Tag Archive: Crossroads

It is hard to write about such a movie as Crossroads that does not recognise the power issue. My continuous reaction is good idea but what about the power reality.

The first X-roads theme was interdependence, and it began with a global risk strategist talking about the connections. The strategist did not say that the 1% allow these problems to happen because they still maintain their income.

A guy, Jairon C Guesta, talks about Nature, how our economy exploits Nature, that is then based on our social values that is connected to our psychological and emotional systems and all our actions. This again is an important error in focus. Who is the we? I have never made decisions that would support the exploitation of Nature as discussed by Jairon. The vast majority of people do not support such exploitation. At worst a significant proportion of people trust government to control corporations to prevent unnecessary exploitation, but such blind faith can only tentatively be called a value of such people, it would be better described as abdication of responsibility. It is the same point, it is not we who decide it is a decision of the 1% that most people cowtow to including tacitly the speakers in this film who make their money from the existing system, compromise with it and don’t spend their time fighting the misuses of the 1%.

The next speaker, Michael Laitman, in this clip talks of governments not having the ability to manage the people. The governments are still the same, the economy still provides the 1% with profits in all the countries, and these vast numbers of people are on the streets fighting the 1% whilst academics pontificate. Laitman cites these struggles as being interdependence demonstrating a “law that is characteristic of integrated systems”. He claims world leaders cannot realise their decisions and in the movie actors portray headless chicken activity. This is far from reality. The reality is that business continues to accumulate profits, governments are blamed for ineptitude, and politicians get their pay-offs when leaving office after being the required receptionist in government. Such an analysis whilst correctly identifying the importance of interdependence, what used to be called the mass movement, does not sufficiently analyse the power structures and their objectives.

The next speaker, Amit Goswami, talks about Egolution recognising that the problem is ego. He then goes on about this ego in terms of the survival instinct producing competition as if it is the survival instinct that is the dominant idea leading to the egotism that is screwing up the world. Very simply competition has become misplaced, instead of it being a drive to help personally improve ourselves by competing with ourselves. No, the idea of the survival instinct leads to competition leading eventually to exploitation by the 1% – he didn’t make all those leaps. Misplaced competitive ego contributes to the problem but the few controlling the reins of power prevent those who want to withdraw from the world of competition from doing so. It is not an idea, an individual choice but power, power that misuses competitive ego.

They then go on to suggest that this power is simply social control ie that it is society trying to control itself. Of course there are cultural impositions in society that control. The Ash experiment is one example of social control – 10.31mins, and it led Jairon C Guesta to ask what way have we been using the influence of society? This question is of course completely misdirected, in what way have the 1% been manipulating society to enable their profit-making? It is not we, society, who are at fault but those who are manipulating society for their own greed and ego. It is not social control but 1% social manipulation, an important non-intellectual difference. There is a term, social contagion, described from 15.00 mins, we identify with group characteristics. Actions, happiness etc depend on those in the group. This type of conclusion is fundamentally describing herd responses but we are not just herd animals. Sadly some humans are herd animals, some choose to behave like herd animals abdicating reponsibility, and others begin to seek out their own individuality not as separate beings but as being on the Path. Would someone on the Path have been weak-willed enough to agree with the actors in the Ash experiment? People cannot tell me there is no chi. One guy, James Fowler, described norms as being transmitted through networks, our friends. Peter Joseph, their integrity is only as good as the integrity around them effectively describing all as herd.

This classification of humans is important in identifying the needs for change. We cannot find change in herd animals nor in those abdicating their responsibililty hiding as herd animals so that leaves the few who are not herd animals who need to effect change, by my description refuse to accept their non-herd responsibility to not compromise with the 1%. But most of these accept being bought off, accept compromise, and can be seen in interviews in films such as Xroads.

In truth though what do they do to get their views across? With this film let me try and answer that. The issue is not getting ideas aired but refusing to compromise with the 1%. Xroads is a movie that supports the 1% because it does not attack them as being responsible. So simply by appearing in this film these people are compromised, no matter that this movie in the end talks about Unity. In a similar vein I should not support Xroads, am I compromised in discussing the movie at length in this blog? Yes. But I want to note what are the contemporary ideas, even so – compromised.

I have just skim-watched “Crossroads: Labor Pains of a new worldview” and struggled through it. Yet another crossroads that a group of intellectuals or spirituals claim the world is meeting. To be honest my bias almost gave up on it. Then add the other failure of such intellectualism, the failure to recognise that the world does not change with ideas, it changes through power. There is a particular intellectual forlorn hope known as the tipping point. Basically an idea that has less than 10% of the world as adherents has no currency, more than 10% and people take it up. Here is an idea:-

The 1% control the world and 100% should control it, let’s call the idea democracy.

Why isn’t it happening? Because less than 10% of the world believe in democracy? Not at all. But because those in power manipulate that power so that the idea doesn’t happen. Some ideas might become currency if they do not affect those in power. But this movie was about a global crossroads, who has the power, and the effects of that power. So tipping points with regards to this are hogwash. To deal with that problem we need awareness of the ways of influence of the 1%, and certainly at the beginning this movie did not offer that awareness.

As usual in such films the propounders of the crossroads have been personally successful to some extent, writing books, academic positions and so on. As with my own situation as a teacher they have accepted some kind of compromise to earn their living, and any such compromise, including my own, allows the 1% to manipulate the power. Recognition of this compromise is also not part of the film, and we have a typical scenario of bright-eyed and bushy-tailed idealists presenting ideas as if the world only has to recognise these ideas and everything will be hunky-dory.

As an example of the groundswell that is leading to global change, they began with this short clip:-

January – Tunisia
February – Egypt
March – Spain
May – Greece
India – August

Lost the ability to manage the people? So examine these countries now, what is the state of change there? The repression, the 1%, has changed hue but not substance. I am not belittling the struggles of these comrades, their fights are powerful and the people deserve respect; but 10% tipping point idealism has got nothing to do with what is happening there. Are these struggles not managed? These people are confronting the 1% and the 1% minions through the army or the police are repressing them; this is the reality. The movie’s intellectuals need to face the reality, recognise how much their own compromises help create this reality and begin to face the real struggle. It is far from a struggle of ideas, it is about power. These same intellectuals wield some power as it is their creativity which is often the backbone of academic institutions and publishers that 1% minions exploit. Turn around and tell them, do something within your own compromise and not leave it to others.

There is also something worth considering, and that is subterfuge – a type of false flag. Over the years the 1% have always recognised how academia and reason can be used to maintain their own (1%) position of power. By repeatedly talking about ideas and reason intellectuals can convince themselves and others that those are the precursors of change, and rather than using their positions to the benefit of humanity they simply propogate ideas, their intellectualism deflecting focus away from the power of the 1% onto the supposed transformational ability of ideas. Be clear, ideas create change only if the powerful let them do so – unless there is a powerful mass revolution (a mass far more than the 10% tipping point). This film could be such a diversion – a false hope. Throughout the world young people are growing up to a realisation that the enemy is the 1%. Whilst the level of awareness of this inimical 1% is not high it must be worrying for those in power. The 1% response is not tolerant, peaceful demonstrations globally are repressed violently in a way that has not been seen since the anti-war protests of the 60s, a time when the establishment must also have felt under threat. Beginning a movie on unity with a message that the problem lies with the people only, that the people are in conflict, and that the people are going through a change suggests change can happen through ideas and ignores the immense power that is being used to prevent change.

On this false focus theme I am going to raise a further possible scenario, one that leaves me open to accusations about anti-Israeli racism. Let me first state a position I hold but cannot substantiate. The power bloc that is the 1% possibly has Bilderberg group connections, certainly has business connections including Jewish, Rockefellers, Rothschilds and so on. By recognising this am I being racist? Of course the 1% power bloc would say so. There are good Israeli people as there are good people of all nationalities, but are all nationalities part of the 1%? Here is a description from his website:-

“Joseph Ohayon is a filmmaker, writer and speaker based in Israel and New York.

“Known for his relentless quest to put pieces together and look at the big picture, Joseph directs, writes, and hosts documentaries and talk shows on Israeli television. Joseph also lectures for the ARI Institute to help raise awareness of today’s global challenges and the need to adapt to an increasingly interdependent world.” It is significant that in the movie there are no attacks on the US government nor on the Israeli government, and as I have said an intellectual focus that does not rest on the 1%. Where does this free movie get its funds from?

Even though the 1% are so powerful that is no excuse for apathy, we must agitate for change.

Having got that off my chest there is much in the movie that is helpful and positive and worth considering as primarily the movie addresses the notion that we are all one, and that the crossroads we need to face is that we remove separation and unite.