Exclusive Interview
Foster Gamble on 'Thrive' the Movie, Its Critics and What Can Be Done to Stop the Conspiracy
The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Foster Gamble.
Introduction: Foster Gamble is President & Co-Founder of Clear Compass Media; Creator, Host, Co-Writer, and Director of Visual Design for THRIVE ... At age 14, Foster Gamble had a vision where he glimpsed what he perceived to be the Universe’s fundamental energy pattern. He spent the next 35 years trying to figure out the details and implications of what he had seen. That quest took two paths: a scientific journey and an exploration of the human potential to navigate successfully through the challenges threatening our survival. THRIVE represents the convergence of these two paths. Furthering his exploration of what was keeping humanity from thriving, Foster spent nearly a decade “following the money” in every sector of human endeavor. The process revealed an understanding of our predicament that led him to create the strategic solutions offered in THRIVE. Foster’s exploration of “living geometry” – how nature builds the “material” world, came to fruition in 1997 when he co-convened the Sequoia Symposium, a multi-disciplinary scientific think tank exploring perspectives on “Unification Theory.” There, the primary patterning that the universe uses to sustain healthy systems was clarified and cohered, as was its use as a blueprint for us to design sustainable, all-inclusive technologies and social systems. This discovery represents the convergence of science and the evolution of consciousness that Foster set out to explore after his initial vision, and is the “code” that is featured in the documentary film, THRIVE, and on this website. Foster lives in Santa Cruz, California with his wife Kimberly Carter Gamble.
Kimberly Carter Gamble is Former CEO, Co-Founder and Advisor for Clear Compass Media; Producer, Director, and Co-Writer of THRIVE. She brings a wealth of personal and professional experience to Clear Compass Media, and creating the movie THRIVE called upon it all: as a former journalist, including for Newsweek International; a producer of large projects and events; a lifelong activist for social justice and as a mother and step mother to nine children. One especially encouraging insight that emerged in the course of making THRIVE was that the most informed people are consistently the most hopeful, because once the nature of the problem is clear, so are the solutions. Kimberly is committed to using her privilege to empower these bold and leveraged solutions.
Daily Bell: We were surprised by how good Thrive was, especially since we'd been critical of it previously. Why did you make such a high-budget production as opposed to, say, writing a book or article?
Foster Gamble: First of all, I want to comment on your being surprised. Frankly, I was shocked and really disappointed that The Daily Bell was doing an in-depth review of the film, really twice, without having seen it. It was not the kind of critical thinking I usually associate with the Daily Bell, so I am glad that some of your people, including yourself, have actually seen the movie and appreciate it. So now we can have much more meaningful conversation about what we have done and who we are.
The message of this movie is really the result of literally my entire life's research. I put most of my life savings into making it because the goal was to actually alter the global conversation in a way that could really make a difference in the way that everyone on the planet could have the opportunity to thrive. So, I knew that to do that, a book wouldn't reach that many people, an article wouldn't reach that many people, but if a film were really coherent and powerful and done in a quality way so it carried as much beauty and credibility as possible, that had the best shot of going all over the world and changing the conversation. I am happy to say that seems to be what is happening.
Daily Bell: Give us some background on yourself for those who haven't seen the movie.
Foster Gamble: I was raised in Cincinnati, Ohio by extraordinarily wonderful parents. My father was part of the Gamble family, who were descendants of James Gamble, four generations ago, who was the co-founder of Proctor and Gamble, the soap and household products company. So I was raised in quite a comfortable situation. I went to all the elite private schools and went to Princeton University, and was successful in school in a lot of ways.
I was on the fast lane in the mainstream towards the usual pyramid of success but I was completely disenchanted with it. I looked around at the world that I was about to leave college for and I saw that we were destroying our environment, we were invading Cambodia for no good reason that I could figure out and we were at the risk of destroying life as we know it on planet Earth through a nuclear holocaust.
So when I found out that I was inheriting from my grandparents just enough money that if I managed it carefully, I could choose what I wanted to do with my life – I had created the film-making department with some others at Princeton so I was passionate about making films but I realized I didn't have anything to say that was worth all the time and money and knowledge that's necessary to make a feature film. So instead, I dedicated my life at that point to finding out what is causing so much human suffering. With all the technology, and all the goodness of the human spirit that I know about, why is it that so few people are really thriving? So I thought that would take a few years, and when I figured that out, I would make a film about it.
Well, little did I know it would take more than forty years to come to a sufficient understanding of what I think is in the way of our thriving, but also a sufficient perspective on the nature of solutions that could actually get us out of this mess. So that's when I decided to make the film and to give it the best possible shot of being successful and effective.
Daily Bell: Give us some background on your wife, who appears in the movie as well.
Foster Gamble: Kimberly grew up in Los Angeles in a real film-making family. Her dad was the major producer for Jack Lemmon's films and her brother is the major production designer for Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis and also won the Academy Award for production design in "Avatar" recently. So she grew up around people who knew how to make a dream come true and go from just thoughts in their heads to a very successful project that could positively impact people's lives.
She herself was very disenchanted with Hollywood and left at an early age. She went to Berkeley and really has been an activist all her life. She is a brilliant investigator and writer and she worked for Newsweek International for 10 years, mostly in Europe, and then she just created basic entrepreneurial, activist projects the rest of her life, which were both her occupation and the fulfillment of her mission. So she's a very talented producer, and she ended up directing Thrive. She did a fantastic job of bringing in the feminine energy into topics which are so often dominated by either sort of removed and purely intellectual men in science, or angry ranting males in the conspiracy area.
I am glad to be talking to you in this conversation about her because even in the liberty world, the percentages, gender-wise, are so strongly focused toward the masculine that we are really thrilled by the level of interest in these topics that Thrive is generating, especially amongst women and young people. There is no more powerful force that I have come across in the universe so far than the motherly protection of the female species. I have found over the years in my activism, if women take something on, it's going to happen.
Daily Bell: Can you give us a synopsis of Thrive?
Foster Gamble: Thrive is an investigation into what is in the way of our thriving and what on Earth it is going to take for humanity to be thriving on a healthy planet. The film starts with an investigation of what we call 'The Code.' The code is a pattern in nature, this donut-shaped toroidal vortex that seems to be, from my studies, the only pattern by which nature sustains a healthy system – and that's quite a statement. Obviously, we live in a pretty large universe and as far as we can tell, at least from the atomic level to the clustering of galaxies, every system organizes in a toroidal form that can sustain itself. So what is being offered to us is a blueprint from nature as to how to design healthy living systems. There is nothing more critical that we need at this point in history.
Later in the film, we get into how to use that as a compass to chart a healthy course. But first of all, once we see the implications of this code – because it turns out that inventors who have been aware of this fundamental pattern in nature have designed devices that mimic this pattern and then can be tuned like a musical instrument and at certain frequencies will start pouring out clean, safe electricity. That's great news, given the way we are polluting our skies and fighting over oil and running out of fossil fuel and all that kind of stuff. So the great news is that those technologies exist. The unfortunate part is that they have all been brutally suppressed by the powers that shouldn't be.
So we go into an exploration: If this code is so important, who else knew about it and who else knows about it? It turns out that core elements of this geometry have been encoded by multiple ancient cultures – by the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Mayans, the Aztecs – over and over again. Knowledge of these codes has been passed on in stories and books and icons, buildings, for millennia so there was something important that they wanted to pass on.
Then, in addition, in a sense from the future, we go into the phenomenon of crop circles. These crop circles are patterns in crops around the world. There have been at least 6,000 of these documented, but the estimates actually go up to about 11,000. Certainly many of them are hoaxes but many of them are absolutely inexplicable with their phenomenology, and their detail, and no footprints on rainy nights. But more importantly, hundreds of these patterns represent, at a very deep level, exactly the same understanding of the geometric patterns of energy that took me a lifetime to even begin to glimpse. So I think, and I suggest in the film, that we are being shown by civilizations more advanced than we are fundamentally how energy works so that instead of ourselves destroying our selves and polluting our planet we can actually learn to come into harmony with these energetic patterns. So that's the first chapter of the movie, The Code.
The second chapter is The Problem, where we really look to see who is suppressing these things and who's destroying our food supply and who's polluting our skies and our water and our soil and who's destroying the economy. We have a major problem here. What's going on? So basically, Chapter 2 is we follow the money upstream, to see who's actually controlling the money. And it turns out those same people, those same organizations – and it's a small group of families – are actually controlling virtually every sector of human endeavor.
Once we establish that, then we go into the next chapter, which is what we call the Global Domination Agenda, because it turns out, as far as I can tell from consistent vast research, the point of the control is not just to make money. These families already have more money than anyone on the planet and they can pretty much print it whenever they want because they run the central banking system as well. But the agenda seems to be to actually take over the lives of all people across the entire planet, which is pretty chilling and sounds like a poor James Bond movie or something – except that it seems to be true, and all the evidence that comes out in the news these days supports that hypothesis.
Given that, the last chapter in the film is Solutions and we really made a strong effort to have half of this movie be about solutions. Rather than scare people under their beds and then in the credits say, have people write your congressperson, buy a Prius, and change your light bulb, we actually looked to say, now that we know what's going on, here are some active solutions and strategy's that we can take, that can turn this thing around, especially given that it's a very small percentage of the population, it's not even the 1%, it's like .0001% of people that are actually perpetrating this agenda. As we wake up, especially through the Internet and we begin to take action, non-violently, especially in the pattern of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, non-violent, non-participation is the key, and movement like Occupy, Anonymous, and aspects of the Tea Party and others are beginning to tap into these principles to take effective actions to turn this thing around.
Daily Bell: You explain toward the end of the movie that there is a cabal trying to shove the world toward global governance, but that it is far broader than any one religious group. Can you explain who is participating?
Foster Gamble: Yes, it is really important that people understand that this is not a religious thing, it's not a ethnic thing, it's not a nationality thing, but it is a group of people fundamentally who saw the potential of the central banking, fiat money scam. In other words a few people get to make up money whenever they want, and of course if they can do that, like the Monopoly game, they're going to be able to buy everybody out eventually. That's what is about to happen, we are almost there. It's taken in this country, since 1913, the creation of the Federal Reserve to devalue the purchasing power of the dollar to almost zero, but it's become a global situation. We're about to see Greek collapse, the Euro collapse and it's coming to this country.
It's not an accident, it's not just incompetence, there is a small group of people, most simply the international bankers and their minions who have a plan, and there's plenty of documentation for this, to create a one-world government, with them in charge. So it's really got the benefits of crony capitalism for them, but also the benefits of kind of communist dictatorship, kind of along the lines of the Chinese model and that's why David Rockefeller really praises the Chinese model, because they get to privatize the profits but socialize the loses, just like we're seeing in this country. The plan is very close to being fulfilled, they have just about taken over every sector of human endeavor, and they've virtually collapsed the entire global economy. Obviously the entire planet is bankrupt, but that's part of the plan. When they bring it all down that's the excuse, when people are running around scared to death, they say, hey, we've got this global structure and this global economy and this one world currency and the UN and NATO will be the organizational units and the police force, and we'll come in and rescue you. It's the classic problem reaction; solution and we are almost there. So we need to wake up and take action right away.
Daily Bell: Much of what you related toward the end of the movie is in line with what we suggest regularly. We know you've read the Daily Bell because you sent us an email objecting to our characterizing the movie before seeing it. Are you a regular reader?
Foster Gamble: Well, I go there quite often but I really haven't had a chance to put in the time to follow it as much as I'd like to. I was driven away for a while and lost interest with those two original reviews but as some of your membership started writing very thoughtful things after seeing the movie, I have been following it quite closely.
Daily Bell: So much of what you reported in the movie parallels what we believe – even the stuff about the promise of the Internet and the struggle between what we call the Internet Reformation and the power elite. Do you believe, as we've argued, that the Internet is an updated Gutenberg press, and that there is in modern history a struggle going on between communication technologies and the ability of the elites to control information?
Foster Gamble: I think the major battleground coming up will be for the Internet. As long as we can keep the Internet open, we are getting informed so rapidly and getting organized so rapidly that it gives me tremendous confidence about a thriving future. Whereas, through SOPA, PIPA and ACTA and the Cyber Security Act and so forth, there are so many attempts by the government, by corporations and by the UN to take over control of the Internet that I was very concerned and it was my greatest concern when the film was coming out, frankly – until the emergence of ANONYMOUS, because I have been hoping that brilliant computer whizzes from all over the planet would organize in a way, just to protect free speech globally, and I am thrilled that they have.
Daily Bell: How did you come to know of us? We are not exactly a mainstream publication.
Foster Gamble: Well, my son, Trevor Gamble, was the one who introduced me to key elements of conspiracy and how money really works and finally, the whole perspective of liberty. He gave me lots of things to read, references and websites to go to, and he and I would stay up late arguing night after night for months about these principles. I realized that he was standing on much stronger ethical and logical ground than I was, and invited him to teach me.
The Daily Bell was one of the sites that he introduced me to and I also want to proudly let people know that he has just published a book after many years of his own research, called The Secrets to Non-Violent Prosperity – The Principles of Liberty. You can check this out on Amazon. I think the Bell readers would really appreciate the job he has done, collecting and simplifying a tremendous amount of data and anticipating and answering the usual objections.
Daily Bell: Explain how you became interested in Austrian economics and knowledgeable about it.
Foster Gamble: As we discussed earlier, my son was most instrumental to begin with. I consider the liberty awareness as the third great discovery in my life. The first was Aikido. Aikido is a non-violent martial art and I taught this art for 15 years. When I found there was a way to access universal energy and to protect ones self and one's loved ones, in a non-violent blending way, it was an absolute turning point in my life, that has affected everything that I have done, because then I have gone on to apply those principles in every area, so that was the first one.
The second one was when I came across these inventors who were accessing free energy by resonating, by blending with the movement of this toroidal flow, instead of crushing atoms together or burning hydrogen or making an explosion and trying to control it. That released me, in terms of relationship to energy in a way, because it was similar to the Aikido, and both of these were the application of these toroidal awareness.
The third big break through was when I came across the liberty perspective, because I am convinced that if we are going to sustain life on planet earth, as human beings, we are going to need to redesign all of our systems in the honoring of this toroidal pattern because that's what nature does to sustain.
What I came to realize as I say in the movie, at the human level the fundamental torus is the individual, not the group, and a healthy culture, a healthy civilization can only be made up of healthy individual torus's. So that for me, it was the third big discovery of my life and that's how profound this liberty perspective is. It transcends the usual illusion of the political polarity and all of the coerciveness that collectivism always has to resort to, and can actually liberate humanity, to honor one another, to create a healthy economy and an absolutely thriving planet, in a relatively short amount of time.
Daily Bell: You've moved among elite circles. Why isn't free-market economics more popular in universities, etc.?
Foster Gamble: In universities, first of all, most of the teachers are tenured through government funding. They would undermine themselves to be honest about true free-market economics. Secondly, the education, just as with agriculture and energy and the rest of these areas, has basically been taken over by these elite families.
The National Education Association, NEA, was funded by the Rockefellers and the Carnegies and the Fords, and if you look into each one of these areas, the elite created these foundations to shelter their own income, but then basically to take over education, and take over health care, to match their own agenda. Their agenda for education is to create docile workers and willing consumers. If you look very narrowly behind the surface of most schools, most foundations, most corporations, you are going to find an agenda for state control that we are not educated about in those very systems.
Daily Bell: Is there fear in elite circles about those at the top of the hierarchy and what they intend to do?
Foster Gamble: That's a great question. I don't travel much in elite circles anymore. It's not where I found my interest to be. I feel like I pretty much understand what is going on there, and don't like to be around that conversation, but one thing that has been very exciting for me it that I have been contacted by numerous people who do travel in those circles and who did not know what is going on. They didn't realize what they were a part of in certain corporations or foundations and schools and so forth, and they have become very interested in the information in Thrive and are reassessing what they are doing in their life energy. I have been contacted by one member of the Rockefeller family and one member of the Rothschild family, in the youngest adult generation, and what I am hearing from several members of their families is that we're accurate about what we are saying in the film. These two individuals, at least, are embarrassed about what their ancestors have done and are looking to see how they can be effective in turning the course of that ship and changing the legacy of the family.
I'm excited about having constructive conversations with people like this, to align not on the principles of how to control people's lives or which political party to align with but instead to move the whole conversation to the principles of integrity and the principles of freedom. That's where I am finding that people are reconciling in their families, in their workplace, even in their political parties. They are reconciling at a new level that we can all agree on.
I would also like to add another thing that has been very exciting for me. I have been doing a ton of interviews in all different sorts of media. It will go from a UFO interview to a conspiracy interview to a liberty interview to an economics interview, and not only is that interesting, to not be focusing on one topic, but most excitingly, what I am finding is the conversations in each of those groups is very similar. The conversation is up-leveling beyond exclusive topics – 'we are the only ones that know about this, we only want to talk about this and talk to people who agree with us.' It's elevating to the level of, 'Okay now we are beginning to understand how we've been fooled, we are understanding how the dots are connected and we want to be in the conversation about what we can do about it before it's too late.' I am getting that everywhere.
So I am hoping that Thrive can help play a role in the liberty movement of connecting to other groups, as some of the people on your comment board have noticed, also, of connecting to left-wing groups, new-age groups, connecting to science groups and many other groups, in ways that the liberty perspective has had some challenges in connecting successfully in the past.
Daily Bell: You mention what we have come to believe, that the top elites intend to wipe out much of humanity. What's the schedule, in your view?
Foster Gamble: (Laughing) Well, I don't have any specific data on the schedule for depopulation but what I am seeing out there now is that the would-be controllers are pulling out all the stops and just moving as fast as possible.
The first order of business seems to be the collapse of the global economy and the US economy, especially because I think the Federal Reserve Charter, which was a 100-year charter, comes up for renewal in August of 2013. I don't think there's a chance that that would pass any legal or true vote so I think that has partly accelerated their desire for total control. I think they are trying to complete their agenda for total control this year, in 2012, to actually have the global currency and global government and global army, global tax in place.
In terms of depopulation, I just see them stepping up their attempts with these fake pandemics, the toxic vaccines, the chemtrails and the fluoride, the unnecessary wars and the drones killing civilians and the GMOs in the food – it just goes on and on. What are the chances that this is all just incompetence that all happens to lead to the dumbing down, the sickening of and the killing off of the human population?
Daily Bell: Let's go back in time. When did you decide to make Thrive and why?
Foster Gamble: As I mentioned, this was the movie I wanted to make since college but it was in 2003 that I finally felt that both my understanding of the real problems – what's going on behind the scenes – and that my understanding of the minimum, sufficient, coherent solution strategies to get us out of this, first came to fruition. That's when Kimberly and I started, and spent the last eight years making the movie and the website.
Daily Bell: You come from a moneyed family and are presumably a rich man. Why were you driven to do this?
Foster Gamble: First, I have been blessed with the privilege of choosing what I wanted to do with my life, and have been able to help some people along the way, but that's about it in terms of my wealth. I have what I would call an upper middle class income but the key thing is, I haven't had to work for it. So instead, I have devoted my life to working for a thriving planet, whatever that took, and I have been a very hard worker in that cause. I have spent most of my resources in getting to this point.
What really inspired me to do the film, and the turning point, was when I learned about meditation. The deeper I went in meditation the more I kept hearing this sound, which turned out to be the wailing of the suffering of humanity. And once I started hearing that literally screaming inside my own being, which wasn't me in my privilege of Ivy League college but actually the humanity of which I'm a part, I committed myself to doing everything in my power and privilege to relieve that suffering. And when I made that commitment, that wailing went away from my meditation. So I think that was the major turning point and everything in my life that I have learned has only made me want to do more to relieve suffering and to help humanity discover the principles and practices that can allow everyone to thrive, without exception.
Daily Bell: Are you afraid for your life and that of your loved ones?
Foster Gamble: No, I'm not. It has been a definite consideration, given that we cover about a dozen topics in the film any one of which people have been threatened or harmed for even bringing up. It's definitely been a consideration and we've learned from many of the people who are in the movie, like David Icke, Catherine Austin Fitts, James Gilliland, Steven Greer, Patrick Flannigan and many others who have been threatened and harmed or had their work stopped by the powers that shouldn't be. We learned from them a lot of how to go about this as realistically and eyes-open as possible.
We've taken every precaution we know how to take but the main one was to stay under the radar until the movie was out. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and to harm us would only reinforce what we are saying about how this kind of information is very often suppressed. I am happy to say there are the usual debunking sites on the Internet, where they try to make things up about the movie and me, but so far, so good.
Daily Bell: If the elites are as terrible as they say, don't you think they won't take their revenge on you?
Foster Gamble: No, I don't.
Daily Bell: You mention a lot of solutions toward the end of the movie but we have come to believe, like Larken Rose, among others, that the best thing that can happen is that society, Western society anyway, collapses. How do you respond?
Foster Gamble: Yes, that's a really interesting question because obviously there is a tremendous amount of suffering in collapse. What I am dedicating my current efforts to is I'm travelling all over the country and all over the world, meeting with Thrive-inspired groups, that are self-creating communities and sharing with them what we call the Thrive solutions model. It is a very highly leveraged and effective means of organizing in a local community by sector and then linking together with other communities around the world to leverage the actions that people are taking.
I think the systems as we know them are crumbling; in fact, they are being intentionally taken down, as I described before, so that they can be taken over at a whole new level. I don't think there's been a more important time for people to catch on to self-sustaining, localized energy access and food access and media access, and to the principles of liberty around which we can organize and actually create non-coercive, sustainable alternatives.
I'm a big fan of Larken Rose, and in particular, Stefan Molyneux, and others who have been willing to try to think through, 'OK ... how would civilization actually work if there were no coercion, if there were no mandatory taxes, if there were no states as we know it?' That's what got me really excited because there are not only viable alternatives; they are, in fact, the only alternatives that I know of that could actually work – because when tyranny rears its head there's always a revolution, and in these days of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, even single individuals can begin the destruction of life as we know it. So we absolutely have to organize effectively and create the new systems on a decentralized basis. And to me, as I say in the movie, the non-aggression principle is the absolute core navigating insight around which we can do that.
Daily Bell: We noticed that you emphasize in the movie group solutions and not necessarily individual ones. Is that a correct interpretation?
Foster Gamble: No. I am recommending that all solutions be based on honoring the individual and voluntary association. So when people come together, I think they are going to be a lot more effective when they create groups. Whether it's a protest or a petition or a new alternative currency bank or a gold-backed currency, they are going to be more effective as they organize in groups, as long as the groups are never based on violating the rights of the individual.
Interestingly enough, I just came back from Olympia, Washington, where I was invited to address and participate at the Occupy Solidarity Social Forum, where they brought the representatives from Occupy sites from all over the country for this conference. The most popular and intense conversation that was going on at that entire conference was centered on exactly these liberty issues. They had set aside one room among many, many workshops – I think there were 70 workshops or so – but they had set aside one small room where a socialist was going to debate a young Ron Paul advocate. Well, they should have had it in the auditorium because it was packed, standing room only and spilling out into the halls. The debate was so intense that unfortunately I didn't get to hear all of it and what I heard was not well informed or articulated.
But also when I did my screening of Thrive with an hour of questions and answers and solutions brainstorming, I would say the most compelling topic to everyone was: How do we resolve this left versus right split? If we trust going with the individual, are people who are disadvantaged going to be taken care of? This whole notion of how do we create solutions without violating our core ethics is the one that is emerging, even in Occupy. I am seeing it everywhere I go. At different screenings of Thrive around the world, this is primary. Besides free energy this is the most popular topic and that excites me.
I thought I was going to spend six months to a year arguing over whether the Federal Reserve was federal and whether there was any agenda going on. People are getting the movie, they are getting the coherence and they are moving very quickly to, 'OK, what can we do about it and what are the organizing principles?' This is where I think the knowledge that is in the liberty movement is now going to be blossoming and bringing its contribution to really rescuing what's going on across the planet.
One of the major breakthroughs in Thrive was offering a three-stage solution – a solution plan, if you will. Certainly one of the stumbling blocks for the liberty community, as I've been associated with it for many years, is that so many of the thinkers are isolated in the ivory towers of the peer principles that they are not engaging much at all in practical, transition solutions. What I did in Thrive was kept to Mises and Rothbard's notion of keeping the goal in mind but then creating effective transition strategies. As long as the goal is absolute liberty, and you commit to not creating any new violations along the way, it's easier to tolerate what goes on in the gradual shrinking of the system – because the system is not going away overnight.
So that's where, in Stage 1, we take care of disenfranchised people not with new taxes but with money that is getting freed up from cutting the military budget and from getting rid of the Federal Reserve and so much other corruption. If you take that money for some period of time and help people, and help transition from polluted to organic soil, and take care of people who have really been struggling the most and those who have been most damaged from this corrupt system, then that gets you to the stage where government has shrunk down to a kind of minarchist stage, where you're protecting individual rights and providing some needed security while you still have any government at all.
I personally am quite confident that if we can take it that far, the prosperity and freedom and security will have so mushroomed that people will not want to stop there. By that time – and really all these steps start at the same time – by that time we will have seen that dispute resolute organizations work and private security and private insurance work way better than the state and people are taken care of by neighborhood and by church and by family, by genuine charity rather than coerced. We are going to see how much better all these systems are already working, and it will just be natural to keep going to ultimately a voluntary civilization. If we don't ultimately go there, I am not sure it can work.
Daily Bell: We think people should just stop participating in this increasing horrible society and practice peaceful civil disobedience. What say you?
Foster Gamble: I totally agree and that's one of the reasons why they invited me to Occupy and I was eager to be there and learn from them, because there are a lot of people there who have been working on that for a long time, as have I. I have been a non-violent civil disobedient activist pretty much my whole life, and I think that if we get violent in reaction, other than in true self-defense, we're just going to justify more police state measures. So I think it's critical that we actually use non-violent non-participation.
World War III has been going on for a long time and it's been going on in almost everyone's life. It's primarily because it's economic. In Thrive, John Perkins makes very clear what's been going on in other countries, but in this country the vast majority of people's lives are being destroyed by this economic warfare. But if people catch on that through economic means we can collapse that house of cards – that is the tapeworm banks and the media and the military and so forth – those can be collapsed or they will need to turn on a dime to get with the new agenda if people organize effectively and vote with their money, vote with their lives, votes with their choices that they make every day. And one of those is to not participate to whatever degree is safe and practical to not participate in those systems.
Now, I have chosen to pay taxes because I don't want to be taken out of the game. I object completely to any involuntary taxes, especially the income tax, but if I were sitting in a jail cell I don't think I would be as effective as I have been through being able to make Thrive and the website and having a voice in the world. At the same time, though, I totally respect people like Larken Rose and Wesley Snipes and others who have been willing to take that stand and pay the price and have that action speak very loudly.
Daily Bell: Why is it necessary to bring aliens into the picture at the beginning of the movie? Couldn't ancient civilizations have discovered what you mention? Does it have to be ETs?
Foster Gamble: Well, that is interesting, and one of the reasons Kimberly and I funded the movie on our own, up through the first rough cut. That's as far as we could afford to go but we were committed to having any investors that came in know exactly what the story was. We didn't want anyone saying, 'Well, if I'm putting my money in then you have to take out ETs or you have to take out liberty or you have to take out conspiracy.' I will tell you there are people who have warned us to take out every single part of the movie. (Laughing)
But we knew that our life's mission was to connect the dots, and this free energy dot is as significant as any of the other ones. The change that it would make would be more dramatic than any other one I can think of and it's right up there with liberty, in terms of that core importance. It is really part of the back-story to the free energy, this really convincing phenomenon of extra-terrestrial visitation. For anyone who is willing to immerse themselves in the data, you can read over 500 first-hand witness reports, from high level government military people, astronauts, police officers, pilots and so forth, and from countries all over the world. There are consistent stories from all sorts of people and consistent from people who have seen how these ships are driven.
The two key elements that for me are one the suppression of ETs and UFO information, hand in hand with the suppression of free energy, because they do go hand in hand. If we're being visited by beings from other planets or solar systems or other frequency dimensions, they're not burning fossile fuel to get here. That's physically impossible. So the implications are huge.
The other element is that this isn't just a political film. This film has a lot to do with our consciousness and our worldview. We used to think the sun went around the Earth and that the Earth was flat but we grew beyond those realizations. A lot of people think that we're the only life in the cosmos and we are, I believe, truly cosmic citizens. We live on this particular planet in a vast cosmos, but our consciousness is connected to the entire rest of the universe. To the degree to which people open up to that their consciousness expands, their identity expands and they begin to access inner guidance, whether it's from cosmic consciousness or higher-level beings or whatever. Many famous scientists and inventors have attributed their inventions to being able to access this inner intuition which is intimately connected with consciousness beyond the human rational mind and our particular plane of existence.
Daily Bell: Give us your take on ancient civilizations. We believe that there was perhaps a global, coastal civilization that was very advanced and was drowned by melting glaciers. You disagree?
Foster Gamble: I don't know about that but there certainly are a ton of flood stories in vary reputable documents, from all over the world from ancient cultures. So I think there must have been some pretty amazing floods in the past, whether from meteors or melting of glaciers during warming periods. Scientifically, I would certainly bet that those occurred. Whether or not we have had ancient cultures influenced by extraterrestrial cultures, the evidence is very convincing to me that that did happen. I can't prove it but circumstantially it seems to be so and the reports from all over the world are logically very compelling.
There aren't many other explanations that I can think of for how cultures thousands of years ago would have been aware of very advanced physics and mathematics and astronomy, and have been able to build things like the great pyramids where there are block of stone that we could not even lift with our current technology, then put together with laser-like precision that also would be difficult if not impossible for us to mimic. Many of the stories that talked about these sun gods and their burning chariots and mating with human beings and so on seemed wild and crazy to me, until I spent 10-15 years immersed in the literature, cross correlating different facts from different civilizations. And then the key moment came, what I call the maybe moment when you do enough homework and a window opens in your mind and you go "HUH... well, maybe..." and you start to seriously consider it rather than reject it just on face value because you have been taught to ridicule the topics.
Daily Bell: Has it ever occurred to you that you're a traitor to your class? Are you getting the cold shoulder?
Foster Gamble: I certainly anticipated some of it but I am delighted to say I haven't gotten a single bit of it. Nothing.
Daily Bell: We were touched by the movie, because it is only the shred of a dream now that Western elites will actually stick up for civil society. The idea that someone initially from the moneyed class would do so is surprising. What are your ulterior motives?
Foster Gamble: (LOL) I truly appreciate responsible skepticism, and I truly have learned to be more and more skeptical, particularly of people who might, by association, have some sort of hidden agenda. So it was excruciating for me. The two months between the time the trailer came out and when the film came out were really emotionally challenging for me because here I gave a lifetime's work of an offering to humanity and then a whole lot of people on the Internet are writing it off because of some sort of imagined illuminati symbolism, or because of what my great, great grandfather did. I could hardly believe it at first. Then I realized, I understand that. I'll just have to wait till they can actually see the film, do their due diligence on Kimberly and mine's lives, and then they can decide for themselves. I can't convince everyone.
What I learned in business is that you provide what you can to early adopters, to those people we are actually ready to integrate something new and I am happy to say that most of that conversation has dwindled since the film came out. Kimberly and I have lived lives of great compassion and integrity, and we didn't anticipate that someone would dig up something nasty from our lives, or uncover our true scheme or something like that, because there just isn't any. What is happening now bit-by-bit, just like on your site, people who are actually willing to do their homework on Thrive, on the website and on our lives are going through that maybe moment? Maybe these guys are for real and maybe this is kind of our dream come true of what it would look like if somebody had a lifetime, and four or five million dollars to devote to getting the word out, that we need to honor each other's liberty if we are going to survive and thrive.
Daily Bell: OK, maybe that question wasn't entirely serious, but we want to know if you still experience skepticism in the alternative media community.
Foster Gamble: I'm getting very little skepticism from the liberty movement. Most of the skepticism I am getting now is from the ultra left wing, from what I would call militant progressives who, frankly, are afraid of the response that Thrive is getting, particularly amongst young people, amongst a lot of the usual left-leaning base who have become disenchanted with traditional politics and disillusioned with their hopes for Obama changing things. So, it's creating a very animated liberty conversation on the left, as well as on the right. I really thank them for having the courage to come forward and challenge me because on the Internet and in various convenings now we're starting to have that conversation where each individual − I am challenging each individual, in every single talk, to stand up and tell me at exactly what point is it okay for somebody to put on a uniform, strap on a gun and go take somebody else's stuff or harm them? And I tell you it gets really quiet in those rooms.
We are taking about suppression by the state in our countries and other countries as well but people are just starting to catch on that this is going on. I did a screening in northern California where about a hundred mostly left-leaning progressives loved Thrive, and they wanted to engage in this liberty conversation, and they got into pretty hot debates amongst themselves. There were still a few who had lingering hopes that Obama had just been hobbled by the Republicans, but most of them realized because it was literally within a few days of him signing the NDAA, authorizing detaining citizens indefinitely and rendition and even assassination all around the world and even of American citizens. That was the straw that finally opened up this conversation of, HUH, maybe we need to find principles and structures that go beyond the old political binary. So I am thrilled to say that that conversation is emerging faster than I ever thought possible.
Daily Bell: We kept looking for elite promotional propaganda in the film, but outside of the ET stuff we couldn't find any. We have to warn that we are flabbergasted generally and none of the elves can really believe what they just saw. We therefore state for the record that the jury is still out. We are waiting for you to announce something that will undercut your apparent sincerity. How do you respond?
Foster Gamble: (LOL) I really appreciate the integrity of people in your membership to sit down with this movie and experience it first hand with a skeptical mind, and then come up with their own conclusions. I hope they never lose their skepticism about Thrive but at the same time, I hope they won't restrain their enthusiasm and support in sharing it with their friends and neighbors and colleagues.
Daily Bell: We mentioned we hadn't seen the movie when we wrote about it ... some would say negatively. Has this been a fair interview?
Foster Gamble: I think it's been a very fair interview and I think it was very irresponsible to slam the film before seeing it. I must say Alex Jones did the same thing. He got sucked in on the radio. A caller called in and said, 'I really love this Thrive thing, and what do you think?' He said, well, he really shouldn't comment on it before he sees it and then he went on commenting about it in all sorts of suspicious ways, about my family and the hidden agendas and so forth. So we wrote to him because at the same time that he was doing that, we had just received an invitation from his producer to come on the show. So we wrote to him and said we would love to come on the show, but only if you have seen the film and you welcome an open conversation and you can ask us anything. Anyway, they did see the film and they have invited us on the show and we are looking forward to that conversation. I really appreciate the maturity of being willing to acknowledge a mistake by doing a premature review, and to do an open fruitful interview like this.
Daily Bell: What are your thoughts on Ron Paul?
Foster Gamble: A lot of people have been asking me, 'Well, if you're not a political guy and you don't believe in the state, what do you think about current politics? What do you think we should be doing?' I really am a principles rather than a politics based solution organizer, and the only two politicians that interest me in the high levels, are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, but based on their principles and not so much their politics.
I would love to see an independent party with the two of them running together. I think Kucinich would be a brilliant stage one strategist for the progressive caretaking aspect of the Thrive solution strategy and Ron Paul would be fabulous for the shrinking government and getting out of foreign wars and so forth. They would be overlapping in stage 2. I have known Kucinich personally, but I don't know Ron Paul, though I have followed him for years and I have so much respect for his integrity and his courage even though I don't agree with all his social policies. I think that both of them have an absolute stand for getting rid of the Federal Reserve and for stopping the foreign wars. So it is on the basis of that and their personal integrity that if I were going to vote for anyone, I would vote for the two of them, and Ron Paul has gone public and said he would be delighted to have Kucinich in his cabinet.
Daily Bell: Any last statements you want to make? Do you have a timeline for social collapse or war or whatever? Are the elites moving too fast because they're scared of the Internet?
Foster Gamble: Well, I just did a video blog yesterday that I think will come out on Saturday morning on the Thrive site on this very topic because I am more concerned about this, more than I ever have been. I had just done one on a potential false flag in Iran last week, and how I see them doing the same thing they did in Vietnam, same thing in Iraq – beating the drums for war under false pretenses – and I have a concern that they will potentially even sink the USS Enterprise and say the Iranians did it in order to get it going over there.
But the one that I just did has to do with the Greek situation. I believe that what we are seeing is predominately a domino situation: Collapse the economies throughout the European Union and there is enough interconnectedness with all those banks and governments that it could be the domino collapse that really goes globally. I also think they are not only trying to do that this year, I think they may be trying to do it within the next few months, but potentially weeks and that's why I did that video log right now.
I am really concerned that they are doing this last little pump-up of our stock market, and then going to bring the whole thing down in order to create the fear reaction to bring in their global government.
I am not optimistic about the near-term transition, and I am encouraging people to prepare individually, in their communities, and in their lives, and then with whatever time you have to get out and be active with groups, exposing the agenda and creating the new systems that can emerge as the old ones come down. Whether it's new alternatives to government or alternatives to central banking, alternatives to corporate media. The work that so many people are doing right now is so great and it only needs to be amplified so it can emerge, rather than a global police state as the systems come down.
Daily Bell: Any websites, etc., that you want to recommend?
Foster Gamble: Mainly, www.thrivemovement.com and particularly the liberty and the solutions section. In the solutions section there's a very copious set of solutions, strategies, tactics and tools, and then there's a whole section under solutions on liberty. This is for people who aren't that familiar with it. We go into principles, debunking the common myths and that type of thing.
The main thing is the organizational strategies that we have, such as connecting with other organizations, with other communities, principles around which to organize and use the Internet if you are inclined to link up with one another on a national and global scale in that liberty section – you will find resources in every section, and we have the resource tree where we recommend websites and books.
Daily Bell: Thank you for being so generous with your time. Congratulations on the movie. We'll be watching ...
Foster Gamble: Well, thank you so much for your open-mindedness and open-heartedness. Also, to the Daily Bell, I deeply congratulate you on the work that you've been doing, getting this critical word out for years, and I am truly thrilled and honored to be included in the form of this interview and your support of Thrive.

Well, our elves DID end up enjoying the movie, especially as Foster Gamble doesn't duck hard questions including those having to do with the apparent genocide that the power elite may have in mind (see Georgia Guidestones). And while the movie does focus on aliens, it only does so in the first part, not throughout.
There are some, of course, who may claim that Gamble's movie has been created to cover up Jewish involvement in the power elite conspiracy (or to promote libertarian economics). We don't see it that way. We believe the conspiracy is larger than any one religion or culture, and Gamble isn't shy about apportioning blame generally.
But the movie is about more than merely blaming and Gamble tries to come up with solutions that are proactive and that people can actually implement. Some of these may be more logical than others and in this interview (above) he mentions entities such as Occupy Wall Street that we believe may have been created initially by the powers-that-be to stay "ahead of the curve."
The "curve" is the Internet itself and the Internet Reformation that is steadily exposing what we consider to be the implementation of a New World Order. Thrive makes itself part of this exposure and, whatever its flaws, it certainly must stand as one of the more accessible and slickly produced efforts within this venue.
Maybe we are missing something about Thrive, and maybe Gamble's ultimate message or behavior may be different than what it currently seems to be. But one would likely have to push the boundaries of skepticism to claim that it has an obvious overt motive beyond the stated one. Others may come to a different conclusion, and we certainly had different notions before we viewed the movie. But we were pleasantly surprised (for now anyway) and will be interested to see how Gamble builds on his movie as he tries to awaken more people to the unfortunate reality of what is currently taking place.
Editor's Note: In previous comments, we were negative about Thrive, pointing to its supposed "New Age" and "aliens-among-us" approach. In this review we were certainly more positive. But as part of our larger effort to be even-handed, we should probably point out that the movie has been alleged to contain Illuminati symbolism in certain graphics and certain supposed factual errors. As we mentioned above (and suspected) the movie is being accused of subtly fostering a one-world agenda and misleading viewers about Jewish influence. Here's one criticism: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=225161 (On date of publication.)
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||


Posted by memehunter on 03/07/12 03:01 PM
Right on time, Abu to the rescue with his usual innuendos and attempts to distract...
Out of curiosity, do you also wish to deny the existence of forced/involuntary choices, or that there may be, sometimes, unwilling recipients of decisions enacted by others, even in a free market?
Posted by John the Just on 03/07/12 02:59 PM
DEAR MEMEHUNTER,
I AM FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO DIFFERENTIATE AMONG THE COMMENTS MADE EARLIER, THOSE QUOTED, AND THE ONES I'M MAKING NOW. PLEASE EXCUSE MY SHOUTING HERE - IT IS DONE ONLY TO MAKE DECIPHERING WHO SAID WHAT, WHEN, EASIER.
I'M THE ONE SHOUTING, AND YOU ARE IN QUOTES, AND EARLIER STATEMENTS ARE IN DOUBLE QUOTES WITHIN THE QUOTES.
'MLG sounds interesting, thanks.
'"Power always flows from the bottom up - never from institutionalized seats of power back down. Because it is based on the voluntary association of Sovereign Individuals, it tends always to correct any groups activities back towards the freedom of those individuals."'
I agree with this.
Here is what I wrote earlier on this thread to NAPpy:
'"If the State exists as a legitimate vehicle of the community's choices and aspirations, and truly represents these choices, and as long as its power does not go beyond this, it has a legitimate function."'
I AGREE. THE PROBLEM WITH STATES IS THAT THEY ARE ONE FOR ONE TOP-DOWN POWER STRUCTURES, AND WHEN SOMEONE WITH THAT POWER IN HIS HANDS OVERSTEPS HIS PROSCRIBED LIMITS, HISTORICALLY IT HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO REIN HIM IN. MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE COULD IMMEDIATELY STAUNCH THE FLOW OF POWER TO SUCH AN OVERSTEPPER.
I JUST COMMENTED TO NAPPY, 'EACH GROUP WOULD BE FREE TO EVOLVE ITS OWN BYLAWS. I HAVE NO TROUBLE WITH SOME FOLKS CHOOSING A CANNIBALISTIC DICTATORSHIP FOR THEIR PREFERRED MODEL. THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO AWARE THAT THEIR WAY OF LIFE MIGHT BE THREATENED IF THEY CHOSE TO EAT SOMEONE OUTSIDE THEIR HAPPY GROUP.
AND SPEAKING ABOUT CANNIBALISTIC DICTATORSHIPS - GIVEN THAT THE BEST SLAVE IS ONE WHO THINKS HE'S FREE, I THINK THE POWERS THAT SHOULDN'T BE WANT THE WORLD'S POPULATION TO VOLUNTARILY VOTE THEMSELVES INTO JUST SUCH A SYSTEM.'
'It is not that different from your viewpoint, if I add that a community is a collection of individuals with some shared goals and some individual goals (I still think, however, that the interactions between individuals can make a community "greater than the sum of its parts - so it is not merely a question of looking at fragmented individualities).'
YOUR "GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS" COMMENT RAISES WARNING FLAGS WITH ME. THAT SENTIMENT HAS ALLOWED TOO MANY SELF-PROCLAIMED ENLIGHTENED LEADERS TO START SACRIFICING MEMBERS OF THEIR GREATER GROUP, IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THAT GREATNESS.
THAT SAID, I WILL NOT DENIGRATE THE SUBLIME FEELING ONE CAN HAVE WHEN HE FINDS HIMSELF IN COORDINATED ACTIVITY SURROUNDED BY THOSE OF LIKE MIND. IT IS LIKE THE AURA SURROUNDING YOUNG LOVERS - AS A COUPLE THEY ABSOLUTELY GLOW! OR LIKE A WINNING SPORTS TEAM - EACH INDIVIDUAL GIVING 110% FOR THE GOOD OF THE TEAM. AND IF I MAY PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH - I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY THE GLORY OF SUCH A GROUP, IT DISSOLVES THAT EXISTENTIAL FRAGMENTATION WHICH CAN BE THE DESPAIR OF BEING A SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL WANDERING PLANET EARTH ALONE. BUT IF FORCE STARTS TO BE USED - A LA PRESIDENT LINCOLN TO SAVE THAT GLORIOUS UNION - THEN THE DREAM IS NO MORE.
AS A PARTING THOUGHT, YOU AS A MEME HUNTER SHOULD APPRECIATE ONE OF THE MOST UNINSPECTED MEMES GOING: THAT ALL LARGE ASSOCIATIONS OF PEOPLE MUST BY NECESSITY BE TOP-DOWN AFFAIRS.
![]() |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 03/07/12 02:55 PM
"Virtually every position you adopt implies "force required"
No doubt about that, imho.
"You are immune to alternative POV's because, IMHO, that is what you are paid to represent."
Would a bought and paid for disinfo/distraction agent literally brag about being "proud" to be "ignorant" of the very school of thought he attacks so feverishly?
I really don't know, but it would seem that the (in fact) varying positions he adopts not only include multiple cognitive dissonances at times, but indicate a deep-seated urge for some authority, ANY authority, to "take care" of certain matters, where, according to memehunter, free and voluntary choice cannot be trusted.
Posted by memehunter on 03/07/12 02:35 PM
I would gently advise all other feedbackers who want to deny the existence of involuntary or forced choices to be prepared to answer the questions I asked to rossbcan.
Otherwise, I suggest that it might be more constructive to recognize that involuntary or forced choices do exist in the real world, and that there is a tangible difference, in many real-world situations, between voluntary actors and passive recipients of decisions enacted by others.
Posted by memehunter on 03/07/12 02:20 PM
You still don't understand.
Let me give you an example (not the first time I used this one on the DB):
If two parties decide to agree on a loan, it is a voluntary transaction. However, that transaction is a "forced choice" on all other users of that currency as it does indeed indirectly affect all other users of that currency (whether these effects are negative or not is another question, but it should be obvious that there is an effect).
If you don't (want to) understand this, then I have wasted my time with you.
Now, extrapolate this to many other situations. Do you think it is a "voluntary choice" by the baby in Rothbard's example to die because his parents stopped feeding him or her, which, again according to Rothbard, should be a legal right for parents? What is the answer, rossbcan? Voluntary or involuntary?
![]() |
Posted by rossbcan on 03/07/12 02:18 PM
"Speaking about being immune to alternative POV's"
well, for once, you are correct. To me, virtually EVERY problem can be solved by the "hammer of free choice", or the "unseen hand" when you restrict larger truths to the subset of economics.
and, I wouldn't exactly call your falsely framed "arguments" a nail. Maybe a pin.
![]() |
Posted by rossbcan on 03/07/12 02:09 PM
passive "involuntary" recipients...
OH? so, you have a constituency that you, out of pure altrusism are representing? That makes you an "advocate", defined in my post here:
Click to view link
and, "passive", by definition in your context, means "not making choices", which means among other things, "not alive", irresponsible, "dust in the wind", at the whim of others: BY CHOICE.
Posted by Luis Magno on 03/07/12 02:06 PM
Is the Money Power of the Light or of the Dark?
My meme is this: Take the Money Power and share it "equitably" with the ethnoculturally-sovereign ethnoraces.
Posted by memehunter on 03/07/12 01:59 PM
I'm afraid you still don't understand the concept of active "voluntary" actors and passive "involuntary" recipients. I'm not simply talking about refusing a trade that is not on "your terms". Involuntary choices happen all the time, whether in free markets or under governments, when decisions and choices made by other people have indirect effects on you or your community. It's true that you sometimes have the option of changing your situation if these decisions do not please you or affect you negatively, but this was still a "forced/involuntary" choice, i.e., not something you would have done in the first place.
"You are immune to alternative POV's because, IMHO, that is what you are paid to represent."
Speaking about being immune to alternative POV's...
And no, I am not paid to represent anyone or anything.
Posted by Luis Magno on 03/07/12 01:53 PM
Enough already. 7, 8, 9 ... 13. Who cares? I volunteer to be #1.
Luis Magno (nomme d'guerre)
![]() |
Posted by rossbcan on 03/07/12 01:39 PM
virtually everything you post implies "force required". A free market is composed of mutually consensual participants, in one area with no coercion.
If someone locks up a market under terms to which others "do not agree", they are free to go elsewhere and trade on "other terms". The tighter the monopoly, the greedier it gets and, the higher the motivation (profit) for competetors to "provide innovative alternatives", destroying those who seek to profit by monopoly, as opposed to adding mutually agreed value. Economic non-survival is inevitable for those who fail to add value. The unseen hand will shun them and, if they forcefully insist, become seen, and smite them.
There is no such thing as "involuntary choices" in free markets that are not a creation of organized force, setting monopoly terms, excluding competition / alternative choices.
Virtually every position you adopt implies "force required". You are immune to alternative POV's because, IMHO, that is what you are paid to represent. And, you're not doing very well here at DB. Time for an avator change, re-assignment, or, hopefully "fired".
end rhetoric:)
Posted by Luis Magno on 03/07/12 01:38 PM
FREE CHOICE is NOT EVERYTHING. GOD'S WILL is DECISIVE!
Luis Magno (nomme d'guerre)
Posted by Bobby7 on 03/07/12 01:32 PM
Yo ALL,
This is ALL Bull Dung!
When you read Paul Taylor's CV, you don't read that Coke Cola is a CURSE on Planet Earth! Which it is! So why does Paul keep his mouth shut? He does not have the courage to point out the REAL problems on planet earth today- MULTINATIONALS.
"Paul Taylor - CEO of Clear Compass Media
Paul Taylor grew up in a small town outside of Toronto with the dream of becoming a 'corporate rock star'. He was inspired by his heroes of the day Alex P. Keaton (Family Ties), Ferris Bueller, Gordon Gecko (Wall Street) and the infamous Donald Trump.
By the age of 33, Paul thought that all of his dreams had come true. He was a Global Director/VP of Strategic Innovation at The Coca-Cola Company in charge of the $12 Billion Coke Classic/Diet Coke business unit and had been identified as having the upside to eventually become the Chief Marketing Officer. But a funny thing happened on the way to living happily ever after. No matter how much more money, more stuff, more promotions, more everything…Paul could not fill the void of meaning in his life.
Eventually, Paul was saved by the love of a good woman, his beloved wife Anne, and they now live in sunny Florida with their three young boys and a golden retriever to boot.
To that end, Paul has spent the past decade pursuing three questions at the heart of his life's work.
How do we awaken, inspire, empower, and enable the new possibility of being a human being?
How do we organize/govern ourselves as a species to liberate human flourishing?"
Posted by John the Just on 03/07/12 01:20 PM
Hi NAPpy,
You are in quotes below; I'm not.
'John,
I agree that anarchism, Ancap, libertarian are already sullied terms. When cornered into talking politics, I usually say something like--I can validate for myself that I should never initiate aggressin against another. All of my political beliefs can be deduced from that principal. Then I smile to myself while I watch them try to figure out if I'm a republican or a democrat! When forced to label myself, I'd probably say voluntarist.'
When squeezed into that corner you mention, I now admit to being a Human Naturist, and following the political organizing structure of HumanNatarchy. You can imagine I get a lot of raised eyebrows, and people start to edge away from me at social gatherings.
I like the HumanNatarchy term because it is a positive statement that whatever we Humans want to do, is the measure of what is correct for that moment. Just as the Value/Price of some Good or Service is determined second by second by the Marketplace, so are Good and Bad continually changing moral concepts. (Beware the Social Architect who is so sure he's right that he's willing to kill you to make peace.)
'I think I figured out the concept now--wasn't patient enough figuring out the site navigation yesterday. I have no problem with the concept in general. How committed to the idea of 7 are you?'
It's curious you mentioned 7. I had initially started with Groups of 7, but decided to up it to 8 - what I have termed 8-PAC's. My basic formula was: big enough to seem more than a casual bunch of friends, and small enough so that every member knew that his voice was important. (Kind of like the Goldylocks Formula.) Just for editing purposes, is there still one of my pieces suggesting that the Group size should be 7?
But to answer your question: No, choose whatever size Group you want. I think that the failing of Representative Democracy are two-fold: 1) A person's Representative is too far removed from any influence he or she might have to control him once he is elected; and 2) Representative Democracy has to date been used in only the Top-Down governmental structures we know as the State. I want to allow folks to get as close to Direct Democracy as possible.
Again, on Group size, I do hedge on a 1st Level Group - I suggest that any size of 8 or more is fine. There are many Groups out there with charismatic leaders whose folks would follow them anywhere. Insisting that a large existing Group, happy with its Leader, break itself up just to fit the pattern seemed forced. But to avoid #1 above I think that any Group on a 2nd Level or above should be limited to the Goldylocks Formula.
And even with that charismatic Leader - my advice to him or her is to ask his followers to create 8-PAC's so that he could better keep track of what they felt about things.
'Shouldn't a group number be tied to its purpose?'
That's a consideration that I hadn't looked at. What is your reasoning there?
'Also, would adopting contract theory add anything to the concept?'
If that's what the members want.
'If I'm electing a person in some voluntary association to represent my interests, I'd feel more comfortable if his authority was spelled out.'
Spell away!
'Do you see this as just a natural organization that would evolve when left to voluntarily associate, or something that would need to be sold?'
MLG is just the platform upon which Individuals can associate as Groups. Whatever Accommodations they came up with to reach their goals would be their business. If something were sold, they would be selling it to themselves.
'I like the outlaw example. Have you looked at Hoppe's argumentation ethics, or any of Libertarian legal theory?'
I wrote an extensive reply to the DB's Nov 11 interview with Hoppe. It was way too long to be admitted, and by the time I trimmed it down, it was so much less than I wanted to say, and the conversation had dissipated to a point that I didn't post anything. I have put it on my Click to view link site under a new section: Peripheral Comments. You can find it there (as soon as I figure out how to get it there #@&**$%#!).
Please give me links to the specifics of Hoppe's argumentation ethics, and to Libertarian legal theory.
'I think some guidelines need to evolve on when it's ok to enforce something, when you use non-violent outlaw type tools, and when you can't enforce anything at all.'
Each Group would be free to evolve its own bylaws. I have no trouble with some folks choosing a cannibalistic dictatorship for their preferred model. They would just have to aware that their way of life might be threatened if they chose to eat someone outside their happy Group.
And speaking about cannibalistic dictatorships - given that the best slave is one who thinks he's free, I think the powers that shouldn't be want the world's population to voluntarily vote themselves into just such a system.
'You did fine on the pop quiz. I was just trying to show to those interested that economics isn't just this random field of study--it's an effort to answer specific questions. How those questions are answered determines what school of economic thought you adopt. Most people aren't aware that there is a heated competition of ideas in economics, and that a consensus is nowhere near occurring.'
Thanks.
I just commented to Paradox on this forum that I think there is so much nit picking among those who lust for Freedom, because we have had so little impact on the real world. There is an almost universal agreement on the big questions - but there has been no means to turn that agreement into effective action. I sincerely hope that MulitLevel Governance will provide the means to that effective action. Once the Leviathan starts to be curbed as a result of MLG association, and it is noticed that it really works - it could go viral!
'Anyways, I like what you've started and will continue to check your site for new materials.
Thanks for introducing me to the concept.'
My pleasure!
Posted by memehunter on 03/07/12 01:12 PM
Please drop the rhetoric of "organized force", and I'll be happy to discuss with you.
"FREE CHOICE is EVERYTHING"
Fine, but don't forget "involuntary choices" imposed on other market participants or other members of the society as a consequence of your free choices.
Posted by memehunter on 03/07/12 01:09 PM
"While I own gold, it is not as liquid as paper currency."
The way I see it, even in a free market, some currencies would be more suitable as means of exchange, and others as stores of value. And you, NAPpy, would likely have little to say about it beyond your own individual input (same for me or anyone else taken individually): you would simply have to adapt and use the currencies that fit best your need of the moment.
We will always have to deal with "involuntary choices" in life, whether in a pure free market or with a minarchy. So this focus on "central planning" is a bit rhetorical, at least in this specific context.
Additionally, there is a reason for Gesell's suggestion to use demurrage-based currencies: the means of exchange is meant to circulate, NOT to be hoarded. Moreover, by advocating that the value of the means of exchange should depreciate with time, Gesell sought to eliminate the advantage that the monetary plane has over the plane of physical/"real" investments (see my comments in an earlier reply to you).
But no one is forcing you not to hoard the means of exchange in this situation: it is simply made, by design, not to be in the best interest of its users to hoard it. If you want to see it only as "coercion" or "central planning", fine, but I think that is a very one-sided view of the situation.
And I must repeat, again, that a free market of currencies will not solve all your problems: some currencies will be more suitable for hoarding, some not. There is little use railing against this and blaming the issuer of a currency meant to be a means of exchange that he is "coercing" you into not hoarding it. It would be a bit like blaming the company that made your car that it is coercing you into not being able to use it as an airplane.
"Again, this is a mutual wealth transfer--the poor and rich comparison is a false dichotomy in this case."
I don't disagree with your example, but I note that, even with a debt-free currency, compound interest can, and will eventually, lead to a control of the money supply by Money Power. More about this on Anthony Migchels' blog.
![]() |
Posted by rossbcan on 03/07/12 12:50 PM
You are both wasting your time on the wild goose chase of "is interest / fiat... " valid? memehunter LOVES to suck people into falsely framed "arguments" where, whatever the "conclusion", organized force is "neccessary" to impose it. Organized force is "solutions", looking for and creating "problems".
Look beyond the question to having an "answer" in hand. What are you going to do with it? Whatever the "answer", if forcefully upheld, some will dispute and when you push, they WILL dissent, fight and defend.
You have fallen for a fundamental "meme", the search for elusive "absolute truth", something which, in the realm of freely volutional intelligences in diverse environments, which, even, if it exists, will not be accepted by ALL. The tit for tat conflict between "freedom to choose" and "obey or else" will ultimately destroy the combatents and make everyone else "collateral damage".
Let people choose and face the consequnce of their own actions and, profit or suffer and learn "when wrong".
FREE CHOICE is EVERYTHING:
Click to view link
Posted by NAPpy on 03/07/12 06:23 AM
"An interest-bearing, debt-based, 'private gold-backed currency' will also lead to unpayable interest and to the same negative consequences, with the caveat that, if it is not a monopoly, people have the option to use a different currency."
Well, I agree that not enforcing a monopoly on using gold is morally required. But, price levels can theoretically adapt to any amouunt of currency, even if it was artificially limited to gold. Loans that aren't printed into existence clear themselves. They are not inherently stable.
-----
"Why do you automatically link negative interest with central planning? I thought you had agreed to avoid using this rhetoric."
Maybe I'm wrong. Who decides what constitutes an appropriate level and type of emergency fund? You just told me to use gold. Well, if I'm not making the decision, then that's central planning. If something exists, then it's not rhetoric. If you perceived it that way, I apologize. Now, what I want in an emergency is high liquidity. While I own gold, it is not as liquid as paper currency. Income streams from businesses are not guaranteed. I use my income streams to ADD to my emergency fund, not as an emergency fund.
-----
"I will be careful regarding the DB since it is their website. However, I think that it is clear that the DB focuses mostly on reducing or eliminating governments."
Well, I'm not going to count references. We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
-----
"Even the DB elves will agree that the DB has said very little against interest and has regularly promoted 'paper gold' schemes such as private gold standards and 'private gold-backed currencies'."
I'll let the DB speak for themselves, but maybe they don't perceive interest as the problem you do. After all, neither do I.
-----
"I have a slightly different take. I think that empirical data should not be neglected in your epistemological approach. Science begins with empirical data. Scientific theories must take into account, and be able to explain, empirical results."
Maybe my explanation wasn't clear. Knowledge is FOUND by using reason AND empirical evidence. BUT, you can't say that something IS knowledge until it is grounded in an axiom. Before an axiom is found, you just have a bunch of facts that aren't linked to anything solid.
-----
"Closer to our topic, it is thanks to empirical data that we have been able to quantify the negative effects of interest on society, such as increased capital costs to everyone and transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest segments of society."
We're back to talking past each other. The empirical evidence for interest having a negative effect on society applies only to debt-based currencies that are loaned into existence without being linked to actual savings. Increased savings lower capital costs. Lower savings increase capital costs. Capital is a market, like any other, subject to the law of supply and demand. A business loan is a win for the businessman, because he did not want to use his own savings, and a win for the lender, because he'd rather have the business owner use his money compared to his other percieved alternatives. Wealth is transferred to the business owner in the form of a more profitable business, and to the lender, in the form of increased savings. Let's say some poor working person borrows money for a TV. I personally think that's stupid, but the working man values the TV more than the decrease to his net monthly income, which is a psychic profit. If the man did not see it as a profit, he would not borrow. The lender thinks the interest offered by the working person is better than anything else he could think of doing with his savings. Again, this is a mutual wealth transfer--the poor and rich comparison is a false dichotomy in this case.
Posted by memehunter on 03/07/12 04:23 AM
'I think you mean that unpayable interest is when a fed monopoly prints debt money, loans it into existence, and then charges interest for the fiction. Is that correct? What do you mean by payable interest?'
Any interest charged on a debt-based money (regardless of whether it is public or private, monopoly or not, commodity-based or not) is essentially unpayable because new money needs to be 'created' in order to make it possible to pay the interest. In other words, there are not enough currency units in circulation to pay the interest at the moment the loan is made.
NAPpy, this distinction between debt-based money and debt-free money goes way beyond whether the currency is paper, tally sticks, or gold, and whether it is enforced by governmental decree or not. I get the impression that you still sometimes tend to equate debt money with 'fiat money', which is not necessarily the case.
An interest-bearing, debt-based, 'private gold-backed currency' will also lead to unpayable interest and to the same negative consequences, with the caveat that, if it is not a monopoly, people have the option to use a different currency.
Payable interest: Interest charged on a debt-free currency is theoretically payable and (as far as I understand) not mathematically linked to exponential growth, but may still eventually lead to total control of the money supply by the Money Power. Anthony Migchels' blog discusses this idea.
Again, please note that a commodity-based currency is not necessarily a debt-free currency. This depends whether the currency is issued as debt or not.
'The problem I have with negative interest is how is the central planner Gessel going to determine what my emergency fund requirements are?'
Why do you automatically link negative interest with central planning? I thought you had agreed to avoid using this rhetoric.
'Why should I be penalized for "hoarding" currency units, when in reality a fair person would have to commend me for planning for an emergency.'
You can always hoard physical gold - I don't see a problem with that, and Migchels himself has mentioned this. Besides, investments such as letting out a house or apartment would presumably provide a constant source of revenue.
'It seems to have been lost in the conversation, but I, and DB, DO want to eliminate money power as a primary goal. You seemed to question that in th last post.'
I will be careful regarding the DB since it is their website. However, I think that it is clear that the DB focuses mostly on reducing or eliminating governments. Even the DB elves will agree that the DB has said very little against interest and has regularly promoted 'paper gold' schemes such as private gold standards and 'private gold-backed currencies'. A more extensive discussion of the DB's positions (or, more generally, of the positions of websites promoting Austrianism) with respect to Money Power can be found on Migchels' blog.
I will simply add that, if I truly believed that the DB wanted to eliminate Money Power, I would probably be a lot less critical of their stance with respect to monetary issues.
'My contention is that you can only know something when it is an axiom, or can be deduced from an axiom--foundationalism.'
I have a slightly different take. I think that empirical data should not be neglected in your epistemological approach. Science begins with empirical data. Scientific theories must take into account, and be able to explain, empirical results. Closer to our topic, it is thanks to empirical data that we have been able to quantify the negative effects of interest on society, such as increased capital costs to everyone and transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest segments of society.
Posted by NAPpy on 03/07/12 02:45 AM
"I do make a distinction between payable and unpayable interest. But, more generally, I also agree with Gesell's point that, with interest-negative currencies, people are actually encouraged to invest their savings (banana surpluses in your example) in REAL things (buildings, other businesses) rather than merely saving money for the future. It shifts the "balance of power" to the physical plane, which is where true societal prosperity lies (at least when considering only the material viewpoint), rather than in saving more currency units."
I think you mean that unpayable interest is when a fed monopoly prints debt money, loans it into existence, and then charges interest for the fiction. Is that correct? What do you mean by payable interest?
The problem I have with negative interest is how is the central planner Gessel going to determine what my emergency fund requirements are? How is he going to determine what anyone's emergency fund requirements are? The most common reason to "hoard" currecy is to be able to handle emergencies. I interpreted my emergency requirements differently when I was single, when I was single with a business, and different again when I was married, with kids, with a business. Why should I be penalized for "hoarding" currency units, when in reality a fair person would have to commend me for planning for an emergency. And, isn't the distinction between savings and investment kind of artificial. All investments start off as savings after all. Investments don't happen instantly. Businesses don't pop out of the ground overnight. Investors and entrepreneurs save money while putting together a business plan, while waiting for land to become available, while working out a design problem, etc. Does it really make sense to punish someone for consuming less than they produce. Why does prudence need to be demonized as "hoarding". Do we really want to conflate a father worried about unpredictable medical bills with Scrooge McDuck?
I agree completely that governments stripped of money power would start less wars. Wars are expensive. Printing money and inflation are sneaky ways to pay for them. However, governments did start wars before central banks were invented.
It seems to have been lost in the conversation, but I, and DB, DO want to eliminate money power as a primary goal. You seemed to question that in th last post.
"Ethics: I will have to look into it. I am somewhat skeptical of a theory that claims that all human conduct can be derived from axiomatic deduction, but I remain open-minded. I do not claim to have anything equivalent to what you proposed."
This is one of my favorite subjects--all science is built on the question--what is knowledge, and when do we know something. Everyone has an answer to this, even if it's unconscious. My contention is that you can only know something when it is an axiom, or can be deduced from an axiom--foundationalism. This is the only rational solution to the Agrippa Trilemma. The purpose of science is to experiment with things whose cause and effect relations aren't obvious, to intuit relational hypothesis, then to continually modify them until they can be linked to something we know, an axiom. Until then, it's just facts.
Here's the link reposted:
Click to view link
|
|



l 













