrome.” Olafsson was initially arrested and convicted. Ehnemark was said to be mentally disturbed for trying to defend him. The idea that two calm, unarmed people were more effective than a highly trained and lethally outfitted police force was intolerable to 1970’s sensibilities.

Many people still have the event hopelessly confused with the terrorist kidnappings of the 1972 Munich Olympics (source of the misnomer, “Helsinki Syndrome”). The botched bank robbery is simply too mundane to be the source of such an exotic explanation, which really seems to have been more of an attack on the idea of peaceful resolution tactics, particularly when applied to mentally disturbed perpetrators (as if murderers, rapists and armed robbers were not severely dysfunctional).

As to whether Stockholm Syndrome applies to customers of abusive service providers (Microsoft, AOL, Blockbuster Video, etc.), I think this is much more akin to the behavior of a battered spouse. In order to justfy bad choices, people will often rationalize and defend their tormentors, even to the extent of projecting the same aspects onto other people’s spouses and providers: “Her husband really is mean to her, and her Mac crashes just as often as my PC.”

I have noticed that people usually love their new cars for at least a year, no matter what kind of lemon they’ve bought: “Yeah, my Saturn’s been in the shop a few times, but I still believe in the concept. By the way, have you seen my new Gateway PC?”

— MC

Source: sniggle.net

 Ben Stansall/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images - The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was released on bail on Thursday by the High Court in London.

 Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

- Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

- The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

- Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

- Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

- Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

- Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.

Source: huffingtonpost.com

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, pictured through the heavily tinted windows of a police vehicle as he arrives at Westminster magistrates court in London, on 14 December 2010. Photograph: Carl Court/AFP/Getty Images

5.44pm: Just to recap: Assange will remain in prison, at least until the appeal is heard. That seems to be the end of the excitement and confusion – for today at least. I'm off home. Thanks for all your comments.

5.36pm: Speaking again outside the court, Stephens says the Swedes will not abide by the umpire's decision. "They [the Swedish authorities] clearly will not spare any expense to keep Mr Assange in jail," he added.

"This is really turning in to a show trial. We will be in court in the next 48 hours, they haven't given us the courtesy to say when. It is an unfortunate state of affairs ... but given their history of persecuting of Mr Assange, it is perhaps not surprising."

Asked how Assange had taken the decision, Stephens said he was phlegmatic.

5.29pm: "I understand," Assange said, Sam Jones has tweeted.

5.28pm: The appeal will take place at the high court, BBC news reports.

5.26pm: Forget the last half an hour – the decision will be challenged by the Swedish authorities. There's going to be an appeal within 48 hours, Sam reports.

5.25pm: Assange is back in court, Sam Jones reports. "Stephens has passed his client a note. Discussion with QC, too," he tweets.

5.22pm: Sam Jones is tweeting from the court. You can read his updates here or on the right-hand side of the blog.

5.20pm: Confusion reigns outside the court. We had heard, via reporters briefed by Assange's lawyers, that the Swedish authorities would not appeal – but that is yet to be confirmed. "There's been confusion in the passing of messages to me," Stephens said.

They are all back in the court now. More Twitter court reporting to come?

5.15pm: Somewhere amid the confusion, Assange's mother, Christine, appeared outside the court and said she was "very very happy".

5.12pm: Stephens says the court will meet again at 5.15pm. At that point, the Swedish authorities will make it clear whether they will launch an appeal.

5.06pm: Stephens said it could take several days to raise the cash, but added: "Mr Assange believes in British justice, and he has been encouraged in that today."

4.59pm: More from Stephens about Assange's prospects of freedom:

Source: guardian.co.uk

"From what I have read, it is clear that the women are lying and that they had an agenda when they went to the police, which had nothing to do with a crime having taken place. It was, I believe, more about jealousy and disappointment on their part. I can prove that at least one of them had very big expectations for something to happen with Julian."

He has asked for the Swedish prosecutor's permission to disclose the evidence: "If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade," he said. "If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point. But at the moment I'm bound by the rules of the Swedish legal system, which say that the information can only be used as evidence in this country. For me to do otherwise would lead to me being disbarred."

Mr Hurtig added that he was ready to fly to London and present the evidence at the court hearing this Tuesday, if he was given permission. "That said, I’m convinced that as soon as the case is heard in Sweden it will be thrown out," he added.

You can read the full interview here.

Also, please do not miss Australian lawyer Peter Kemp's new post on the Swedish law and its implications in this case: Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse, But...., and part one of his analysis of the extradition case: Extradition Part 1.