“What Would It Look Like?”, a spirituality-based short documentary,came out in 2009 and focuses on a philosophy of life on Earth that is becoming more and more appreciated by men and women around the world. The short documentary film’s producers combined commentary, visual images from around the Earth, and a soundtrack which puts the dramatic touch on the film’s message.
The message is never articulated directly, as the film has a kind of pacing which is subtle, leaning on spiritual, metaphysical, and philosophical feelings and ideas, never issuing any type of demand but making mild-mannered suggestions. The men and women in the film are never seen in any state of anger and speak as ones who have no desire for confrontation or separation, but unity.
The filmmakers have created a twenty-minute chance for viewers to simply become silent observers of the world humanity has created. One could call it a kind of not totally silent meditation – a relaxed conversation about the largest issues facing the human race. My view of the film is that it’s most important accomplishment is creating a feeling in the viewer, a feeling which, if absent, makes it impossible to even begin to consider what it will take to bring about good changes on Earth.
My guess is that the men and women who appeared in the film, as well as those who took the actions off camera for completing the project, looked at the final version and shared the same view that what became actualized was a feeling. The film’s title is “What Would It Look Like?”, and it is most definitely a spiritual/philosophical statement that the film makes. Perhaps we can look at it this way – the film opens the door of possibility for humanity.
The work doesn’t offer specific, academic, highly complex solutions. It doesn’t point the finger at the responsible person(s) who have taken the actions leading to the world’s present conditions. In essence, the film does a very good job of starting a global conversation which leads to no-one knows exactly where. The documentary opens up a worldwide discussion in the correct way by setting the mood needed for a good discussion going forward.
The door is now open and since 2009 many millions of men and women around the world have dared to walk through in the search for a better way of living on Earth. Somewhere along the road these millions of people have experienced the feeling produced by “What Would It Look Like?” It is not an entirely original feeling, but one that has been around since the beginning of the world. It is a feeling which will be around from here to eternity.
As the brother from South America pointed out in the documentary: “many things that were once considered utopian are now – every day – considered normal parts/routines of human beings’ reality”.
So, the title of this short film asks “What Would It Look Like?” “It” is the world – life on Earth. The question is a simple-sounding one, yet holds the entire creation, and the future generations of the entire human race, in its vision. And what is that feeling which has been present since the beginning of the world and will be around for eternity?
While reading articles on a number of alternative news websites recently, I came across the writing of a fellow from Argentina, Adrian Salbuchi. Like many bloggers, men and women who are interested in researching topics will note any possible leads, be they the names of researchers, or particular websites, etc., so I jotted down Mr. Salbuchi’s name. The particular article which he wrote got me interested in hearing more of what Mr. Salbuchi had to say, so I found this interview from August 2013 at Red Ice Radio’s YouTube channel.
It turns out that Adrian Salbuchi is a man from Argentina who is 60 years old and has spent years studying geopolitics, international relations, and sharing his awareness of how the world operates. I found this interview essentially a very good one in that he delivers ideas and concepts which mirror reality, as opposed to the propaganda which comes from the mainstream corporate media. It turns out that what he says in this interview confirms what I have come across while reading during recent years.
His focus on privately owned central banks, the debt burdens of many nations around the world from those private banks, austerity conditions suffered by millions of men and women in many nations to repay those debts, and the lack of awareness of this historic financial situation, tell me Mr. Salbuchi is a man worth listening to. In this interview he conveys a tremendous amount of distilled, important information, to the point where I consider this 50-60 minutes almost a book on world geopolitics and international finance.
He has knowledge of South American affairs and history because he obviously was born and lived there, but he has the awareness to realize that events in Argentina, Brazil, and other South American countries are very similar to nations of all continents around the world. In other words, he realizes that South America is not unique. The so-called 99% of the world’s people, the average folks who have nothing to do with taking advantage of others for personal gain and power, are all essentially in the same boat.
The so-called 99% all share the existential realities of consequences from actions taken by the so-called 1%, who have been responsible for putting in place corporate and governmental systems which benefit mainly that same 1%, at the cost of the 99% of humanity. Among a wide number of issues touched on in this interview, Mr. Salbuchi talks about so-called “Arab Spring” movements in an increasing number of nations around the world, and how these protests and uprisings are misperceived by people.
He illustrates such misperceptions through a comparison between Argentina and Brazil, where there has been recent protesting by large numbers of citizens in Brazil, yet nothing of the kind in Argentina. Mr. Salbuchi makes the case that Brazil has been the scene of such protests, and not Argentina, because the Brazilian government in recent years has taken actions to break away from the historical status-quo controlled by a global élite, a small number of very wealthy and powerful people, who have no allegiance to any nation.
He points out that Argentina has been under the leadership of a very corrupt group in that nation’s government, and that because of the corrupt status-quo’s continuation there, no organization of popular dissent and protest has been undertaken by the wealthy, powerful, global elites. In other words, the corrupt leaders in Argentina have continued to “get with the program”, installed austerity measures effecting the people of Argentina negatively, while paying off the national debts of Argentina to privately owned central banks.
Mr. Salbuchi points out that the national government could easily write off a large part of the country’s debt because of the fact it is “odious”. A nation’s odious debt is that portion, found after a complete audit of the nation’s historical debt contracts, where the government in power and lenders made the loan(s) with an awareness that the people of the nation were not going to benefit. Adrian Salbuchi asserts that, in the case of Argentina’s national debt, a large part of it is indeed odious, and therefore not the responsibility of current citizens of Argentina to repay. That odious debt had been incurred in years past, mainly in the years 1970-1980, by corrupt elected officials who knew the incurred debt(s) were not initiated for the people’s benefit, but for the benefit of the so-called 1%.
His assertions are in direct agreement with those put forward by John Perkins in his powerful book on geopolitics, “Confessions of An Economic Hit Man“, where Perkins describes the “debt-trap scenario”, one which sees nations’ leaders get rich from World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans in the billions of dollars, the inevitable problems with nations’ repayment, and the austerity programs being now implemented in nations all over the Earth.
Where Mr. Salbuchi and I may have difference is on the concept of a world governing body. I understand his concern about the global elites’ wish to establish total control and his view that a one world government would be the means for such control. My view of such a governing body is not a “new world order” which concretizes the control by the world’s wealthiest and most powerful, but a “new world” where those who have historically sought political, financial, and military power over others are restrained in such a way that there is an evolution of humanity toward greater equality, fairness, justice, and peace.
One can see human society organized on Earth where those who have been all about self-gain at the expense of the many, with the results of negative consequences like increasing wars and destruction, corruption, inequality, poverty, and homelessness, are deterred from taking harmful actions. At the same time, nations can still remain totally sovereign as Mr. Salbuchi suggests, simply agreeing to a basic set of international rules having human decency as the basis.
I think Adrian Salbuchi’s interview summarizes the reality on Earth in an honest, straightforward way that does a good job of giving listeners only the most important details of the world’s geopolitical and societal situation. Mr. Salbuchi simply spends 50 minutes telling listeners what is really going on in the world.
All I can say is that I was very impressed and highly recommend listening to this interview. If time does not allow you to listen now, perhaps you will jot down a reminder to listen later here or on YouTube.
Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms.. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.
This blog is devoted to legal, historical and human rights matters, in which issues of general concern are addressed freely and spontaneously. It is intended to further an informal exchange of views in the democratic spirit of freedom of opinion and respect for the opinions of others, in an effort to understand rather than condemn, to propose constructive solutions rather than grandstand. The perspective is both from inside and outside the box and the added value lies more in the questions than in the answers.