Anyway, my GF sent me a long quote from the website of David Wilcock. (If you're not familiar with him, check him out! I have plenty of specific links for great info from his site.) It is a comment from from a reader which is directed at an article/blog post Mr. Wilcock wrote in which he encourages people to see Thrive. I still think Thrive is a good film and should be shared, but I also feel those who share it (that is, me) have a responsibility to know everything about the information they're sharing, and to inform the people they're sharing it with. Here is the comment:
David, you encourage those to see Thrive The Movie in which I must say I have some issues with this film. Don’t get me wrong, it is a wonderful movie when speaking about eradicating pollution and ending bank bailouts, but what most people are unaware of is that the creator and narrator of the film, is heir to the Proctor Gamble empire and is an outspoken libertarian.
The problem with this is notably addressed by Georgia Kelly, founder of the Praxis Peace Institute and although she said she “agreed with 97% of the movie,” she took extreme issue with the end of the film, which she termed “reactionary libertarian propaganda.”
Before I get into her article, I must first make note that the modern libertarian movement was founded by Fred Koch of Koch Industries. His two sons, David and Charles Koch now run Koch Industries which is the second largest privately owned company in the US, a major paper and petrol company. Koch Industries is also one of the biggest polluters in the industry.
David Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in the 1980 presidential election running with presidential candidate Ed Clark and lost. His libertarian agenda is that which calls for no taxes, no regulation and limited government, all of which would boost the profits of Koch Industries enormously as well as all other major corporations.
Having failed in 1980, the modern libertarian movement is now guided, promoted and much of it funded by the Koch brothers behind the scenes, and has worked its way into the funding and organization of today’s Tea Party movement as well as donating to many of the 2010 Republican congressional candidates, all of which are pro-big oil, anti-corporate tax, and anti-corporate regulation.
They have also been behind the funding of many anti-climate change groups (disbelievers in manmade climate change), lobbyists for voter suppression legislation, anti-union groups, pro-corporate groups and anti-environmentalist groups.
The libertarian party is as much of a far right wing corporate party as the Republican Party. The only difference is they believe in not getting involved in foreign wars and legalizing drugs. That's about it.
This is an excerpt from Georgia Kelly’s article in the Huffington Post entitled, “Thrive: Deconstructing the Film”:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...68930.html
'Although Gamble thinks he is creating a political center where the right and left can join together, he proposes only libertarian solutions (e.g., voluntary education, voluntary taxes, and shrinking the government).
Oliver Wendell Holmes reportedly said, "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Gamble considers taxes to be theft and doesn't realize that an informed citizenry might create a government by, of, and for the people who pay the taxes.
But, this would require a mature citizenry, not one stuck in the adolescent phase of development that focuses doggedly on individual rights with little regard for the individual's responsibility to civil society.
This reactionary program sold as a "vision" on the Thrive website is nothing short of a dark fantasy intent on returning us to the 19th century, complete with no taxes, no labor laws, no child labor laws, no regulation of pollution, no social security, no Medicare, no public education, no government programs for the people.
Instead, there would be a voluntary type of social regulation. We saw how well that worked in the 19th century.'
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t watch the film, but just that they should understand the political slant and what the outcomes of a libertarian society would actually mean.
One where everything was corporatized, and you would have to pay for the fire department to put out a fire at your house and if you couldn’t pay, you had to watch it burn down.
One where public education, public research, public services, social security and medicare all go away or is profitized and corporations are allowed to do what they want without regulation.
And a society where everyone fends for themselves without the collective majority working together as a whole. As the Preamble to the United States Constitution states,
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
I hope this info is helpful to you and helps you keep your senses ready for people trying to use these messages for their own personal gain, for political biases, and/or for financial biases. Best to you and yours!
-Michael
This is what i told the person that sent it to me.
"If I understand at first i thought it was getting at the founder is part of the problem and is using this movement to take advantage of the good again and funnel their efforts back into their efforts. But at the end I got that the person was upset because he suggested that people will try to live off the good nature of the program and never lift a finger. the second thing i mentioned if i got the right thing from it is wrong and it is hard for us to understand because we are so wrapped up in the trade concept but they will eventually see how it works out. The first thing worries me if its right."
I'm not sure I understood it.
Comments