Copyrights

m
     
Posted to Subscribers on 26 November 2011
 
 
 

 

Dear Subscribers,

This post is more or less a commentary on some of the issues raised by Thrive. I promise you it goes beyond what the title suggests.

Many years ago, one of my friends who used to channel relayed some material to me while in a light trance state. The message was that one day I would be involved with reforming the publishing industry. I shuddered because I knew how corrupt the industry is and there are, over and above irregular bookkeeping and ghost writers and abusive contracts, some very subtle as well as straightforward issues about intellectual property. Given that my resistance was so profound, a nudge came in the form of explaining the responsibilities placed on the shoulders of messengers.

Obviously, we are all aware of less legally binding arguments such as "knowledge belongs to everyone" or if it doesn't, it should. We also hear the woes of all the impoverished authors and poets who often as not died young but their heirs and publishers lived on to make fortunes.

The Messenger

Unfortunately, it's easier (and safer) for me to draw examples from my own work than to translate these principles into someone else's work.

My material on darkfield microscopy keeps appearing on sites that are totally unknown to me. Often as not, the material is being used to market someone's goods and services without any attribution of authorship. The impression given is that the person posting the material has the expertise exhibited in the pirated material. If this is not the intention, why not use quotation marks? If someone is selling a supplement or frequency device, the stolen material is used to imply that these have been tested and found effective using darkfield microscopy. This inference constitutes an immense disservice to clients and patients who are seeking help, often for very serious conditions. Such plagiarists are therefore involved not merely in copyright infringement but also misrepresentation of their ability to render the expected service.

This example helps us to distinguish between messengers and opportunists. Some plagiarists might be scoundrels so protecting copyrights might be defensible when the consequences for the unwitting are considered.

I will give one more personal example.

When the web was first coming together, I was asked to author and manage all information on medical astrology. The request came through someone who had been offered a contract from Microsoft. Unable to consider taking on more responsibilities, I declined the invitation. The response to my reply was, "Have you given any thought to what would happen if the person who does accept this task is not you?" The arm twisting was painful but for a number of reasons, I did not accept.

This, however, is a clear situation where I truly regard myself as a messenger, but there are complex reasons for electing not to take on tasks where my message might not be delivered properly. Messengers have responsibilities for shepherding their assignments.

Intellectual Property

Now, let's look at the second part of this tricky picture. Only material that is original can actually be claimed as intellectual property. Here we have to ask if rearranging ideas, restating them, or taking words and setting them into another context is original or not. Crafting words is work, sometimes art. Rearranging thoughts sometimes enhances the message and sometimes diminishes it. However, for the most part, we agree that when a novel is converted to a screenplay, it is a new piece of work and when it becomes a film, it is also new even though obviously derivative. However, the author of the original novel is often paid handsomely for the movie rights. Then, in addition to whatever legal issues there might be, people are often sensitive to whether or not credit is given, who profited, and whether the message remained in tact.

Now, let's look at Thrive.

Thrive is a very fine film but it is posted online with countless other films with very similar content, most of which are free. That was a very important sentence because "similar content" means that the main contribution of Thrive to the existing pool of choices is that it is a polished presentation in which the dots are well connected.

I am going to be super-critical here because I think there is a lot to consider.

The film opens with a discussion of torus, a geometric form whose rotation is believed to be the basis of free energy. The idea of free energy has been around for at least a century, but recently we have heard of countless people who have apparently mastered the principles required to make this possibility a reality. Most who have been following this story believe it would create a level playing field in which all people in all parts of the world would prosper. Gamble actually takes us through this journey smoothly, convincingly, and eloquently. My feeling is that this part of the film was artfully constructed and poignant.

However, to substantiate his thesis, Gamble introduces Nassim Haramein, Nikola Tesla, Buckminster Fuller and a whole parade of UFOlogists and astronauts, the purpose being to suggest that understanding of the potential of torus rotation would change life on Earth forever . . . and the reason for mocking the existence of aliens and/or covering up what is known is to delay the inevitable on Earth. I.e., once we understand alien technology, we will be able to use it and this will change everything forever.

There is absolutely nothing new about this thesis, but if I continue in this critical mode, I have to say that I was astonished that Gamble mentioned men on the Moon because I am personally convinced this only happened in Kubrick's studio. Maybe I am wrong, but, for the moment, let's just call me a doubter.

Why?

If such valuable technology has been withheld from humanity for at least half a century, maybe more, the question is why? As with any convoluted story that makes no sense, Gamble decides to follow the money. This, of course, takes us to the pyramidal structures that have become so familiar to us.

No one who is today talking about the power of money would be on terra firma unless riding on the coattails of David Icke. He is interviewed in Thrive but not given a major role even though the revelation of the power behind the visible thrones has been a large part of Icke's life work. I.e., Icke is the messenger and the rest of us are just hanging onto a few threads of his coattails. Of course, others have also examined the power structures on the Planet, people who are not as much in the limelight. For instance, there was a fascinating ebook called the Black Pope. It was very thorough, free, and may still be available. It begins more or less with the founding of the Jesuit Order and is hair raising. There is also Daniel Estulin and his coverage of the Bilderberg Group, and there are a number of genealogical studies of those with massive power. Of course, there is also plenty of nonsense to process.

Without diminishing the importance of the film, I nevertheless want to show how fitting the pieces together in the right way can make something new, but this is only achieved by reference to the work of others, many of whom are messengers with important destinies to fulfill.

Thrive is more coherent and softer than many similar films, by which I mean Thrive is less jarring than Zeitgeist and it relies on different pieces of the whole so the final tapestry looks different . . . and more uplifting.

Power

To make a case for power, we practically have to rely on psychoanalysts with a passion for exploring darkness since nothing that seems rational to the ordinary person helps us to understand power. Gamble does not take us to Sigmund Freud but rather to the banking, petroleum, food, and pharmaceutical industries. Again, this route is inescapable because the dots connect in a way that leads us there. We are not provided insight into the sociopathy of destructive behavior but taken another direction. Personally, I have never understood power except that Kissinger once gave us a clue. Power is an aphrodisiac. I suspect therefore it is also highly addictive.

That's an aside since it has nothing to do with the film, but power is symbolized astrologically by Pluto which in recent years has been reduced in status from a planet to a planetoid. When we accept that it is not part of the solar system, I think we will finally know happiness and wish it good riddance. It has no legitimate role to play here, but countless people will disagree with me on this.

In any event, to fire up our disgust with the prevailing plutocracy, we have to take a hard look at what humanity is missing as a result of abuse of power. Of course, we are missing choice, losing contact with our cultural roots and Nature, and we are wasting countless trillions of dollars on wars and interest to bankers. However, we are also missing good health. Enter two figures from the list of martyrs to medicine.

These are Royal Rife and Harry Hoxsey, two men with completely different histories and stories. However, these stories have been told already. Lots of people do not know the stories, but the film does not actually leave us better informed so let's say that Thrive puts some incidents there to serve as stepping stones to the blueprint for thriving. Still, I want to connect these incidents to the overall issue of intellectual property.

The all time long-term archivist on anything and everything to do with Royal Rife is Steven Moss, but a couple of young Canadians put together excellent video footage:

http://www.zerozerotwo.org/

For those who are not in this particular loop, there was a dinner party almost 80 years ago celebrating the end of disease. The guest of honor was Royal Rife. This was not a New Age gathering of wishful thinkers and mantra mumblers but rather serious recognition that all disease could be addressed using the information and technologies developed by Rife. I wrote something on this a few years ago:

http://ingridnaiman.com/subscription_posts/microscopy/royal_rife.html

The point is simply that there is no original content. Moss deserves the credit for keeping some knowledge alive and the rest of us are piggybacking.

Hoxsey

Hoxsey wrote a book and Kenny Ausubel made a documentary film called When Healing Becomes a Crime that was nominated for an Oscar. He didn't win but the limelight opened up other possibilities and he is now heading the Bioneers which is a marvelous undertaking. Kenny and I have known each other for more than 30 years and were working on our projects around the same time. He tackled the politics of suppression of cures while I focused on the treatments that were in danger of going so far underground that they would not surface again. The point is not who did what nor even who is mentioned in the film and who was not but rather there is no original content which is not the same as plagiary, it simply forces us to ask exactly what is a copyright and what is it designed to protect. Gamble cites all his sources so he followed the rules properly, but now, I think, I have laid enough groundwork to return to the original question which is: To whom does this material belong? If it belongs to Gamble, which the creative part clearly does, then are the parts that cannot really be protected as intellectual property not to be shared except by payment of a fee? The legal answer is probably that in the world we know today, charging to watch a film is completely acceptable, but this was not the question Gamble posted on Facebook. He posted a question about thriving and exchanging value and this requires a philosophical answer, not a legal one.

The Future

What Gamble does is take us from where we are to his concept of Utopia or thriving, starting with cutting the U.S. military budget in half and shutting down the Federal Reserve. He introduces the work of Ludwig von Mises but does not mention Dr. Ron Paul who is the messenger. I might sound like a broken record but it takes a lot of people to create change. I think Gamble knows this. His choice of people to include in the film exhibits appreciation for the courageous work and dedication of many messengers, but if there are messengers, there are people with destinies. If people have destinies, it is possible they would fulfill them faster by removing all impediments to accessing the information that will spark the changes. I have obviously given considerable thought to his decision and while I am certain Gamble did put millions into making the film, he is the heir to millions so his millions might be like ten dollar bills to someone else. So, when he asks about thriving, I have to ask exactly what sort of world would we need in order to thrive?

My first response is that we would be born with a knowledge of who we are and what we are destined to do. No one would have this knowledge dumbed out of them through use of diabolical foods and medicines, chemtrails, etc., etc. In this Utopia, no one would die prematurely from war or starvation. In a world that embraces the uniqueness of each individual, we also have to acknowledge that our contributions are different. We would, I believe, have to give a value to a smile, to a thank you, to a pat on the back, and to carrying bricks. At the moment, only the brick carrier's work is regarded as the kind of exchange that is rewarded with remuneration one can use to eat and thrive. In today's world, there would be no compensation for the person whose main gift was how he demonstrated composure or acceptance or happiness. What I am trying to say is that we should avoid importing our current economic models into the future because those models already failed. If we have free energy and freedom to be ourselves, we ought to be able to trust that our needs will be met by those who care enough to meet them. For instance, as infants, we depend on our parents and trust they will care for us. When we mature, we learn to stand on our own feet and meet some of our own needs and eventually some of the needs of others; but in a complex society, there should be a way to have all the food, music, art, education, and opportunity we require without any concept at all of exchange. This is because in a perfect world, we would be fulfilling our parts of the Divine Plan, not working on the assembly line of a 20th century industrial plant. If we got materialism out of the way of "being", those who like to grow food would be happy growing enough for others and those who like to heal would be happy offering their gifts to those who need to be healed. There need not be an exchange because the people who benefit are part of a vast system.

Let me put this another way. If I teach a student what the student is able to accept from my knowledge base, I should choose the student on the basis of his or her merit, not his or her ability to pay. The compensation comes when that student matures in experience and is able to teach and heal. The compensation does not have to return directly to me because likely as not, I will not actually need what the student has to offer me. I need what the farmer is growing but when the farmer needs a healer or insight into something, we could make an exchange but it doesn't have to be formal.

The whole of Nature works more or less this way except for the human kingdom and the human kingdom is the problem at the moment. All species will turn against us unless we get our act together.

My point is that money has been a medium of exchange but for a system to work, it must be exchanged like inhaling and exhaling, not stockpiled by those with personality disorders that disturb the lives of others.

Maybe my vision is of a world way beyond Phase III of Thrive but when we realize that money is fake, we ought also to realize that it is not necessary so when we close the Fed, we need to think of a totally new way to live in which we each offer what we have in excess and use what we need in order to feel complete. In a sense, the Internet has been preparing us for this because we have countless options of what to read or watch and almost everything is free. People are therefore learning to expect their needs to be met without having to make an exchange. The system is still imperfect because the old has not yet vanished, but surely it will because it is obsolete. We also have to differentiate between real and imitation. The digital world is virtual, not real, and at this point does not produce food or other goods and services required by those who live in the third dimensional world.

Finally, what I would like to add to the new layout of the cards is that each of us is, in fact, endowed with specific gifts from our Creator. The knowledge of these gifts does sometimes go missing. We incarnate through a veil and enter into density but most children remember enough of their missions to start out in the intended direction unless forced to ingest something that renders them oblivious.

The River Lethe: Artist Ken "Doc Mojo" Musgrave, used with permission

 

Ultimately, we can only receive what we need because the rest is clutter and congestion. If in today's world, I need money, then that is temporarily my truth but if I need feedback or someone saying "ah, ha, I got it", then the truth is I am richly rewarded and money looks pathetic in comparison to seeing that the messages are actually getting through to those who are touching base with them.

In sum, my response to Gamble's question — which might have been rhetorical — is that the world he envisions is more likely to come into being if the impediments to accessing the vision are removed. This is not a legal issue, it is a question of destiny and thus a spiritual matter. There is an urgency and Gamble has created a transitional schemata that is visually effective, timely, and easy to assimilate. He is the messenger for this concept of a future economic system where the fundamental power on which we depend to support our addiction to modern life is inexhaustible and there is no hoarding of wealth and power by those who seek to dominate rather than lead or share. However, in today's world, rights are generally defined in financial terms because we have this awkward and almost obsolete habit of putting numerical values on everything. In a thriving world, the value system would have to be reorganized to reflect the new realities. Watch the film and draw your own conclusions.

Many blessings,

Ingrid


Copyyright by Ingrid Naiman 2011

 

 

 

 
     

 

 
     

Seventh Ray Press
Copyright by Ingrid Naiman 2010

Home || Contact Us


 
     
No content on any of the pages of this web site may be reproduced without written permission of
Ingrid Naiman and Seventh Ray Press, publisher of this site.
 
     

 

Design by Damien Francoeur