Response to Charles Eisenstein's Critique of THRIVE
Charles Eisenstein, the author of Sacred Economics, has written an article,"Synchronicity, Myth and the New World Order", and a critique of THRIVE: What on Earth Will It Take?, that have engendered much discussion. I welcome this opportunity to have a broad and public conversation to look more deeply into some very important issues that he and my film THRIVE raise.
I took the time to read Charles' book in depth, and though I disagree with much of what Charles proposes, I think his work has important offerings. My intention is that this on-going conversation further our mutual quest for core ethics, truth and effectiveness in transitioning to a world where all can thrive.
Correcting Some Innaccuracies
Before diving into the philosophical and strategic discussion, I want to clear up some initial inaccuracies in the review of THRIVE. The title of the review ("THRIVE: The Story is Wrong but the Spirit is Right") immediately casts our discussion into the polarization of right and wrong. I recommend some different distinctions going forward: 1) more or less USEFUL, and 2) ETHICAL or NON-ETHICAL.
Charles' assumption that I was invoking (p.3) and trying to wage a "war against EVIL" (p. 1) is contrary to the tone and claims in THRIVE. I do not believe there is some separate force in the Universe called EVIL. Perhaps he confused this with his own observation in his conspiracy article, "Evil and its expression as The New World Order...has like all other things its place in the world." (P. 15) I do observe that some people, in certain mental/emotional conditions and self-justified by certain worldviews and institutions, do intentionally mean and destructive ("sinister") things to others. I am very interested in protecting life by neutralizing the aggression of those individuals and transforming the systems and obsoleting the agendas of which they are a part.
Next, I want to be clear that THRIVE is not advocating or
counting on some sort of "Technological
Utopianism."
Charles claims:
"...the film's contention that the main reason for the misery of the Third World masses is lack of access to energy, and that unlimited clean energy would be a near-panacea for humanity's problems and would usher in an era of abundance. The story here - call it "technological utopianism" - is that technology is going to rescue us, create a new and better world, and solve our problems."
I believe that having cheap, clean and safe access to energy all over the planet for would be a huge boost economically, ecologically and would provide useful evidence for a new paradigm of universal abundance. It supplements, but does not replace shifts in consciousness as well as financial and other systems. Access to energy and means for healthy commerce (i.e. an honest money system) are currently bottlenecks through which people can be impoverished and forced to put all their attention on subsistence instead of thriving. Thrivemovement.com goes into the myriad issues that accompany the liberated global access to energy and economic solvency. We emphasize the core transformation of energy and commerce systems because without that other changes are insufficient.
Though Charles writes in his book that "free energy technologies have been in existence for at least a century," (SE, p.443), in his THRIVE review he contradicts himself by taking a swipe at our credibility in saying, "I won't consider here the scientific plausibility of such technology, which appears to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
Let me clarify that first, a toroidal technology, like an atom, a human or a galaxy is an open system and the 2nd Law applies to closed systems. It's not the motion of the machine which is perpetual, (all matter wears down) it's the source of energy! Second, what is the explanation for the fact that these inventors are getting raided, shut down, threatened and sometimes killed if they are actually all charlatans? It's documented that the US Government has denied and confiscated over 3000 patent applications for alternative energy devices. Doesn't it make sense that they might actually know something about how and which devices actually work?
In his book, Charles goes so far as to excuse J.P. Morgan's suppression of Nikola Tesla's radiant energy tower by writing "Perhaps Morgan was even on some level cognizant that humanity was not ready for Tesla's gift." (Sacred Economics, p. 443).
Wow. I wonder how all the people suffering from lack of energy and all the species rendered extinct in the course of dirty energy proliferation feel about that.
Eisenstein refers to THRIVE having attracted a "cult following." This strange and inaccurate term, of course, has been seized upon and often repeated by government trolls and would-be debunkers to try to undermine the credibility of the thrive movement. More accurately, the movie has been seen by over a million people all over the world in its first month with over 95% rave approval and appreciation for providing coherent, fact-based information and grounded solution strategies. I request that intelligent critical thinkers who appreciate THRIVE not be dismissed as cult followers. There is no cult here and the people finding value in this critical information deserve more respect.
Charles has obviously done a lot of research for his book. I especially appreciate his detailed look into the history of money, alternative currencies, localization and his efforts to come up with some out-of-the-box thinking about what approaches might restore healthy lives and ecologies. It's well worth the $16 he charges for it on Amazon - especially for its value in triggering critical thinking and exploratory interchanges just like this one.
My two biggest concerns about the Eisenstein perspective are that:
a) It can serve to lull people back to sleep and provide the temporary comfort of denial, while distracting from what is really going on...and
b) Many of its proposals, though sounding good at first blush, are ultimately based on government intervention backed by threats of violence - rather than the true protection of the rights of each individual.
Conspiracy
Although Eisenstein acknowledges on page 13 of his book that a totalitarian one world government seems to be approaching, he then goes on (pages 3,5,8,9,14,91) to undermine others from taking it any more seriously than to work on our egos and remember our oneness. An example:
"What if our emotions and beliefs actually attract experiential data that fits them...so that it looks like a conspiracy even if there are no conspirators?" (NWO, p.8)
No conspirators? People conspiring to accomplish certain goals is undeniable- the question is at what scale and to what end. Check out this site. I am personally encouraged to know that what we experience as systems-wide failure is not random or just the cruelty and incompetence of all of humanity, but instead the consequence of our unwitting participation in an agenda that we have the power to obsolete through non-violent non-participation.
Belief in conspiracy theories is a ...victim state. (NWO, p.5)
If we ignore the agenda for domination, we will end up experiencing a whole new level of meaning to the term "victim state."
In one of his most unlikely conclusions, Charles states:
"A nefarious power, inimical to human well-being, manipulates the course of human events from behind the scenes, seeking the total control of every human being. Rather than an evil Illuminati, could that power be money? Could it be that it is rather the money system that controls the global elite?"
This is like saying the gun was guilty of the murder. Are the banking elite unaware of the unfair advantage the money scam gives them? They have the power to remedy it if it is not their intention. Our corrupt money system did not create itself, nor will it get rid of itself without dedicated effort.
"Give me control of a nation's money system and I care not who creates the laws." --Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world." --Henry Kissinger, 1973
Charles writes that..."conspiracy theories eventually bring most people to a kind of despair, even paralysis..." (NWO, p.14)
Gratefully, this is not the reaction we are getting to THRIVE. Viewers report that the tone, the coherence, the honoring of nature and the human spirit, and especially the in-depth solutions, provide a sense of motivation, traction and viable things to do with the energy that arises. Many people feel validated in their perception and more hopeful than ever now that we have thrivemovement.com through which to share vital information within a context of hope and activism.
He says: "The conspirators are not others, they are we, you and I and everyone..."
This is an example of where I think it is vital to remember our unification, while simultaneously recognizing our individual distinction. Why do we take care to avoid a dangerous street if we are walking alone at night? Some people are desperate and will harm others. That is true on small and large scales and pretending otherwise is dangerous.
Solutions
When I search for viable solutions being suggested by Eisenstein's "sacred" approach, unfortunately a great number of them seem to play directly into the hands of the agenda for global control and undermine the individual's rights and ability to take action.
Non-Action
Charles writes that:
"The dark energies have nearly run their course... Though some might try to hold onto it a little longer, sooner or later they will accept that their time is over, and they will bow out of service..." (NWO, p.15)
What is the evidence for this? I do not see any indication that they are going to go away on their own. In my experience, it always comes down to individuals waking up, speaking up and taking action if we are going to expose and transcend tyranny.
Choose a Belief that Feels Good
"I suggest we choose a belief, and the corresponding psychological state accompanying it...consider how each belief-state feels, what it implies about the world, about human beings, and about oneself." (NWO, p. 12)
How about logic and observation? How about going through the uncomfortable feelings that may come up around facts we wish weren't true? Shall we pretend no one is starving because it doesn't feel good to acknowledge it? I believe we can be empowered by feeling the discomfort - as anyone who has successfully navigated grief or rage can attest to. On the other side we feel the strength of knowing we are not victims and that we have the right to control our own lives, as long as we do no harm to others.
No Principles
"I, however, don't live by principles, nor do I recommend it."(NWO, p. 398)
I believe that in order for people to live without rulers dominating their actions, we need clear rules instead - based on the core principle of non-violation - that no one has the right to violate another person or their property except in true self-defense.
Just for the record, there are numerous principles Eisenstein recommends. Some of them follow.
"To charge a fee for service, or even for material good, violates the spirit of the Gift." (SE, p. 401)
Impracticality
"The key to right livelihood is to live off gifts." (SE, p. 397)
"Musicians, artists, prostitutes, healers, counselors, and teachers all offer gifts that are debased when we assign them a price...the only honorable way to offer it is as a gift." (SE - 412)
Theft
"Most corporations and business owners are not ready to step into a gift-based business mode. That's OK - you can give then a little push! Simply implement it unilaterally by "stealing" their products, for example by illegally downloading or copying digital content like songs, movies, software, and so on." (SE, p. 411)
To imagine that people's lives are going to be restored by others stealing from them is dangerously incomplete and self-serving in its logic. If you want to gift your goods then gift them. But to impose your choice not to on the creator of them is violation, and exactly what gives you the right to impose that violation?
Though Charles has written, "When we convert ‘have to' into ‘want to' we are free," (SE, p. 358), many of his proposals seem to be ultimately based on force.
"The state could determine by fiat who gets credit..." (SE, p. 456)
And we have confidence in this why? Every State in history has grown to violate its people. I believe people have the right to determine their own systems of exchange and that those that serve the real needs will prevail without State imposition or subsidy.
Fractional Reserve
Charles states: In a fractional reserve system, one way to view what happens is that banks are not creating new money at all, but simply allowing existing money to be in two places at once. (SE, p. 454)
This notion has reached its ludicrous exposure in so-called "naked short sales" where up to 300 people have been documented to be claiming to own the same shares of stock. It has been used by investment banks to manipulate markets to the disastrous destruction of many individual's financial well-being.
He then says: "Is the money in your savings account "really there" or not? That is the question that bothers "real money" advocates, but ultimately it is not a useful question." (SE, p.455)
"In a credit system, most of the credit should go to those who will put it to good use."
(Who decides what "good" is? To prevent abortion? To support it?)
He goes on to say, "The "social function" I describe doesn't dictate to whom it goes; it merely sets the conditions so that it will be most likely to go to a certain area that represents the social consensus of good use. This function can be adjusted."(SE, p.456)
By whom? - The enlightened? Property is based fundamentally on our right to own ourselves, our bodies...and then the fruits of our labor. As soon as you eliminate property and give authority to a state, much less control over a fiat credit system, you have all the key historical ingredients for tyranny. I assert that the fundamental unit of wholeness at the human level is each individual, not the "social consensus." It is of grave concern to me that Charles writes that the Marxist solution "does not reach deeply enough." (SE, p. 185) If there is no valid property, do you endorse violating a person's body? How about their home, their bank account, their income? Where exactly would you draw the line? What rights do you think an individual should be free to defend?
"We are using money to destroy money...
The time for the mindset of wealth preservation is over. Wealth preservation brings to mind a swarm of rats, each clamoring over the others to reach the top of the mast of a ship that is sinking."
The desire to "kill" money, I believe, is better channeled into having an honest money system with no lending of money one doesn't have, no printing of money that doesn't correspond to value. It is about sound, honest and accurate money (medium of exchange) rather than, in effect, raiding someone's investments, grain silo, or rainy day savings to re-distribute it against their will. This coercive approach is, I believe, based on the very notions of scarcity and fear that Charles is trying to overcome and ignores the creative capacity of humans to innovate how to do more with less (lighter building materials, more capable shrinking computers, zero-point energy devices, robotics, virtual communication, electric cars...) In agrarian societies of old, women managed banks based on honest interest repayable with the fruits of the harvest - fruits, grains, and offspring - tapping the creativity of nature. The Sumerian word for interest meant "calf." (Web of Debt, Ellen Brown, p. 58)
Preservation of Existing Financial Structure
Charles says: "Perhaps most importantly, a credit-based system can accommodate all of the proposals of this book without the revolutionary destruction of the existing financial infrastructure and rebuilding of a new one." (SE p. 457)
I suggest the key word is voluntary. It is not what kind of monetary system is the best for some to impose, but how do we preserve the freedom to have people be able to try different currencies, different kind of banks, different kinds of insurance and dispute resolution organizations so that the ones that are most trustworthy rise to the surface, and without state subsidies or bailouts, the less sound ones disappear. Is a "sacred economy" one where a few individuals who consider themselves wiser than the rest centralize control and try to manage markets, prices and money supplies, or is it the on-going flow of free individuals exchanging by reciprocal and mutual agreement?
Non-Aggression Principle
On page 78 of Sacred Economics is a dangerously misunderstood interpretation of liberty. It implies that the liberty perspective is somehow "dependent on impersonal and coercive institutions that govern from afar." My research leads to exactly the opposite conclusion. I recommend to Eisenstein that he read more carefully the one person in his bibliography, Hans Hoppe, who does not write in favor of state controlled economics, and also to explore Stefan Molyneux, who will show countless viable alternatives to government that foster just and thriving community.
Charles has written, "Ultimately, I envision decentralized, self-organizing, emergent, peer-to-peer, ecologically integrated expressions of political will." (SE, p. 187) Here is an ethical level on which I believe we can all meet. I look forward to potential future collaboration in such an endeavor.
Conclusion
Consciousness growth is not a substitute for activism. I think that for us to be free and thrive, they need to be able to proceed hand in hand. If you want to focus on the meta-psychology, that is important. There is no reason for that to impede or distract those who are waking up and standing up to take highly-leveraged, non-violent action.
Tweet
- 12-13-11
- Foster Gamble's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
I absolutely agree and when
I absolutely agree and when I read the following from Charles...
"Most corporations and business owners are not ready to step into a gift-based business mode. That's OK - you can give then a little push! Simply implement it unilaterally by "stealing" their products, for example by illegally downloading or copying digital content like songs, movies, software, and so on." (SE, p. 411)"
...I very nearly fell out of my seat. I've made my meager living for the last 10 years from a very small, niche online software related business which wholly supports myself, my wife and 2 children. A large segment of online economies are not driven by corporations but by small business.
I'm as enlightened as the next guy but to tell people to steal my work (which they do anyway) in order to invoke a gift based economy, is literally ripping food from my children's mouths. My kids can't eat crafts and compliments.
I need every cent I can get to build my greenhouse and other self-sustaining and cost saving measures before any kind of collapse occurs.
Entitlement does not equal FREE. Without value, everything we do, the hours we toil to provide for our families loses its worth and motivation becomes a real issue. And unless we're living in a robotic utopia where everything is automatically provided for us, we better be ready to get our hands dirty, to respect and value the work of others. That's part of accepting responsibility for our new collective path forward. This isn't going to be an easy shift gang.
Gift does not equal "free"
I do not advocate in my book or any of my writings that people eschew money. The quote cited is taken out of context.
Charles
Yes / No
As for "conspiracy" an oft overused word these days, let's not forget that people are complicit to their own slavery through ignorance. In addition, the development of human civilization has allowed for the flourishing of sociopathic institutions and a collective psychosis. On the subject of Charles' advocacy of "Non-Action", you have taken his quote out of context, he is speaking mythically if you read the whole paragraph of his article. Likewise, the second complaint is overlooking the intention of Charles to cultivate a new narrative. You also seem to harbour much criticism behind the principles of gift economies despite it being the dominant form of social agreement for most of human history. That doesn't make it impractical, but rather illustrates the success of altruism. It is our highly commoditized World that discourages and debases gifting. I agree regarding the quote on theft, yet many corporations are opening up due to the advantages of the open and frictionless business model. A few of your other concerns seem to pick at the ambiguity in Charles' wording, but nonetheless I find myself in more agreement with you later points. Thanks.
Motivation NOT money is the issue...
I have been researching
Some responses
I am flattered that Foster Gamble has taken the time to read my work. I would rather not dwell too much on our differences, and have no desire to undermine Thrive, which I think is a valuable film. However, I would like to clear up some misconceptions that may have arisen about my views.
Evil: The point isn't about the metaphysical status of evil, but more practically on where to place the ultimate blame for the planet's predicament. Is it on an elite group of bad people who have created a monstrous system of enslavement, and who consciously perpetuate that system for their own aggrandizement? Or is it on the system itself, that has emerged without conscious human design? Each of these answers implies different strategies and solutions. My view is that the elites are puppets of a system, an ideology – indeed, a mythology – of which they are barely conscious. In my books I name it “Separation”. It emerged over tens of thousands of years, intensified in the last few thousand, and reached its zenith in the scientific era. Embedded as we are in a sense-of-self that is separate, we enact the various behaviors that are preventing life on earth from thriving. The Ascent of Humanity draws it out in detail, explaining how all of the institutions of civilization – science, medicine, education, money, religion, law, etc. – arise from separation, embody separation, and perpetuate separation. The discrete and separate self, marooned in a universe that is other, of course seeks to maximize its own control and domination over everything else. The film implies that the root of the problem is the people who are in control. But I think the system has created such people. They are symptoms and not causes.
Free energy technology: I think Foster misunderstood my comment that it appears to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That statement was not a “swipe at [his] credibility.” I used the word “appears” on purpose (whereas most debunkers would say simply that it violates the Second Law) because I agree with Foster that these technologies do not in fact violate the Second Law at all, for precisely the reason Foster adduces. That said, I think that the Second Law itself needs further scrutiny. It plays into the mythology that I call “ascent” – that humanity must struggle against nature and is destined to triumph over it – in that it assumes a natural tendency in the universe toward entropy, against which we struggle to maintain order. Order versus chaos. But as I am sure Foster would agree, we live in a universe of self-organizing systems. This is part of the fundamental abundance of being. It is not order versus chaos – it is, as Ilya Prigogine put it, order out of chaos. The universe is not our opponent. It is here where I resonate most strongly with the film, for it too is informed by a deep faith in that fundamental abundance – that the nature of life is to thrive.
A quick word of clarification on the following: “In his book, Charles goes so far as to excuse J.P. Morgan’s suppression of Nikola Tesla’s radiant energy tower by writing 'Perhaps Morgan was even on some level cognizant that humanity was not ready for Tesla’s gift.'” This sentence was playful speculation on what might have been an unconscious (hence “on some level”) motive in Morgan. The context surrounding the quote makes it clear that I believe Morgan's conscious motive for canceling Tesla's project was that he saw no way to profit from it. But given that each new source of greater and greater energy was used first for war (witness the first use of atomic energy!), perhaps it was for the best that Tesla's discoveries were not unleashed before human consciousness had reached a level where we won't use the unlimited energy to kill each other.
I will ignore Foster's criticism of my book that it will lull people into complacency or that it advocates government intervention backed by force to solve our problems. I think the book itself answers those objections.
This paragraph gets to the crux of our disagreement:
Charles: “A nefarious power, inimical to human well-being, manipulates the course of human events from behind the scenes, seeking the total control of every human being. Rather than an evil Illuminati, could that power be money? Could it be that it is rather the money system that controls the global elite?”
Foster: This is like saying the gun was guilty of the murder. Are the banking elite unaware of the unfair advantage the money scam gives them? They have the power to remedy it if it is not their intention. Our corrupt money system did not create itself, nor will it get rid of itself without dedicated effort.
A gun is different from an ideology. I would ask the reader, have you ever been in an organization that seems to have a “life of its own” – perhaps even to the extent in which the organization does things that not a single of its members really believes in? I think that in an important sense, our money system did create itself, or to be more precise, that it is what in non-linear dynamics is called an emergent phenomenon. In a complex, non-linear system, sensitive dependence on initial conditions (the “butterfly effect”) ensures that no one can predict the eventual consequences of any choice. For example, as David Graeber describes in his magnificent, scholarly book, Debt: The First 5000 Years, our money system arose in large part from early forms of money that were used exclusively for social purposes such as marriage gifts, blood money, and so forth, and never for commerce. Who could have predicted that the psychodynamics of the social debts of Middle-Eastern herders five thousand years ago would, when married to temple accounting systems from Sumer, result in the kind of debt-based slavery that has taken over the world? Was this all a conscious master plot? Is there really an elite with such superhuman foresight, competence, and such evil intentions?
Does the financial elite really have the power to remedy the sickness built into the money system? My impression is that they see the system as immutable, nearly a law of nature, and they respond with increasing panic to each new, unpredictable symptom of the system's breakdown. They are thralls of an ideology that, far from being cynically conceived of whole cloth by an all-knowing cabal of controllers, has emerged over time through an interplay of complicated social, ideological, economic, and political forces. Perfectly good-hearted, intelligent people can believe in the basic rightness, or at least the inevitability, of the current money system.
Most of the rest of Foster's response targets my views in general, and not specifically my review of Thrive. As to charges that I advocate non-action or eschew logic and empirical observation, I will let my writings speak for themselves. These quotes have been taken out of context and given interpretations that are in many cases caricatures of my intended points. They read like some kind of cartoon version of my thesis. But nowhere do I say, as these disembedded quotes imply, that I think injustice needn't be confronted, or that we can trust centralized authority to solve our problems, or that we can blithely ignore dangerous people. As for Foster's criticisms of my views of money, property, fractional reserve banking, fiat currencies, and credit, there is certainly room for informed debate about these issues, but I doubt my thesis can be refuted on trivial grounds. I'll mention just one of the complexities: private property is not, as Foster suggests, a binary alternative to state authority. In fact, property is always and everywhere a social and political convention, and historically many of the great expansions of state authority came via the extension of property rights – and therefore state enforcement of those rights – into new territory. The Enclosure Acts of England come to mind.
Well, fortunately both the film and the book are available for anyone to make up their own mind!
Charles
Argumentaion Over Principle Itself
Whether good and evil is of apparent objective principle, and/or inherent subjective revelation ... well the industrial -to - information age phantasmagoria has certainly captured everyones attention, as every democratic libertarian forever had the right to "liberty or death" fight .. lest compromise ...
In other words it is only on the momentum of the masses themselves that such systems could grow and or flourish., as there have been voices of protest at every step of such development.
For so many the monetary system of credit and interest was not such a bad idea ... everyone participated even if conceived behind closed doors and constantly manipulated through think tank analysis ...
Yet on the other hand "a whole generation" began to awaken in the 50-60's to it all being a manipulative dream of sorts ... certainly not organic reality ... similar to how all "usury" was considered since time immemorial to be against the spirit of progressive integration itself .. as opposed to a mere novel ideology up for the taking.
They {financial elite - example} may be trying to consciously dissolve the middle class, but in the 60's we were hoping to dissolve it ourselves by dropping out and living closer to the earth {Eden}
When 400,000 people show up for a cultural get together without commercial advertising {the highest estimates for Woodstock turn out was 50,000} well there is more in the air than just fun and games.
When children cry most concerned parents listen and console and solve the problems. When a whole generation began to wake up to the limitations of such materialistic phantasmagoria they were not only discouraged but aggressed against ... such being the inertia of such a mentality ... whether the evil is subjective or objective really becomes moot ... as one is personally responsible, individually or collectively either way.
There is likely not one human being alive confused between the exploitative and the integrative once all the facts have been exposed ... the only evil is in not sharing in the potential of what ever is possible .. hence "special interest" and the associated sciences of propagational advertising and lobbying.
What unified indigenous culture indulges in such "speculative reality" ..
... outside of the organic experience of "wellness" what else is really satisfying and/or motivating.
Does lack of such inherent satisfaction cause such speculative ideology, or does such speculative ideology cause such dissatisfaction in the world population, as is presently seen.
Or is it a cosmic swinging pendulum of both polar proprensities ... between the objective and the subjective .. the free will and the destined ... the organic and the synthetic ... the synergistic and the mechanistic ... the dharma and the karma ...
Maybe, just maybe all such associative understandings are but part of a more total awakening as a collective to a more expanded view of the overall picture of a progressive and integrated global humanity going through it's own growing pains {including all of us .. of both pious and impious polar principles ... good and evil fruits of judgement and /or temptation in relation to overall holistic-holy synergy} ... from every angle of viewpoint what else can one really say.
"Wonder is what Mystery would do if it was conscious" ...
"Wandering is for every other possibility"
Pippalayana Muni
About Charles Eisenstein - Conspiracy - Hope
First of all I am a little “Wayne Dyer ish” type of thinker in that there are no ultimate loosers, at least that is the hope. It is not trying to be goody goody for all to like me, but trying to hope there is more intelligence to this Universe to what we can manage to see now.
I think Charles Eisenstein's book Ascent of Humanity (which I read online, but will also buy) is a monumental work and beautiful representation of the depth of the human heart and how hard we are trying to figure this out. In essence Charles says he will not feel complete unless everyone and everything makes it to a new level of reality. The same is for me.
Conspiracy: Yes there is one and only one true conspiracy that I belief in and it is the conspiracy of this “System” or “Universe” to get itself (or us) were it intends to go, and that is to a full awakening of a one Universal mind. To answer its own question of “who Am I and what Am I” it has to go thru a process of gaining identity and it is gaining identity thru a systematic - algorithmic trial of every possible test or variable of conscious experience both individual and group. But it is still only one mind looking at itself.
X - Individual is bad, X individual did this and should be eliminated or sent to the purgatory of human history for eternity. My question is – what part of that person is bad and should be sent to the purgatory. Is it the child, is it the 15 year old, is it the state before he/she ever had that bad idea. Should we look at the photos of X individual at age 5 with disgust because of what he did at age 40.
Conspiracy: We did not take part on the decisions to create anything at all of the present Universe, from the planets, the plants to the human appearance and to the appearance of the animals and rules of emotion. It was ALL created for us. To think that by our will we will change this “conspiracy” for the better so we will take off and get it done. Let me say that I can not even be sure if I am going to have my next heart beat to keep me alive. Sure there are tons of stories of person's that have changed the path of history with there determination – so it becomes a story, another story to be experience by consciousness. But the external unseen variables that let that happen are immense, weather, accidents, health, not to mention the weather, accidents, health that affected the “others” in the “revolution”. Washington avoided a British defeat in one of his battles because of inclement weather that did not favored the British.
If there is true fundamental conspiracy then there will always be a fundamental conspiracy. The next millennium with have its new power people, money people and land people. The present counter- conspirators of today will be seen as the new conspirators of tomorrow. Even Charles and myself will be the new conspirators.
Conspiracy and the people at “high places” and the ones who “control us”. He-mm, how much money do you have to have to be a conspirator? It seems Oprah ( who I respect tremendously) got away from the conspirators or became a conspirator herself, or maybe those high level conspirator are not doing such a good job from letting others have money. Steve Jobs going from a garage to a multi- billionaire company. How many millionaire baseball players are there, How many millionaire and billionaire immigrant are there. You can say that those Mega conspirators that want to control every human being have done a poor job.
IN ESSENSE: If this Universe or System was not already designed from the beginning to take us ALL to a place of love and ability to experience beauty and sexual ecstasy we can all throw the white flag and forget about it.
As Terence McKenna said. No one is in Control.
keep it
now that
and
Response or Attack?
Is this a response to a critique of your film, or a personal attack on Charles Eisenstein? It sounds more like the latter to me.
You said right in the beginning of this article that "My intention is that this on-going conversation further our mutual quest for core ethics, truth and effectiveness in transitioning to a world where all can thrive."
Going on to read the rest of the article it sounds more like your intention is for the on-going conversation to further YOUR quest. Instead of seeing a response to the critique or the issues raised, I'm instead seeing you attack multiple quotes from his books and articles, often taken out of context, and flaming them.
This doesn't seem constructive or conducive to productive conversation, but perhaps that's just my humble opinion.
The Skinny
Clean free energy is necessary but not sufficient
“We tend to seek easy, single-factor explanations of success. For most important things, though, success actually requires avoiding many separate possible causes of failure” Jared Diamond.
I think this quote by Jared Diamond (who wrote Guns, Germs and Steel) is relevent for any discusion on a sustainable system. A technological revolution with free clean energy is a requirement of any future sustainable system but by itself it is not sufficient. In mathematical terms it is 'necessary but not sufficient'.
So what is necessary? In my view only 3 things. 1. A technological revolution. 2. A psychological / spiritual paradigm shift. 3. An efficient and just system of social organisation. If any one of these things is missing we will not have a sustainable system. For the third point I feel that the Resource Based Economy (RBE) advocated by the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement is an excellent starting point. I think the issue of a non-corrupt system of exchange is absolutely one of the most difficult parts to resolve.
A time bank with some adjustment for rarity of particular skill or length of training would be the simplest and most transparent of replacements for money as a system of exchange. My suggestion would be that no profession be worth 8 times more that an hour of unskilled manual labour.
To onetrilliondiamonds. I must disagree with you, i think a green capitalist society can never happen. Why? Companies will always try to offload the negative externalities of their business (often in the form of pollution) onto others, given that their central raison d'etre is to maximise profits and this makes corruption (often by having expensive lawyers fight their corner) inevitable. Jonathon Porritt makes an excellent (although in my view flawed) case for green capitalism in "Capitalism as if the World Matters" (Which I recomend to anyone interested in sustainable development). However I think he largely ignores or underestimates the arms industry, big energy and corruption, which makes me (largely) reject his conclusions.
PS Thanks for the article, when I woke up this morning I had never heard of Thrive so I will go and watch it.
Excitement is the driving and organizing principle of everything
This is my first RS comment and I am absolutely thrilled to be part of this community. Such amazing perspectives and people always beautifully re-affirm the abundance of brilliance in the world.
As Bashar says: Its not this OR that, its this AND that. Everything plays its part. EVERYTHING.
Free energy will lead to an RBE, just as much as me meditating tonight will lead to an RBE. The only way that can be true is if each of those things are achieved by people doing what excites them most while resonating with that of their highest selves. Its all about vibration. We can truly only perceive the reality to which we are the vibration of. Vibrate and Perceive. IMAGINATION & ACTION
-Expect mind blowing synchronicities & live in the wow
~ Namaste & Shivai ~
I agree
Statism
My question to the community here is: How can we successfully create the world we wish to live in if we fail to discuss the fact that we are living under a system of institutionalized violence? We can talk about new paradigms all we want, but one can never be achieved while we continue to support (both financially and politically) the idea that it's ok to use force on those who disagree with us. Is it wrong to murder? Is it wrong to steal from someone else? Is it ok to hold someone against their will for not paying up to the rent-seeking tax barons who will lock them in a cage or kill them if they don't comply? If we're teaching our children that things like murder and theft are wrong, then we have to be consistent and not make exceptions for people in blue costumes and Lincoln Town Cars.
I really hope RS & ESM will take the next step and begin to whip up some dialogues on this topic. I feel that movements like this are beginning to stagnate because they fail to address certain issues that directly involve everyone (in the mainstream and alternative communities). They also lack a clear prinicple such as one of non-aggression that can be easily shared and understood by all. When it comes to consensus on the issue of right vs wrong, I think the vast majority can agree. We just need to be consistent and things will fall into place.
write a piece
Hi Optigon,
Sounds like a good idea... why don't you write the piece yourself and we can publish it if it turns out well?
Thanks,
d
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
May We Stay United and All Collaborate
Greatest thanks and applause, Foster, for a fearless and monumental documentary. To all, I know the truths of such nefarious collusion can be extremely hard to consider and accept. All I would ask is that we utilize this opportunity to really start collectively looking at the evidence and then collaborating. As far as evidence goes, I wrote a treatise in response to Charles' former NWO myth piece (I'm a contributor here at RS). The tone is not disputatious or dialectical, simply streams of further open exploration. I sent it in and have received no response, and that's ok. Being that RS seems to want to be a source of media representing multifarious modes of thought and exploration, I had really hoped they would run it. Here it is on Evolver, in case any are interested - Streams of Deceit: Another Look at the NWO at http://www.evolver.net/user/jay_van_liere/blog/streams_deceit_another_lo....
As humans I believe all of us should be very concerned right now about what the heads of our government (and those of the other G 7 nations) are trying to force on us, and the flagrant lies and corruption they are being illimitably caught perpetrating. [May I preface, that although these insights may seem dark and disempowering, they are not....if only we coalesce and take action – and remove the parasites from the host. I'm also antipodal to any victimhood stance: as a collective over time, we have all had our culpability and complacence in allowing this imbalance, this insanity (wars and ecoside), to grow to such proportions.]
Here are but several concerns regarding these power-brokers: 1) Gov't vying for forced inoculations (shots known to damage the brain and cause mutagenic cancer cells to form) 2) pumping brain-dulling and artery-hardening fluoride into our water (Hitler's Nazi science team came up with that one) 3) GMO seeds and food being forced into our food-chain, some having no nutritional value and cancer-causing mutagenic properties (think depopulation through food) 4) increased martial law domestically, from the Patriot Act to the newly proposed National Defense Authorization Act – what many are calling the greatest threat to civil liberties Americans have ever faced 5) cancer-causing and sterilizing scanners at airports (please see my RS article Overdose at the Airport 6) toxic amounts of aluminum, barium, and strontium being dumped on us through the chem-trails we see (interesting to note here, that: alchemically, aluminum separates the connective vibratory energy of living things, the taurus model from Thrive, and Monsanto already has engineered aluminum-resistant crops – think food control) 7) the lies and inconsistencies surrounding the official government 9/11 report, along with the major airline stock dumps just prior to the tragedy 8) the extant proliferation of FEMA camp facilities – too much credible evidence exists....they are real 9) the Deep Underground Military Bases (D.U.M.B.s) that have been vigorously constructed since the 1940s (here's where most tax dollars have gone) 10) & why are most of these top echelon of elite interrelated, even our big politicians and Presidents? 11) the fact that these very same elites are desperately trying to privatize and completely control the largest underground water aquifers in North America – alarming!.....These are but a fraction of the malign momentums seeking further domination.
To anyone wishing to travel further down the rabbit hole, I lovingly encourage you to read the New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein; and for a more esoteric exploration, check out Rudolf Steiner's Secret Brotherhoods, The Karma of Untruthfulness Vol. I & II, and The Incarnation of Ahriman: The Embodiment of Evil on Earth – an analysis of the verisimilitude of what Zoroastrian mythology coined the cosmic beings of the Ahrimanics, and their influence on this physical plane. One thing I'm pretty sure of, if these power elite are not removed......it's gonna get a whole lot worse. Let us stay together, stay strong, and out of fear. We will transcend these growing pains. Peace and love. Jay VanLiere
Go Optigon & Pinchbeck
I'm trying to take it one
I'm trying to take it one step further Jay. When we talk about Democracy in the statist sense, we're still talking about the 51% imposing rules on the %49 by force. Wheather our politicians serve "the people" or not, it's still a system of coercion. Actually, there's no useful way to define who "the people" really are anyway. It's a meaningless concept.
Thrive and this posting on same
Well - we could always go backwards and forwards from this way to sideways about how to fix everything and how to make it better but until human each individually want to do just that - there will be problems. My personal issues with Thrive are as follows:
You are selling a re-hash of information (like a tiny Cliff's Notes or something) that is already out there and widely available. Thrive to me was the "candy wrapper" version of information that truly is widely available for free. So clearly there is a financial profit motive for this movie - profit off of information already available. My personal opinion - ok. Your choice sir. And your road. But that decision right there is the same thinking that is causing lots of problems in the way human beings live and deal with each other. I personally will never profit off of improving the lives of others with information only. Have me dig your garden and show you how to grow it - I probably want something in return for same. You made a movie that was not "new" or "novel" at all.
This post was written with a snarky and defensive tone. It really is fascinating to see pulls of quotes from Mr. Eisenstein that were absolutely taken completely out of context. Perhaps you read Mr. Eisenstein's work differently so again, my personal opinion. In my humble opinion, the only way for this world to become a more balanced place to live is for human beings to want to be in that balance. And right now, that is a long shot. Most don't even care what goes into their garbage (most in the world - not this site etc.) and that to me is where we should start in our world .... what are we throwing away? Why? How? Which in turn means - what are we saving? Why? We need a true paradigm shift but for that to happen, individuals must shift on their own as much as possible to the new paradigm. And frankly, I don't see anyway of doing that effectively without checking out of the current financial system as much as possible as it is based on fraud. I note: Your movie does not mention that there is no authority over the Bank of International Settlements or the Vatican - anywhere. (And that is not conspiracy. That is the governing documents of both organizations which are available for free.) None whatsover. Complete immunity - which again, makes no sense. I am of the belief - anyone wanting and requiring immunity for anything they do? They are definitely doing something naughty. And while naughty is in charge? Find your grass, find your peace. Naughty like that only truly disappears when naughty corrects itself or kills itself. That is Universal Law - the law of balance.
Free energy was already invented (or re-invented is one believes our own history has not been told). Lots of lies have been told. But what to do? I wish I really knew.....Mr. Eisenstein. Your work is commendable. Really creates food for thought. Thrive - not so much.
Traveler, there are no roads. Roads are made by walking. Unknown.
Undocumented premises
It surprises me that I’m the lone voice here, but what bothered me about the movie was that a documentary is supposed to give us documentation. However, there is none for the leap the film takes from the ills of our capitalistic system and the premise that there are machinations in process for a takeover by forces which intend to inflict terrible evils on us. Since this was the only aspect of the movie that isn’t popularly known, it must be why the movie was made – to tell us that we are headed for a New World Order where the power elite are going to wipe out some large percentage of the population (can’t remember the figure that was given) and impose a military dictatorship. My challenge to the absence of verification, which I’ve made to the powers that be since I was the consultant to get their crop circle data right, has been met by the rationalization that you can’t put everything in a movie, and that what isn’t covered in the film is dealt with on the website. Aside from that not being an acceptable rationale, where a documentary should justify its claims, the website does the same thing the movie does in presenting data about how exploitive powerful people and corporate powers have been, but with no bridge to the conclusion about their plans for a takeover.
I revert to Charles for his perspectives about how unpropitious it is to spend your life force in conspiracy polemics, and recommend this piece of his: http://www.realitysandwich.com/synchronicity_myth_and_new_world_order. And I've written more about Charles and THRIVE on my blog, http://TheConversation.org.
One more thing is that I am uncomfortable with the manipulative aspect of the so called Thrive Movement. Movements are spontaneous uprisings, but the only movement before the film came out, when the website was named www.thrivemovement.com, was a gleam in THRIVE’s eyes.
And I will give you another Amen Sister!
And I add this to your commentary:
And therein lies the rub. Hence why I described it as a "candy wrapper". I was actually offended by the movie and you are so right. It is not a documentary or anything of the sort. It is PR propaganda piece of the highest order.
Foster Gamble. We mean no disrespect. We cool like that.
Traveler, there are no roads. Roads are made by walking. Unknown.
Apologies are for babies
Nothing owes me anything. Thanks for the snark though. typical.
Traveler, there are no roads. Roads are made by walking. Unknown.
Gamble, I will preface this
Allright
OK, I spent two hours on your web site, and I wached your video. I have no objections. But, I do have two
questions. First, what the f**K are you and Eisenstein carping at each other for? And, if there are inventors
of free energy machines who have lost their inventions to domminators, but those inventors are still alive,
why are there not specs of those machines avalable on the web, and I guess, a third question, what is it
going to take?
WHD
RE: Design revolution/free energy
Appeal to Nature fallacy in Thrive
I really liked Charles Eisenstein's critique of Thrive.
I just posted this evolver blog about the"appeal to nature" fallacy in the movie.
The suggestions given in the last 30 minutes of Thrive were mostly fine. It was the pseudo-science and conspiracies in the first 90 minutes that turned me off.
Start
Question to Charles
love and fear...
...are in all of us, methinks...
I want to begin by noting my appreciation for the positive contributions of both authors here... the author of Thrive, which I've not seen yet, but fully intend to, and the author of Sacred Economics, whose ouvre I greatly appreciate (but whose critique of the movie I have not yet read.)
Next, a meta-comment.... it seems to me that for all of us, whenever our contributions are critiqued, there is the tendency for defensiveness to flare up, and for us to respond in a similar vein... and yet, we of course need effective ways in which we can truly hear different and apparently conflicting perspectives... in my experience thus far, blogs and e-mail lists and such are not the most helpful containers for such an endeavor... too much potential for misunderstanding, escalation, and devolution...
As to the particulars here... it seems to me that it can be a delicate balance, between being sufficiently aware of the relative reality of twisted scary stuff, to not be living in la-la land, and at the same time, not being paralyzed or consumed by it, but instead connected with the larger Sacred Source that nourishes our ability to Thrive...
in Peter S. Beagle's "the Last Unicorn", he warns us about not "staring dragons in the eye", since their ability to hypnotize us into powerlessness is one of their most effective tools... much better to look at them out of the corner of one's eye, so that one can keep track of their motions and avoid crossing their path...
As for an ultimate perspective on "evil", it seems to me that "hurt people hurt people". So hurray for the call to "help the 1%". It may well be that some tough love is needed, but that would need to be done with a compassionate heart... and a clear mind... both.
I also don't believe that any elite is ever fully "in control"... the playing field is just too vast, and no elite is ever fully hegemonic, but instead also rife with internal struggles, as are we here on our end of things! However, I do think that there are much scarier things taking place, than many of us are willing to consider most of the time....
And that is probably as it should be, as well, since denial also has a clear evolutionary purpose, and becoming overwhelmed by considering things that we don't yet have the internal capacity to hold, serves no one. Which is why I don't care for the use of fear as an organizing tool... it's not just about whether a certain perspective may be "right" or "true", but also about how effective it may be, in helping to catalyze change, and also, what kind of change it tends to create.... Panic serves no one, hence denial, and attempting to "break down" people's denial, seems to me to be an outdated and unhelpful approach, whether we are talking therapy or social change...
At the same time, I very much appreciate people who are willing to bring scary things to our attention... not having seen the film, I have no idea what the balance is, in its presentation. So thanks everyone for this juicy conversation, and I look forward to checking out the various "source" materials soon...
It's difficult for me
Charles pwned
Team America Strikes Again
Debunking & Deconstructing THRIVE
You all might be interested in a blog devoted to debunking all the nonsense in the THRIVE movie.
http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/
Also, Georgia Kelly of the Praxis Peace Institute has just published a 55 page pamphlet deconstructing the libertarian political agenda of THRIVE
http://www.praxispeace.org/pdf/DL_020612.pdf
Implosion of THRIVE?
Author John Robbins, Other Progressives Denounce ‘Thrive’
The Santa Cruz–based author is joined by Deepak Chopra and others in a statement distancing themselves from the film.
http://www.santacruz.com/news/2012/04/10/author_john_robbins_other_progr...
from John Robbins:
“We are a group of people who were interviewed for and appear in the movie Thrive, and who hereby publicly disassociate ourselves from the film. Thrive is a very different film from what we were led to expect when we agreed to be interviewed.
We are dismayed that we were not given a chance to know its content until the time of its public release. We are equally dismayed that our participation is being used to give credibility to ideas and agendas that we see as dangerously misguided.
We stand by what each of us said when we were interviewed. But we have grave disagreements with some of the film’s content and feel the need to make this public statement to avoid the appearance that our presence in the film constitutes any kind of endorsement.
Signatories (in alphabetical order)
Deepak Chopra
Duane Elgin
Amy Goodman
Paul Hawken
Edgar Mitchell
John Perkins
John Robbins
Elisabet Sahtouris
Vandana Shiva