When I was invited to see a rough cut of THRIVE, to review the crop circle content, I was concerned about the movie taking positions that people who were interviewed for it would object to. I said I thought it was urgent to confirm with them that indeed they would be all right being in the movie. That never happened, and this statement that just was issued is the other shoe dropping:
Disassociation From Thrive Statement
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 Robbins
Elisabet Sahtouris
Vandana Shiva
The internet is buzzing about this statement. Here’s a piece that will tell you more: 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
Some quotes:
In issuing their statement distancing themselves from Thrive, Robbins and his colleagues point out that they are “dismayed” that the Gambles refused to let them know what the film was about until the time of its public release. In interviews with the Weekly several weeks ago, Paul Hawken and Elisabet Sahtouris both said Foster Gamble misrepresented the film when he asked them to participate.
Robbins says it’s clear that Gamble used him and the others to draw people to Thrive. He is distressed that the film weaves progressive ideas into its paranoid, radical libertarian narrative. But he stops short of accusing Gamble of deliberately deceiving his audience.
“Foster is extremely naïve about the political consequences of his film,” Robbins concludes.
Where to from here? Could a win/win come out of this? Here’s what I’d said, early on, to Foster Gamble, who comes from the deep Proctor & Gamble pockets that got this movie made and widely seen. It’s his fortune and he can spend it as he wishes, but my thought is to join forces for the greater good to where the message and the campaign for change can be widely acceptable. Here’s what I’ve said to Foster:
It would be great to work together. We clearly have the same passion and desires about life!
The film is a done deal, but it is bothersome to me that its good intentions are sullied by extremist claims. In your zeal to make the world work, see Charles Eisenstein: Synchronicity, Myth, and the New World Order. It’s a perspective that seems credible to me. I could see you building on THRIVE as the first of a pair or maybe a trilogy of films, where you go from humanity being oppositional and adversarial to promoting a higher stand about raising each person’s consciousness as the answer to the world’s ills.
Or maybe something else. There is so much that is “outside the box” that would force us to re-think our story about who we are and what we are doing here. Unless we change our worldview, it’s fingers in the dike to deal with all the challenges we face, which of course is what the movie is getting at. But you don’t need the global elite as the enemy — in a way “science” is a culprit, keeping us fixated on observable reality so that the bigger picture, where consciousness and spirit reside, gets marginalized. I’d love to see an event – a conference perhaps — that brought out so much contradiction to our story that we would have to deal with changing it. Something like that could make the movie, as the sponsor, into something even bigger than the movie, which would go a ways to toward making its shortcomings somewhat irrelevant.
Follow
I bought a copy of your movie (What on Earth) but after reading your comments here I’m sorry that I paid for it.
As those who have seen THRIVE know, we are committed to a bold inquiry into what is really in the way of our thriving – and to offering much more than just a tweak to our fundamentally flawed and failing system.
One of our core approaches in making THRIVE was to hear from people with differing points of view and to go for vital information regardless of the political affiliations of the source. That way we could do our own informed and critical thinking and glean the principles and facts from which true, just and lasting solutions can be created.
We encourage a transparent, respectful, informed and constructive dialog that can address the specifics of any differences some of the pioneers in THRIVE might have with us. Although the letter of dissociation raised no specific issues, we understand from John Robbins’ articles and the correspondence that he wrote soliciting others to participate in his disinformation campaign that the objections range from ET presence, to naming the reality of the Global Domination Agenda, to validating Zero Point Energy, to adhering to the Principle of Non-violation. Wow, not much of a movie left after eliminating those taboo inquiries!
We encourage everyone reading this to watch THRIVE and determine for yourselves if you agree that there is enough evidence to warrant additional dialog – about a covert agenda, about revolutionary new technologies and about bold strategies for achieving true liberty and justice for all.
We spent decades doing our homework on these issues and stand with complete integrity and clarity behind the facts represented in THRIVE. We welcome meaningful dialog and otherwise consider it dangerous to undermine the millions of us who are standing up to expose the covert global scheme amongst the elite and their secret societies and intelligence agencies to destroy the economies of countless nations, take over their resources, and kill whatever leaders or people don’t play along.
Further hit and run communications are of little interest to us, especially as it distracts from time better spent with motivated solutions groups forming all over the world who are awakening to the agenda and taking actions based on integrity and freedom rather than staying confined by outworn and deceptive political polarities.
We encourage those who have publicly dissociated to offer their best information and solutions rather than spending time trying to undermine ours.
Each of the pioneers in THRIVE were invited because their expertise in a particular area had been helpful in our gaining an understanding of the bigger picture that includes, but vastly transcends, their sector of expertise -or anyone’s political affiliation. We clearly state this in the movie:
“The people in THRIVE do not necessarily agree with the themes, statements, claims or conclusions presented in the film or website, nor does their inclusion imply our full agreement with all of their views. The people interviewed have each contributed in some deep way to our understanding and we are grateful to them all.”
We are encouraged by the millions of viewers, thousands of self-created screenings, the hundreds of THRIVE Solutions groups forming to get on with what’s needed now – informed and leveraged action. People from all over the world- Greece, Poland, India, Portugal and more have voluntarily translated THRIVE into their languages to get the important information to their cultures. THRIVE is now translated into 18 different languages and we hear from people all over the world about the value THRIVE is offering in their cultural transformations.
We also are moved by the healings being reported in families, workplaces and communities as millions are getting the bridge between worldviews and beyond unnecessary and dangerous divide-and-conquer illusions. The new conversation, about what is really going on and solutions with human rights as primary, is, fortunately, unstoppable.
As stated in the book “1984”, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” There is a well-informed, nonviolent revolution brewing and we welcome constructive contributions from everyone ready to participate.
Foster and Kimberly Gamble
What a can of worms this is. So much to say in discourse about the merits and demerits of THRIVE. These ideas are very good — putting out a movie to stimulate discussion is admirable. But selling an agenda is something else.
There is a long counter to the points made here that I know is in the works, and I will post this suggesting readers hear out Foster and Kimberly Gamble, the filmmakers, and reserve judgment till you see what is to come.
The Gambles show real guts in a time where a US citizen can be arrested and detained without due process. Why not complain about the Defense Authorization Act or the complete erosion of our civil liberties? The Gamble family should be thanked and respected. No one who watches THRIVE thinks or assumes the people in it are all in agreement or in symphony to deliver a conspiracy message. The Gambles are taking a gamble but the one thing that should not be taken from them is their right to express themselves freely. The film is a treasure chest of facts fully researched and indexed for verification. The film allows the viewer to form his or her own opinions even if it’s FEAR based which would lead one or more to sign off saying, “I didn’t say it, the Gambles did.”
The people who signed the petition think differently. And I think the backlash is because of how heavily they promote the movie, usign it as a rallying cry. Best have a uiniversally recognized platform among your likely allies to pull that off.
Thanks Suzanne,
Foster and Kimberly are currently on tour hosting THRIVE screenings and meeting with various solutions groups in cities around the US. They look forward to offering a full response as soon as they have time. Meanwhile, Foster never received an email requesting a comment, and they never intentionally misled anyone in the movie. This statement has been in the credits of THRIVE all along:
“The people in THRIVE do not necessarily agree with the themes, statements, claims or conclusions presented in the film or website, nor does their inclusion imply our full agreement with all of their views. The people interviewed have each contributed in some deep way to our understanding and we are grateful to them all.”
We do not know of any film- documentary or otherwise- that could get made giving final say to the people who are in it. As those disassociating acknowledge, they stand by what was quoted in THRIVE and gave full authorization for their presence in a film that was described at the time as “a bold look at what is in the way of our thriving and what we can do about it”. A fuller response is coming. Thank you for your patience.
The THRIVE team
Readers don’t know you are my film world colleague who does great work on behalf of marketing fine films, who invited me to see the rough cut. Because of what the film was stating and advocating, and knowing some of the people who were interviewed, I thought they might not be happy being in a movie advocating positions they don’t hold, and I told you I thought it was vital that they see a rough cut to get their approval. People interviewed for documentaries don’t have creative control, but if they are in any way used to substantiate points they disagree with, problems can arise.
I had high hopes for Thrive and it dashed those hopes when the “film weaves progressive ideas into its paranoid, radical libertarian narrative.” I am in total agreement that it might be woven into something more positive and more about consciousness changing. You hit it exactly as you describe your misgivings. Thanks.
I’m surprised that such a “distancing” is necessary. I didn’t see anything in the film to suggest that any of the signers were endorsing the larger picture that the film posits. It’s common to be vague about the purpose of a film when conducting interviews. Think of any Michael Moore film or “Inside Job.” I think it reflects poorly on the signers that they are worried about “guilt by association.” I don’t know which points of Foster’s are right and which are wrong, and I think that’s unknowable right now. Foster is trying to figure out the truth just like they are and if they arrogantly think their worldview is the only possibility, then I want to distance myself from them!
What they say is manipulated as seeming to endorse positions they don’t support. There’s a lot of commentary online about the movie that goes into what is objectionable about it — if you put “thrive” into the search on this blog, you can read some of it. In fact, I told them not to give me a credit after I did a considerable amount of work on their circle info, but I passed on that — I don’t want to be associated with this movie.