Cannabis: A Lost History (FULL DOCUMENTARY)

BLuke Miller Truth Theory

Cannabis has hit the headlines recently due to legalisation in many States across the US, however, prior to the legalisation, it was only illegal for a few short decades and was prescribed in many western countries up until the 1970s.

Cannabis has a rich history, being cross culturally used as a medicine for many ailments across the globe, and is still going strong in many countries. Not only is it used as a medicinal plant, but in its many forms it is thought to have 50,000 different uses- ranging from food to construction. Cannabis: A Lost History explores the roots of the use of cannabis and how it has affected cultures for millennia:

Please share this article.

I am Luke Miller the author of this article, and creator of Potential For Change. I like to blend psychology and spirituality to help you create more happiness in your life.Grab a copy of my free 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control Here

Source Article from

Human: An Incredible Documentary That Will Change The Way You Look At Yourself

Next Story

“To succeed in your professional life isn’t that hard, but to succeed in your personal life is a lot harder. To really be a human is a lot harder. We forget about that.” – Yann Arthus-Bertand, director of the film Human

Sometimes there comes along a documentary that is so profound, so moving, that you want to shout out to the whole world that they must see it.

Just-released Human is one of those unforgettable documentaries that has the power to change an enormous amount of people. It may even have the ability to change how governments treat their citizens.

Directed by French born Yann Arthus-Bertand, a well-known and incredible photographer, journalist, and reporter (as well as an avid environmentalist), Human is a stunning visual feast for the eyes and has a powerful impact on the soul.

Arthus, who is also known for directing another equally stunning documentary, Home (which was viewed by a whopping 600 million people), is back with another masterpiece that showcases something that has never been done before.


Throughout the filming of Human, Arthus and his team of 16 journalists interviewed 2020 people from 60 different countries, asking each person the same 40 questions, covering many subjects such as family, love, religion, ambition, and failure.

They asked questions like:

“What is the toughest trial you have faced? What did you learn from it?”

“When was the last time you said ‘I love you’ to your parents?” and “What is love to you?”

“What are your thoughts on homosexuality, the destruction of the environment and the cost of war?”

“What was it like growing up in your country?”

“Why is humanity making the same mistakes?”

The answers often surprised the journalists and frequently took the conversation to unexpected places.

They even interviewed freedom fighters, death row inmates, farmers in Mali, and war veterans who have seen life in a very different context than have most of us.

Countless Moving Moments

Of the countless moving moments in the film, I personally found the scene right at the beginning to be the most touching.  Leonard — a man who is in prison in the US for murdering a woman and her child — speaks of his abusive childhood and how his father would often beat him and say things like,  “I did this because I love you,” and “This hurts me more than it hurts you.”

Leonard grew up, not surprisingly, with hate in his heart – and a very warped idea of what ‘love’ is. He then ended up committing this truly horrific act.

He was sentenced to prison and strangely, only discovered what ‘love’ meant after he came across a woman named Agnes who forgave him for what he did. And she was the mother and grandmother of the two victims.

This is what Leonard said:

“By all rights, she should hate me, but instead, she gave me love, and she taught me what it was.”

The variety of people interviewed, from so many different countries, shows you the scale of the world’s common concerns, yet also gives you inspiration that the majority of people want the same things — to live in peace and harmony with each other, for governments to treat us well, and to have that connectedness that is so important. The film also showcases just how hard some people have it in this world and makes you appreciate your own life much more.

The movie also shows some of the most beautiful moving images of our earth, deserts, mountains, and landscapes, all alongside a stunning soundtrack.

I promise you, you won’t be the same after you watch this film!

Watch the trailer below!


“I am one man among seven billion others. For the past 40 years, I have been photographing our planet and its human diversity, and I have the feeling that humanity is not making any progress. We can’t always manage to live together.
Why is that? I didn’t look for an answer in statistics or analysis, but in man himself.”

Yann Arthus-Bertrand

Here is a link to the full film on YouTube, which has been released for free by the producers of Human.

Check out the film’s website here.

Human facebook group

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

A New Scientific Documentary Exposing Our Non-Physical World: Matter Is Not The Only Reality

Next Story

  “Despite the unrivalled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger.”
(T. Folger, “Quantum Shmantum”; Discover 22:37-43, 2001)

The quote above is a great example that lets the reader know one thing; that new information and evidence which challenge long held beliefs about our world are always met with harsh criticism. Remember when we found out that the Earth wasn’t flat? Human history shows the same pattern, especially if we look at the history of science.

Take, for example, prominent physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in the year 1900 that, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” 

It wasn’t long after this statement when Einstein published his paper on special relativity. Einstein’s theories challenged the accepted framework of knowledge at the time, and forced the scientific community to open up to an alternate view of reality.

It serves as a great example of how concepts that are taken to be absolute truth are susceptible to change.

Today, something special in science is happening. It’s the recognition that what we perceive to be our physical material world is not the only world, and non-material factors like consciousness, for example, may play a vital role in the make-up of our physical material world.

In the scientific community, it’s referred to as non-material science.

Other areas of study in this field include telepathy, clairvoyance, ESP, and more. These are topics that have been studied within black budget and at the highest levels of government for decades, yet at the same time ridiculed by mainstream science, despite extremely significant statistical results.

This area is usually referred to as “psi” phenomena, or parapsychological phenomenon.

It’s interesting because as far back as 1999, statistics professor Jessica Utts at UC Irvine, published a paper showing that parapsychological experiments have produced much stronger results than those showing a daily dose of aspirin helping to prevent heart attacks. Utts also showed that these results are much stronger than the research behind various drugs like antiplatelets, for example.

This is precisely why Nikola Tesla told the world that,

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence”

Hundreds of scientists are gathering to emphasize this, and are not really getting the attention they deserve. All of our academia and real-world applications come from material science. This is great, but it’s time to take the next leap. How can we continue to ignore facts and results simply because they defy the belief systems of so many people?

A group of internationally recognized scientists have come together to stress the fact that matter (protons, electrons, photons, anything that has a mass) is not the only reality. We wish to understand the nature of our reality, but how can we do so if we are continually examining only physical systems? What about the role of non-physical systems such as consciousness, or their interaction with physical systems (matter)?

Here is a list of points were co-authored by:  Dr. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and surgery at the University of Arizona, Mario Beauregard, PhD, from the University of Arizona, and Lisa Miller, PhD, from Columbia University. It was presented at an international summit on post-materialist science, spirituality, and society.

The Summary Report of the International Summit on Post-Materialist Science, Spirituality and Society can be downloaded here: International Summit on Post-Materialist Science: Summary Report (PDF).

“Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” (“The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005)

Expanding Reality, A Ground Breaking Trilogy Film Series

You can purchase the film here.

“Expanding Reality is about the emerging postmaterialist paradigm and the next great scientific revolution. Why is it important? Because this paradigm has far-reaching implications. For instance, it re-enchants the world and profoundly alters the vision we have of ourselves, giving us back our dignity and power as human beings. The postmaterialist paradigm also fosters positive values such as compassion, respect, care, love, and peace, because it makes us realize that the boundaries between self and others are permeable. In doing so, this paradigm promotes an awareness of the deep interconnection between ourselves and Nature at large. In that sense, the model of reality associated with the postmaterialist paradigm may help humanity to create a sustainable civilization and to blossom.” – Mario Beauregard, PhD, from the University of Arizona

These people have exhausted their own resources in order to make Expanding Reality for the world, show your support by purchasing the movie HERE. You won’t be disappointed.




Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

Oliver Stone’s documentary ‘Ukraine on Fire’ now available in English on YouTube (VIDEO)

Ukraine on Fire


The full original English version of renowned director and documentary film maker Oliver Stone’s “Ukraine on Fire” has finally been made available.

Stone’s film explores both sides of Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan “Revolution of dignity,” and reveals some uncomfortable truths about those who supported and participated in what turned out to be essentially a violent coup d’état.

The film was originally released in 2016, but unsurprisingly, Stone came up against problems distributing the film in the US and western countries. A Russian dubbed version was available almost immediately and was aired on TV in Russia, but English speakers were left without access to the full film.

Now at last, the full exposé can be seen on YouTube. Though of course, everyone is encouraged to purchase a copy to support Mr. Stone’s important work.

Source Article from

Explosive Documentary Reveals Potential Motive in Vegas Massacre, Exposes Police Cover Up


Las Vegas, NV — As conspiracy theories run rampant online and in the media about the who, what, and why of the deadliest mass shooting in recent American history, a documentary has just revealed some incredibly telling information. In the new film, police are exposed for covering up the details of the shooting—because the casino allegedly paid them to.

Since the horrific massacre took place nearly three months ago, details and evidence presented by law enforcement have been scant at best. This is not a coincidence. One of the most telling details about the information in this case is the complete and literal blackout of any images or video that show Stephen Paddock in the Mandalay Bay casino.

While there has been much speculation as to why no video has been released, the documentary now provides an answer—the casino is playing a massive game of CYA (cover your ass).

The new film, titled, “What Happened in Vegas,” explores the role of the Las Vegas Police Department covering up the details of the shooting—for the sole benefit of their bosses in the casino. As to why the police department would deliberately keep secret what is likely the most sought-after information of 2017, the documentary explains that they are in the pocket of the casinos who would be liable for tens of millions in lawsuits because they failed to stop Stephen Paddock from killing 58 people that fateful night.

As Raw Story notes, at the root of the problem, the film explains, is that the LVPD is run by a sheriff elected in large part by donations from MGM, the corporation that runs the Mandalay Bay hotel. According to the documentary, Las Vegas police changed their story multiple times on the timeline of the shooting. One important detail the police lied about in several instances is the timing of Paddock’s shooting of security guard Jesus Campos. Why? It’s likely that the LVPD wanted to help the casino’s legal case, and if they claimed Campos was shot while trying to prevent Paddock’s rampage, as opposed to during or after, it could help the casino’s lawyers later claim that the Mandalay Bay had taken sufficient action to stop him. At least seven news organizations have since sued the LVPD for failing to release all the information from the night of the shooting, including the New York Times, the Associated Press, ABC, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

According to Stephen Stubbs, an attorney representing some of the victims in the shooting, Paddock was able to kill so many people that night because the casino treated him differently because he was a high roller. Instead of calling 911 when the shooting began, the casino called their “special back number” to a private wing of the police department in an attempt to keep the incident under wraps.

Because Paddock was a regular high roller at the casino, Mandalay bay didn’t call 911 and so dispatch was not able to link the shooting inside the hotel with the shooting a the Route 91 music festival.

“If they would’ve called 911, the 911 operator could have linked the two quicker, and the police would have gotten there quicker,” Stubbs said. “Less people would have died, and less people would have been shot if the Mandalay Bay didn’t treat their high rollers differently, and if the LVPD didn’t allow casinos to treat high rollers differently. This is the truth that [Sheriff] Joe Lombardo doesn’t want to come out.”

Given this information, the pieces of the puzzle now fall into place. As TFTP has previously reported, because of his high roller status, Paddock was also granted special privileges at the casino—like access to the service elevator.

One of the most asked questions about the massacre in Las Vegas was, “How did Stephen Paddock get hundreds of pounds of ammo and nearly two dozen assault rifles into his suite on the 32 floor of Mandalay Bay without anyone noticing?” Well, now we know—he was allowed to use the service elevator.

The fact that Paddock had access to the elevator, coupled with the fact that a special back line to police was called instead of 911—the casino now becomes complicit in allowing so many people to die that night.

We now have a motive for the parent company of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, MGM Resorts International, for paying a crisis management firm, Joele Frank, to spread disinformation about the massacre online. It keeps people confused so no one looks at them.

As TFTP noted at the time, the conspiracy theory report details how MGM International hired Joele Frank to run damage control in the wake of the deadly attack that left 58 people dead on Oct. 1. Michael’s report subsequently exposes ties between the crisis management firm and numerous Twitter accounts posting clearly bogus conspiracy theories about the mass-shooting, claiming “the shooting was fake, there was no blood, no victims, crisis actors, the whole nine-yards.”

While all this information helps us to put the cover up of the shooting by police into perspective, Stubbs delves further and offers up a convincing theory as to why Paddock did what he did. “From what I understand, Stephen Paddock did this because he wanted to hurt these casinos financially, and this was the best way he knew how.” However, because the casino responded the way they did, they became complicit in the death toll. “It didn’t have to be this bad,” Stubbs said, noting, “if they would have treated him like anyone else.”

Source Article from

YouTube censors documentary about Sweden’s migrant rape crisis

Cernovich Youtube Sweden Rape Capital


Cernovich shared the email from YouTube that informed him his documentary, Invasion! How Sweden Became the Rape Capital of the West, which was published in March, would be censored in Europe on Thursday.

Cernovich Youtube Sweden Rape Capital


The video had been previously restricted in the United States, with YouTube labeling it “hate speech,” and closing down the comments and the ability to like or share the video.

We believe in the principles of free speech, even when that speech is unpopular or potentially offensive to some viewers. However, YouTube doesn’t allow hate speech or content that promotes or incites violence,” YouTube declared. “Your video will be shown after a warning message. In addition, certain features such as comments, sharing, thumbs up, and suggested videos have been disabled. Your video is also ineligible for monetization.

In a comment to Breitbart Tech, Cernovich claimed, “YouTube has not given me any reason for the ban. They even said in their subject line that legal action has been taken. But I was not given due process of law.”

YouTube will allow child exploration and pro-pedophile videos on their platform while age-restricting a documentary on current events,” he continued. “I appealed the age-restriction finding, but Google affirmed it.

YouTube has frequently sanctioned and censored conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals on the platform, affecting Dave Rubin, Diamond and Silk, Ron Paul, and PragerU, who announced in October that they are suing YouTube and its parent company Google over alleged censorship.

This month, YouTube also “quarantined” a video on Europe’s migrant crisis released by the Polish government.

After Breitbart Tech reached out to YouTube for comment, the company removed the ban, however, the video still features a warning and restrictions on commenting and sharing.

Source Article from

“Generation Zapped” documentary exposes MASSIVE health risks associated with wireless technology

Image: “Generation Zapped” documentary exposes MASSIVE health risks associated with wireless technology

(Natural News)
As of 2017, there were an estimated 4.77 billion cellphones in use around the planet out of a population of roughly 7.6 billion. And while most users hail the technological advancement these and other wireless devices offer, a new film called “Generation Zapped” examines the huge health risks to humans posed by wireless technology.

Prior to 1984, wireless tech was used primarily by the military, but after that date, it was introduced to the civilian market (remember the first cell phones, those big, brick-like monsters?). However, the technology was brought to the market without any prior safety testing, experts in the film noted.

When humans evolved on earth there was no microwave radiation, save for a very small amount. But what has been added as of today is a billion times more than ever existed on the planet, experts noted.

So while microwave radiation caused by wireless technology is invisible, it is nonetheless a major environmental pollutant and a huge health hazard, the film says.

Thus far, regulatory agencies have said that exposure to non-ionizing radiation such as radio frequencies is safe but only for short periods of time. However, increased exposure can become a health hazard, and have “dangerous biological effects,” notes the film.

The documentary goes on to say that a growing body of research suggests wireless devices like cell phones can cause cancers in some people, and that additional exposure as bandwidth grows and wireless technology (and signals) expand, the health risks grow as well.

As evidence, it cites some women who became accustomed to sticking their cellphones in their bras as a matter of convenience who would later develop breast cancer.

“I was diagnosed with five tumors pretty much in the footprint where the phone used to sit” above her right breast, one survivor testified.

The patient’s surgical oncologist, Dr. John West, told the film’s producers that prior to his patient’s case, he was not much concerned about budding evidence of cancers connected to cellphone placement. But afterward, he said the case “kind of opened my mind.”

“It didn’t convince me there was a problem but I remember sitting [and very clearly looking at her [x-ray] slides with a pathologist. And I said, ‘Well, how many tumors are there in this breast?’ And she said, ‘Well, there’s basically three predominant tumors.’”

However, on further examination, they discovered there were five cancers in all and that they extended in a “very unusual pattern.” (Related: Cellphone radiation hurts men’s ability to conceive, study confirms.)

West said he then remembered his patient telling him where she kept her cell phone and asking if that could be a problem.

Other experts interviewed for the documentary said that the best evidence researchers have thus far of radio frequency toxicity is the fact that cancer rates are increasing.

Of course, the wireless industry is denying any link. But experts noted further that there are cancer registries in place that track new cancers in children and adults where increases are being documented. The problem, they say, is that it likely will take years before researchers are able to definitively link cellphone placement on your body and cancer rates like scientists managed to link smoking to cancer (which also took years and was also opposed by the tobacco industry).

What’s also damaging our bodies is the fact that all cell phones and Internet connections are tied together by a network of cell towers and other infrastructure, meaning there is no getting away from the signals.

As to the wireless industry, it positioned itself to be able to influence (to its advantage) any legislative, regulatory, or scientific efforts to expose the dangers of microwave radiation emitted by cellphones, Internet devices and other devices, the film notes.

Learn more about the documentary film Generation Zapped. And read more about EMF pollution at

J.D. Heyes is also editor-in-chief of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:




Source Article from

The documentary must not be allowed to die



I first understood the power of the documentary during the editing of my first film, The Quiet Mutiny.

In the commentary, I make reference to a chicken, which my crew and I encountered while on patrol with American soldiers in Vietnam.

“It must be a Vietcong chicken – a communist chicken,” said the sergeant. He wrote in his report: “enemy sighted”. The chicken moment seemed to underline the farce of the war – so I included it in the film.

That may have been unwise.

The regulator of commercial television in Britain – then the Independent Television Authority or ITA – had demanded to see my script. What was my source for the political affiliation of the chicken? I was asked. Was it really a communist chicken, or could it have been a pro-American chicken?

Of course, this nonsense had a serious purpose; when The Quiet Mutiny was broadcast by ITV in 1970, the US ambassador to Britain, Walter Annenberg, a personal friend of President Richard Nixon, complained to the ITA.

He complained not about the chicken but about the whole film. “I intend to inform the White House,” the ambassador wrote. Gosh.

The Quiet Mutiny had revealed that the US army in Vietnam was tearing itself apart. There was open rebellion: drafted men were refusing orders and shooting their officers in the back or “fragging” them with grenades as they slept. None of this had been news. What it meant was that the war was lost; and the messenger was not appreciated.

The Director-General of the ITA was Sir Robert Fraser. He summoned Denis Foreman, then Director of Programmes at Granada TV, and went into a state of apoplexy. Spraying expletives, Sir Robert described me as a “dangerous subversive”.

What concerned the regulator and the ambassador was the power of a single documentary film: the power of its facts and witnesses: especially young soldiers speaking the truth and treated sympathetically by the film-maker.

I was a newspaper journalist. I had never made a film before and I was indebted to Charles Denton, a renegade producer from the BBC, who taught me that facts and evidence told straight to the camera and to the audience could indeed be subversive.

This subversion of official lies is the power of documentary. I have now made 60 films and I believe there is nothing like this power in any other medium.

In the 1960s, a brilliant young film-maker, Peter Watkins, made The War Game for the BBC. Watkins reconstructed the aftermath of a nuclear attack on London. The War Game was banned. “The effect of this film,” said the BBC, “has been judged to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting.”

The then chairman of the BBC’s Board of Governors was Lord Normanbrook, who had been Secretary to the Cabinet. He wrote to his successor in the Cabinet, Sir Burke Trend: “The War Game is not designed as propaganda: it is intended as a purely factual statement and is based on careful research into official material … but the subject is alarming, and the showing of the film on television might have a significant effect on public attitudes towards the policy of the nuclear deterrent.”

In other words, the power of this documentary was such that it might alert people to the true horrors of nuclear war and cause them to question the very existence of nuclear weapons.

The Cabinet papers show that the BBC secretly colluded with the government to ban Watkins’ film. The cover story was that the BBC had a responsibility to protect “the elderly living alone and people of limited mental intelligence”.

Most of the press swallowed this. The ban on The War Game ended the career of Peter Watkins in British television at the age of 30. This remarkable film-maker left the BBC and Britain, and angrily launched a worldwide campaign against censorship. Telling the truth, and dissenting from the official truth, can be hazardous for a documentary film-maker.

In 1988, Thames Television broadcast Death on the Rock, a documentary about the war in Northern Ireland. It was a risky and courageous venture. Censorship of the reporting of the so-called Irish Troubles was rife, and many of us in documentaries were actively discouraged from making films north of the border. If we tried, we were drawn into a quagmire of compliance.

The journalist Liz Curtis calculated that the BBC had banned, doctored or delayed some 50 major TV programmes on Ireland. There were, of course, honourable exceptions, such as John Ware.

Roger Bolton, the producer of Death on the Rock, was another. Death on the Rock revealed that the British Government deployed SAS death squads overseas against the IRA, murdering four unarmed people in Gibraltar.

A vicious smear campaign was mounted against the film, led by the government of Margaret Thatcher and the Murdoch press, notably the Sunday Times, edited by Andrew Neil.

It was the only documentary ever subjected to an official inquiry – and its facts were vindicated. Murdoch had to pay up for the defamation of one of the film’s principal witnesses. But that wasn’t the end of it. Thames Television, one of the most innovative broadcasters in the world, was eventually stripped of its franchise in the United Kingdom.

Did the prime minister exact her revenge on ITV and the film-makers, as she had done to the miners? We don’t know. What we do know is that the power of this one documentary stood by the truth and, like The War Game, marked a high point in filmed journalism.

I believe great documentaries exude an artistic heresy. They are difficult to categorise. They are not like great fiction. They are not like great feature movies. Yet, they can combine the sheer power of both.

The Battle of Chile: the fight of an unarmed people, is an epic documentary by Patricio Guzman. It is an extraordinary film: actually a trilogy of films.

When it was released in the 1970s, the New Yorker asked: “How could a team of five people, some with no previous film experience, working with one Éclair camera, one Nagra sound-recorder, and a package of black and white film, produce a work of this magnitude?”

Guzman’s documentary is about the overthrow of democracy in Chile in 1973 by fascists led by General Pinochet and directed by the CIA.

Almost everything is filmed hand-held, on the shoulder. And remember this is a film camera, not video. You have to change the magazine every ten minutes, or the camera stops; and the slightest movement and change of light affects the image.

In the Battle of Chile, there is a scene at the funeral of a naval officer, loyal to President Salvador Allende, who was murdered by those plotting to destroy Allende’s reformist government.

The camera moves among the military faces: human totems with their medals and ribbons, their coiffed hair and opaque eyes. The sheer menace of the faces says you are watching the funeral of a whole society: of democracy itself.

There is a price to pay for filming so bravely. The cameraman, Jorge Muller, was arrested and taken to a torture camp, where he “disappeared” until his grave was found many years later. He was 27. I salute his memory.

In Britain, the pioneering work of John Grierson, Denis Mitchell, Norman Swallow, Richard Cawston and other film-makers in the early 20th century crossed the great divide of class and presented another country. They dared put cameras and microphones in front of ordinary Britons and allowed them to talk in their own language.

John Grierson is said by some to have coined the term “documentary”. “The drama is on your doorstep,” he said in the 1920s, “wherever the slums are, wherever there is malnutrition, wherever there is exploitation and cruelty.”

These early British film-makers believed that the documentary should speak from below, not from above: it should be the medium of people, not authority. In other words, it was the blood, sweat and tears of ordinary people that gave us the documentary.

Denis Mitchell was famous for his portraits of a working-class street. “Throughout my career,” he said, “I have been absolutely astonished at the quality of people’s strength and dignity”.

When I read those words, I think of the survivors of Grenfell Tower, most of them still waiting to be re-housed, all of them still waiting for justice, as the cameras move on to the repetitive circus of a royal wedding.

The late David Munro and I made Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia in 1979. This film broke a silence about a country subjected to more than a decade of bombing and genocide, and its power involved millions of ordinary men, women and children in the rescue of a society on the other side of the world.

Even now, Year Zero puts the lie to the myth that the public doesn’t care, or that those who do care eventually fall victim to something called “compassion fatigue”.

Year Zero was watched by an audience greater than the audience of the current, immensely popular British “reality” programme Bake Off. It was shown on mainstream TV in more than 30 countries, but not in the United States, where PBS rejected it outright, fearful, according to an executive, of the reaction of the new Reagan administration. In Britain and Australia, it was broadcast without advertising – the only time, to my knowledge, this has happened on commercial television.

Following the British broadcast, more than 40 sacks of post arrived at ATV’s offices in Birmingham, 26,000 first-class letters in the first post alone. Remember this was a time before email and Facebook.

In the letters was £1 million – most of it in small amounts from those who could least afford to give. “This is for Cambodia,” wrote a bus driver, enclosing his week’s wages. Pensioners sent their pension. A single mother sent her savings of £50. People came to my home with toys and cash, and petitions for Thatcher and poems of indignation for Pol Pot and for his collaborator, President Richard Nixon, whose bombs had accelerated the fanatic’s rise.

For the first time, the BBC supported an ITV film. The Blue Peter programme asked children to “bring and buy” toys at Oxfam shops throughout the country. By Christmas, the children had raised the astonishing amount of £3,500,000.

Across the world, Year Zero raised more than $55 million, mostly unsolicited, and which brought help directly to Cambodia: medicines, vaccines and the installation of an entire clothing factory that allowed people to throw away the black uniforms they had been forced to wear by Pol Pot. It was as if the audience had ceased to be onlookers and had become participants.

Something similar happened in the United States when CBS Television broadcast Edward R. Murrow’s film, Harvest of Shame, in 1960. This was the first time that many middle-class Americans glimpsed the scale of poverty in their midst.

Harvest of Shame is the story of migrant agricultural workers who were treated little better than slaves. Today, their struggle has such resonance as migrants and refugees fight for work and safety in foreign places. What seems extraordinary is that the children and grandchildren of some of the people in this film will be bearing the brunt of the abuse and strictures of President Trump.

In the United States today, there is no equivalent of Edward R. Murrow. His eloquent, unflinching kind of American journalism has been abolished in the so-called mainstream and has taken refuge in the internet.

Britain remains one of the few countries where documentaries are still shown on mainstream television in the hours when most people are still awake. But documentaries that go against the received wisdom are becoming an endangered species, at the very time we need them perhaps more than ever. In survey after survey, when people are asked what they would like more of on television, they say documentaries.

I don’t believe they mean a type of current affairs programme that is a platform for politicians and “experts” who affect a specious balance between great power and its victims. Observational documentaries are popular; but films about airports and motorway police do not make sense of the world. They entertain.

David Attenborough’s brilliant programmes on the natural world are making sense of climate change – belatedly.

The BBC’s Panorama is making sense of Britain’s secret support of jihadism in Syria – belatedly. But why is Trump setting fire to the Middle East? Why is the West edging closer to war with Russia and China?

Mark the words of the narrator in Peter Watkins’ The War Game: “On almost the entire subject of nuclear weapons, there is now practically total silence in the press, and on TV. There is hope in any unresolved or unpredictable situation. But is there real hope to be found in this silence?”

In 2017, that silence has returned.

It is not news that the safeguards on nuclear weapons have been quietly removed and that the United States is now spending $46 million per hour on nuclear weapons: that’s $46 million every hour, 24 hours a day, every day. Who knows that?

The Coming War on China, which I completed last year, has been broadcast in the UK but not in the United States – where 90 per cent of the population cannot name or locate the capital of North Korea or explain why Trump wants to destroy it. China is next door to North Korea.

According to one “progressive” film distributor in the US, the American people are interested only in what she calls “character-driven” documentaries.

This is code for a “look at me” consumerist cult that now consumes and intimidates and exploits so much of our popular culture, while turning away film-makers from a subject as urgent as any in modern times.

“When the truth is replaced by silence,” wrote the Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko, “the silence is a lie.”

Whenever young documentary film-makers ask me how they can “make a difference”, I reply that it is really quite simple. They need to break the silence.

This is an edited version of an address John Pilger gave at the British Library on 9 December as part of a retrospective festival, ‘The Power of the Documentary’,held to mark the Library’s acquisition of Pilger’s written archive.

Source Article from

M.I.A. to premiere her documentary at Sundance

Pop star M.I.A. is making her career debut in the film industry in 2018. The “Paper Planes” singer is stepping out as an indie film maker with the premiere of her first documentary titled “Matangi/Maya/M.I.A.” Directed by Stephen Loveridge, the film celebrates the career of M.I.A. with behind the scenes footage from over the years. The documentary is a depiction of her life in art taking fans through a collage of footage some of which she shot herself. The film takes fans into her personal world where she reveals conversations with herself, ups and downs as well as sharing her inner conflicts as an artist determined to maintain her identity in an ever changing process of self-discovery. 

M.I.A. is the star in front of the camera and the visionary behind the camera on this project. Her documentary represents a personal film project that is part pop-rockumentary,  personal documentary and reality show all in one.  M.I.A.’s film project will premiere at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival along with other biopics including Kevin Kerslake’s documentary on Joan Jett. When asked about the subjects she talks about in her film, she shared  in an interview with Pitchfork that fans should look forward to things that you would not expect to see in a Beyonce documentary.

Source Article from