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.)
Posted by memehunter on 03/06/12 08:54 AM
It is an attack because you try to personalize the debate instead of focusing on ideas.
As I explained to NAPpy (and I'm sure you read that already), one does not need to be an expert in Austrianism to show its connections to elites and to some dubious ideologies.
The facts stand on their own merit, regardless of who wrote them
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 03/06/12 08:46 AM
I understand that you don't like being quoted at times, memehunter. In particular, apparently, when the quotes demonstrate your cognitive dissonances (or your "mission") - like in being "ignorant, proudly" about Austrian Economics and Libertarianism AND asserting that Austrian Economics has a "Satanic Core" AT THE SAME TIME.
Say, when you perceive it to be a "personal attack" when one quotes YOUR contributions word-for-word, why do you write them in the first place, then?
Posted by Bluebird on 03/06/12 08:40 AM
meme: "Again, it would help if you read what *I* write before commenting on my ideas. Otherwise it would be advisable to refrain from commenting on what I wrote, when you haven't even read it."
Me: This is pure BS! I have read EVERY comment on THIS site you have made. I have followed this discussion from the day that you decided you would become the teacher to the elves.(Actually way before that.) When I comment on what you "wrote", it is within this site. NO, I will not go read somewhere else. The DIRECT QUOTES the DB gave from the article tells me it is more of the same as you have tried to incorporate here.
meme: "Then, why did I write an entire article about the.."
Me: I haven't a clue. But I have heard plenty about them here, from YOU, in these comment sections. I already addressed the religion meme, I won't repeat. What about the corporate and the military that the DB also includes in the PE? The teeth, as it were.
As for the other comments on websites, I really can't say what else you spoke about on the Darkmoon site other than that you were complaining about the DB. It reminded me of my teenagers when they get to the stage they think they have forgotten more than I ever knew. And no, I won't mention the other websites, and yes, I am sure it was you, saying more of the same and labeled "memehunter". But it is not really relevant, so deny if you wish.
As for WHO the PE are, I submit simply the "controllers" or leave it at the "Power Elite". How sad to demonize innocents sharing the religions that the controllers may hide behind by labeling them as such. My replies to you end here.
Posted by memehunter on 03/06/12 08:38 AM
DB: "Bump" ...
I will not further address these repeated assertions by the DB, except to ask for an actual reference (thread, date, and time) regarding the points below, which of course they will not be able to provide given that these are pure falsifications.
For the last time (although I might "bump" as well, if necessary), following the points enumerated by the DB:
1. I don't care who approached who, and did not say anything about that. If the DB wishes to claim otherwise, I would like to request an actual quote (thread, date, and time, please).
2. So? Paul and Rothbard still worked with Lehrman.
3. Please Google "Austrianism" and check the number of cites.
4. Actual quote (thread, date, and time, please) where I wrote that "Rothbard was a strong lifelong backer of CATO".
5. Actual quote (thread, date, and time, please) where I wrote that "Rothbard was a lifelong recipient of Koch dollars."
6 and 7. Mullins said that the Austrian School was an outgrowth of the Pan-European movement. Neither Mullins, nor I wrote that "the Austrian school was founded in the late 1920s." If the DB wishes to maintain their claims, I ask for an actual quote (thread, date, and time, please).
8. Actual quote (thread, date, and time, please) where I "implied (stated) that the concepts of the business cycle and human action were actually presented to enhance and support Money Power."
9. Actual quote (thread, date, and time, please) where I "stated that Austrian economics was an outgrowth of Keynesianism/monetarism." (I note that identifying a dialectic is not the same as talking about an outgrowth).
For other readers and feedbackers who understandably get tired of these old rehashings, I note that this post will serve as my rebuttal to the DB's baseless distortions and falsifications, until and unless new information is provided. I would prefer to move the debate forward, but clearly this is not what the DB elves wish.
By the way, I do invite readers to read the "Conversation of Freedom" thread, but I note that readers who wish to comment on my ideas would be strongly advised to read my articles first (available on Henry Makow or on Anthony Migchels' blog), instead of relying on the DB's often distorted presentation of my views.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Sorry, Memehunter, not making them up. They are on the thread a referenced. And why do you object to our pointing them out when you announced that you knew next to nothing about Austrian economics? These were YOUR words.
Posted by memehunter on 03/06/12 08:22 AM
Abu, it sounds like you actually feel threatened by the fact that NAPpy and I could actually enjoy an interesting conversation while the DB elves were asleep. Am I right?
First thing in the morning, Abu comes to the rescue and makes sure to drop some personal attacks and bring the debate down to his favorite level: ad hominem attacks and related innuendos.
Of course, thought policeman Abu has to make it clear to NAPpy and to other feedbackers that a polite discussion with memehunter will not be tolerated by the DB elves. That would create a dangerous precedent and it would make it more difficult for the DB elves to try to represent memehunter as a stupid, ignorant, and mentally retarded feedbacker.
I understand, Abu. You are only doing your job, as you have been doing for the last six months. You might as well join the DB elves and post comments with the DB bear icon as well.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 03/06/12 07:49 AM
the other day memehunter literally bragged to be "ignorant" of Austrian Economics and Libertarianism, and to be "proud of it". Yet he asserts a "Satanic Core" to it. Huh? What more do you want to know about his "mission" or his "integrity", then?
As to the question whether or not the elite "likes" Austrian Economics. This article from 1999 might help to put this "debate" in perspective:
"GM food banned in Monsanto canteen"
Click to view link
I also recall a documentary on TV where CEO's of multinational corporations (Nestle et al.) admitted, tongue-in-cheek, to feed them and their loved ones on (evil and satanic, of course) organic food exclusively. You get the picture ...
Posted by NAPpy on 03/06/12 05:53 AM
"Interest-bearing debt-currencies remain problematic, whether enforced by dictate or not, because they still amount to direct exploitation by the issuer(s) of the interest-bearing debt-based currency. Whether this is a government or a private banking cartel makes no substantial difference on that account."
This must be a particularly important subject to both of us, because I've tried to redefine terms, and you have as well, and we haven't arrived at a simple one sentence agreement on a definition (or have we?).
Let me try again. A debt-based currency is always bad. Interest charged by monopoly banking institutions on a debt-based currency is always bad. Can we agree on that?
"Yes, I agree with this. I actually wrote several times on the DB that a free market of currencies including interest-free currencies, and gold as a store of value, would be ideal. I even explained that, in such a situation, the interest-free currencies would likely attract more users in the long run than the interest-bearing currencies"
Fine. Common ground. I disagree that interest-free currencies will draw more users than interest-bearing currencies. Just to make sure we're saying the same thing, the currency itself does not charge interest in A/E, individual users will, if they want to. With that said, I think that a currency where its users can charge interest for the use of their savings will out-compete a currency that forbids its users to get a return for their savings. However, now that I know your beliefs will not get in the way of mine on this issue, my defenses are down. Try what you want. I even acknowledge that one of the experiments might be better than what I envisage as a likely outcome.
"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."
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Can that function be regulating religion, free speech, assembly, or any of the other protections against government power the U.S. has now? Can those functions be nationalizing industries? Or, the typical nightwatchman state--Defense, Police and Courts? Do you see? There is a broad variability, here? What specific function do you want the state to have?
"This ideology is extremely favorable to a scenario of worldwide control by a transnational oligarchy of elite wealthy families. In two words, Money Power. And please note that the same can be said ultimately for Communism, as I explained in my articles (I am identifying both poles of the dialectic)."
I have to take issue with this position. Money Power is in charge now, is it not? How could it be any worse under a A/E/L system? Can money power take over under Worgl / Social Credit? I thought we agreed that those were perfectly fine under AE/L?
"Some specific passages by Rand, Rothbard, and Mises, which I quoted in my article on the Satanic core of Libertarianism (SCL for short), seem to contradict your assertion."
I find this particular statement to be very frustrating. You acknowledged previously that there are more than one thinker in AE/L. The DB, myself, and others have said that Rand, Rothbard, and Mises weren't perfect. Contemporary writers have improved on their positions. Maybe we're speaking past each other again. What moral obligations are required in your ethical theory? I'll go through that list and show you where we match / mismatch with specific quotes. Maybe that's a reasonable way to move the discussion forward. I think this is necessary, because I know for a fact that AE/L ethical theory proposes very specific moral obligations, with a well-founded justification, IMHO.
"Self-interest exists, and does serve some good, as acknowledged in my SCL article. However, it should not be hailed as the foremost principle of civilization. This is evil."
Can you please define evil? Maybe include this in your expansion on the moral obligations point?
"However, I do not see inequality as being necessary for a prosperous society, as Mandeville and Mises both said."
Maybe we're speaking past each other again. If inequality exists, by human nature, then it's not necessary, it just is. Mises isn't recommending that we work to make people inequal, he's just acknowledging that people ARE inequal. He's not talking about rights and morality. He's talking about ability and inclination. Do you need me to give the specific quote, within its context, or can you take my word on this.
"Mandeville claimed that a nation's wealth was predicated on the maintenance of an underclass of poorly educated laborers (SCL)."
Mandeville is not a currently acknowledged part of the AE school of thought. I'll do all AE/L proponents a favor and disavow the truth or justification for the quote you just gave. No AE/L proponent I know of advocates the maintenance of a poorly educated underclass of laborers. Will you concede this point or do I need to dig up something specific to alleviate your concern? If so, please be specific about what you'd want to see, so I don't waste my time.
Thank you, as well.
Posted by memehunter on 03/06/12 05:12 AM
'When I say fiat money, I mean: enforced by dictate, paper or electronic, and debt-based. So, debt-based money = fiat money = immoral. Can we agree on that?'
Interest-bearing debt-currencies remain problematic, whether enforced by dictate or not, because they still amount to direct exploitation by the issuer(s) of the interest-bearing debt-based currency. Whether this is a government or a private banking cartel makes no substantial difference on that account.
I do agree that, if people have the option to use other currencies, the problem is mitigated.
'Do you see any conflict there?'
I believe I already answered your question, and you actually quoted my answer.
'Would you concede that some elite funding does not necessarily disprove all of the ideas involved?'
Yes, I concede this. My mission was specifically to disprove the statement that the 'Anglosphere (sic) elites REALLY dislike Austrian economics'. However, my comments on Austrianism/Libertarianism, especially in the articles I authored myself on Makow, go way beyond simply identifying elite funding of Austrian economists.
'Can you acknowledge the crucial point that not all Austrians have the same beliefs, and that competing currencies could include Worgl and social credit?'
Yes, I agree with this. I actually wrote several times on the DB that a free market of currencies including interest-free currencies, and gold as a store of value, would be ideal. I even explained that, in such a situation, the interest-free currencies would likely attract more users in the long run than the interest-bearing currencies.
However, the DB and some feedbackers seem to have taken the position that interest-free currencies cannot exist without some kind of governmental coercion. This is the usual reply I got when mentioning my 'ideal' scenario. I believe that this is wrong, and have enumerated several alternative interest-free currencies, such as the LETS, the Chiemgauer, and Migchels' Gelre, that appear to function reasonably well without governmental coercion.
'However, can you please elaborate on what you think the legitimate functions of a state are, and then justify those functions?'
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.
A perceptive feedbacker on Migchels' blog likened the State (or more generally, the governmental apparatus) to a car. It is true that cars sometimes need to be repaired, but most accidents, and most instances of getting lost or going in the wrong direction, are actually caused by the driver. The same is true with the governmental apparatus: reforms are sometimes needed, but when we look for problems, we must also consider the 'drivers' of the governmental apparatus, which are ultimately, in the typical Western 'democracy' at least, central banks (which themselves form a banking cartel controlled by elite families) allied with major corporations and other oligarchic concerns. In two words, Money Power (I believe that most politicians are figureheads or puppets controlled by Money Power).
So I would humbly suggest that, before getting rid of government or thinking about serious reforms (which are surely needed as well, I freely admit), it might be a good idea to change the driver. How about first reducing the influence of Money Power on the government? One way would be to get rid of this monopoly of interest-bearing debt-based currencies. Several approaches have been proposed to do this; I have suggested a few on the DB. Anthony Migchels has spent considerable energy on this topic, as did Ellen Brown, Stephen Zarlenga, Bill Still and others. Some of their solutions are possibly flawed (I do not claim to know all the details, but have identified some possible weaknesses), but at least we have a starting point.
'I don't see ANY advantage in Austrian economics for the elite, but I'm open to hearing specific proposals.'
This ideology is extremely favorable to a scenario of worldwide control by a transnational oligarchy of elite wealthy families. In two words, Money Power. And please note that the same can be said ultimately for Communism, as I explained in my articles (I am identifying both poles of the dialectic).
'However, AE/L does not IGNORE moral obligations.'
Some specific passages by Rand, Rothbard, and Mises, which I quoted in my article on the Satanic core of Libertarianism (SCL for short), seem to contradict your assertion.
Self-interest exists, and does serve some good, as acknowledged in my SCL article. However, it should not be hailed as the foremost principle of civilization. This is evil.
I agree that people are different and unequal in terms of abilities and inclinations. However, I do not see inequality as being necessary for a prosperous society, as Mandeville and Mises both said. Remember, Mandeville claimed that a nation's wealth was predicated on the maintenance of an underclass of poorly educated laborers (SCL).
Please note that I do not claim that all ideas of AE/L are evil, but that there are some core ideas that I consider to be evil.
Thank you for this interesting discussion.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes, I concede this. My mission was specifically to disprove the statement that the 'Anglosphere (sic) elites REALLY dislike Austrian economics'. However, my comments on Austrianism/Libertarianism, especially in the articles I authored myself on Makow, go way beyond simply identifying elite funding of Austrian economists.
As far as providing us with education about Austrian economics goes, you announced in a previous thread that you know little or nothing about Austrian economics, though you are "learning." You have a lot more to learn.
In previous threads we kept track of your silliness. To reconstruct:
1. You implied that Lew Lerhman was approached by Ron Paul as a co-author of a book on gold. When it was pointed that Ron Paul essentially had no choice in the matter because Lerhman was already on the committee where he served, you ignored this point and simply restated your initial thesis.
2. Lerhman, by the way, wants nations to "set" a gold conversion rate on the way to returning to gold convertability. Ron Paul is currently in favor of monetary competition and has stated this on numerous occasions.
3. You've consistently attacked the Austrian school (which you call "Austrianism" for some reason, presumably to conflate it with "Keynesianism,"). You falsely implied that Mises was personally funded by David Rockefeller when you have no facts to back it up.
4. You maintained erroneously that Rothbard was a strong lifelong backer of CATO.
5. You basically stated that Rothbard was a lifelong recipient of Koch dollars.
6. You maintained that the Austrian school was founded in the late 1920s.
7. You stated that the Austrian school was an outgrowth of a 20th century globalist movement.
8. You implied (stated) that the concepts of the business cycle and human action were actually presented to enhance and support Money Power.
9. You basically stated that Austrian economics was an outgrowth of Keynesianism/monetarism.
You really don't have any credibility on this board, in our view, even though you may think so.
Reader who wish to bother can SEE and READ your misstatements on this thread:
Click to view link
(The Conversation of Freedom Is Not Jewish)
Posted by NAPpy on 03/06/12 04:33 AM
"I actually recall writing many times that interest on a debt-based currency remains problematic whether the currency is fiat or commodity money. The main issue is not the nature (i.e., material composition) of the currency, but whether it is issued as debt or not."
Terminology is always important, wouldn't you agree?
When I say fiat money, I mean: enforced by dictate, paper or electronic, and debt-based. So, debt-based money = fiat money = immoral. Can we agree on that?
"This example is using two (actually, three) different currencies (social credit vs gold and silver), so it's not a case of users sharing one currency."
If we are not using the same currency, then I can't see how my use of interest on a commodity-based, not debt-based, money, can have any impact at all on you, while you're using a social credit money? Do you see any conflict there?
"... elites had supported Austrian economics for a long time."
I'll concede this, for the purpose of moving the discussion along.
Would you concede that some elite funding does not necessarily disprove all of the ideas involved?
"... and I agree especially with his points about gold"
Many feedbackers, to include the DB and myself, tried to point out that austrians have not reached a universal consensus on this issue. Maybe all the hyperbole and vitriol obscured that point. There are 2 currency schools in Austrian economics--gold standard only, and competing currencies. The DB and myself recommend adopting competing currencies. Can you acknowledge the crucial point that not all Austrians have the same beliefs, and that competing currencies could include Worgl and social credit?
"... and about the "Hate the State" rhetoric"
I'll acknowledge that I revert to rhetoric when it comes to demonizing the state. My bad. I'll try to tone it down. However, can you please elaborate on what you think the legitimate functions of a state are, and then justify those functions?
"Even if the truth content of Austrian economics may be higher than that of other schools, it behooves us to identify in which ways this ideology benefits Money Power and the oligarchic elites (it clearly does, otherwise they would not have supported it continuously for so long)."
That's fine. I don't see ANY advantage in Austrian economics for the elite, but I'm open to hearing specific proposals.
" I do claim, however, that some core ideas of Libertarianism/Austrianism (focus on individual freedom while simultaneously ignoring moral obligations towards other humans, seeing self-interest as the fundamental principle of civilization above everything else, endorsing inequality between members of a society, and endorsing usury) are evil."
I freely acknowledge that you do not need to be an expert on Austrian Economics and Libertarianism in order to bring up valid criticisms of it. However, AE/L does not IGNORE moral obligations. There is a very well-developed ethical theory, and a corresponding legal theory. Can you please elaborate on what you propose as moral obligations, justify them, and elaborate on how the theories differ? AE/L does acknowledge that self-interest exists. Do you not? AE/L does acknowledge that people are both different and inequal in terms of abilities and inclinations. Do you disagree? AE/L does, however, insist that all people should be subject to the same moral code, with no exceptions for government agents, priests, rich people, technocrats, etc. Does that seem bad to you?
I freely acknowledge that you were talking about ideas in this post. Thank you. I'll continue to reciprocate with a lowering of my hyperbole and rhetoric.
"... do you see that these ideas would be evil, no matter who first wrote about them?"
No. I do not agree. I think I have reasonable grounds to disagree. I'm willing to explore these differences if you're interested.
Posted by Talcott on 03/06/12 04:28 AM
I think Steven Greer is 100,000 times more credible than David Icke(out of the people in Thrive).
Why did the Daily Bell not ask Foster to be specific as to the symbological nature of his movie poster?(he kinda laughed off something that clearly share's symbol's that the criminals love to employ)
I ask the poeple who cannot grok "free energy" to explain the motion of electrons in all matter, is this not perpetual motion? Could the forces at play in the minature be expanded to the macro?
"sun gods... mating with human beings"
Matt 24:37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah
Could Yeshua have been referring to something similar? Biblical and peripheral(Enoch) works tell an ancient story of possible genetic tampering. Many of the tale's concerning these blackop/transdimensional/et's are peppered librally with genetic experimentaion(Foster alludes to something similair in the above qoute?).
Posted by memehunter on 03/06/12 04:05 AM
"In the only time we reached common ground, we agreed that there is a difference between fiat money, and commodity money."
"I thought we had also agreed that it is theoretically moral to charge interest on a commodity-based currency."
I actually recall writing many times that interest on a debt-based currency remains problematic whether the currency is fiat or commodity money. The main issue is not the nature (i.e., material composition) of the currency, but whether it is issued as debt or not.
For my part, I thought we had agreed on that. So it seems we both misunderstood what we thought we had agreed upon.
"If I am simultaneously trading gold and silver with my friends, can that have any impact, at all, on your social credit?"
This example is using two (actually, three) different currencies (social credit vs gold and silver), so it's not a case of users sharing one currency.
"Wouldn't it be productive to start conversations with Voluntarists with something like this--I agree that voluntary interactions is a moral keystone, with these caveats (then list usury, and... what else?)."
I had some long, productive and mostly civilized debates on the DB with Dave Jr. and Bischoff among others on the 374-comment "A Gold Standard is Good?" thread. Even the debates with the DB could have taken a different direction if the DB had not immediately sought to point out my "errors" and refused to admit that some elites had supported Austrian economics for a long time.
"If I understand your above post, then you have conceded that all of austrian economics is correct, except it's position on usury, correct?"
As I said, these are my main problems. More problems are listed on Anthony Migches' blog, and I agree especially with his points about gold and about the "Hate the State" rhetoric, which seems to me to be only partially true (I do't see governments as being necessarily evil, always and in all circumstances, whereas I don't see anything that can be said in defense of Money Power).
Even if the truth content of Austrian economics may be higher than that of other schools, it behooves us to identify in which ways this ideology benefits Money Power and the oligarchic elites (it clearly does, otherwise they would not have supported it continuously for so long).
"I accept the provisions of libertarianism as true. Are you asserting that I am a satanist?"
No. I have no evidence that Mises, for instance, was himself a member of a Satanist circle, and did not make that claim in my articles. I do claim, however, that some core ideas of Libertarianism/Austrianism (focus on individual freedom while simultaneously ignoring moral obligations towards other humans, seeing self-interest as the fundamental principle of civilization above everything else, endorsing inequality between members of a society, and endorsing usury) are evil. By the way, NAPpy, did you note that I was actually talking about ideas in this paragraph? And did you note that these points were actually discussed in my articles on Makow? And finally, do you see that these ideas would be evil, no matter who first wrote about them?
I would kindly invite you to think about that before claiming that I am focusing on "character assassination".
Posted by clark on 03/06/12 03:32 AM
I'm surprised pjmauigirl1 left like that, in case she comes back:
pjmauigirl1 wrote, "You confuse civilization with government. So abolish goverment and then poof: "Glory, freedom and liberty"... "
No confusion. And, yes, abolish goverment and then poof: "Glory, freedom and liberty"
Try this: What Is Anarchy?
Click to view link
Also, the reason I said I hope, is because it's possible the majority of the People are not good and will still victimize the world. You seem to think otherwise, how do you know for sure? I think perhaps you hope too?
pjmauigirl1 wrote, "I don't feel too optimistic that people are willing to look beyond their personal pet cause to join forces for good with others who may not see things exactly as they do."
So you hope?
One thing I noticed, she hit hard on the idea of "dropping out" I think she was reacting to recent threads elsewhere online about Opting Out. In a way I think the two are different, most People I've encountered react in an emotional way to the phrase Opting Out and get upset about the idea. It seems that was the case.
Can't have People thinking they can simply stop supporting the monster, now can we?
Overall it was kind of odd that she supported Ron Paul yet reacted the way she did.
I think DB handled it really well, the entire thread too.
Posted by NAPpy on 03/06/12 03:31 AM
I read your articles. Your character assassination has nothing to do with the ideas of these schools. In a later post, you finally referenced actual ideas, so I made a good faith attempt to dialog on them. That's all I was looking for, and, I'd expect, other feedbackers would think the same. Thanks for making the effort. I will continue to do the same.
Posted by NAPpy on 03/06/12 03:27 AM
Yes, we've been here before. Do you think I'm any less frustrated?
I don't understand your points. I don't agree with you. You have failed to convince me. I am, however, willing to dialogue.
1. Usury. In the only time we reached common ground, we agreed that there is a difference between fiat money, and commodity money. We then agreed that it is clearly wrong to charge interest on fiat, or printed money. Do we still agree on that? I thought we had also agreed that it is theoretically moral to charge interest on a commodity-based currency. Let me give you an example. If you're using social credit, my understanding is that some central planner can print as much as he wants for whatever the voters want. Is that correct? If I am simultaneously trading gold and silver with my friends, can that have any impact, at all, on your social credit? My answer is it can't. If it can't, then I can give my gold savings to my friend for a business startup, and charge him a 6% APR, and not violate a moral law, and not serve Money Power.
2. Ignoring deliberate consequences. It is obvious we disagree with the consequences, then, no? I don't consider our failure to agree on bad faith on your part (but willingly admit to a great deal of frustration--but have you felt any less). Wouldn't it be productive to start conversations with Voluntarists with something like this--I agree that voluntary interactions is a moral keystone, with these caveats (then list usury, and... what else?).
I am not attacking your references to elite connections to Austrian Economics / Libertarianism. If I understand your above post, then you have conceded that all of austrian economics is correct, except it's position on usury, correct? You'd get further in your attempts to communicate with people on this site, if you started with common ground like that. You could also concede that libertarianism is completely correct except (than list your differences). Again, you'd be building common ground.
Now, on to ad hominems. I accept the provisions of libertarianism as true. Are you asserting that I am a satanist?
Posted by memehunter on 03/06/12 03:20 AM
"How can you, in good faith, comment about ideologies, and not actually reference the specific ideas of that ideology?"
Why do you keep repeating this? Read my articles. When an idea is wrong or evil, it is wrong or evil, regardless of whether Hayek, Mandeville, Mises, or someone else first wrote about it. It is not my fault that you keep wanting to conflate this with "character assassination".
"You seem to consistently attack ideas with gossip."
You seem to be solidly stuck in the dialectic.
Posted by NAPpy on 03/06/12 03:09 AM
Here, in your own words:
"I mentioned Mandeville because he was praised effusively by Hayek and, to a lesser extent, by Mises, as being one of the main precursors of Austrianism/Libertarianism. Incidentally, Keynes also spent several pages on Mandeville."
Again, who cares who Hayek praised? What about his ideas?
How can you, in good faith, comment about ideologies, and not actually reference the specific ideas of that ideology?
Are you, or are you not, trying to discredit Austrian economics and Libertarianism by using a guilty by association approach?
If you are, fine. Is it, or is it not possible, for a completely evil person to have a correct idea?
I've read your articles about Austrian associations. If you can't give me a good reason why the ideas are wrong, then I'm not changing my mind. Really, why should I? Do you change your mind solely based on character assassination? In this world of elite manipulation, is there any school of thought not tainted by elite money?
My mission is to answer the big philosophical questions. I interpret your information as nothing more than gossip--"who slept with who", and "who paid who". That tells me nothing about metaphysics, epistemology, or praxeology. If you're not interested in those topics, fine.
Your posts, however, do not give that impression. You seem to consistently attack ideas with gossip.
Posted by memehunter on 03/06/12 03:01 AM
Haven't we been there several times before?
Here are my main problems with Austrianism/Libertarianism:
1. Defense, and even justification, of usury, which is clearly unethical and serves Money Power.
2. Focus on voluntary choices by individuals (which is fine with me), but ignoring deliberately the consequences ("forced choices") that these choices may have on other individuals. Example (given several times already): claiming that it is fine if two parties mutually agree to a transaction involving interest, and that it is the business of no one else, when clearly it does concern all other users of the currency used by these two parties.
For a more detailed analysis, I invite you to visit Anthony Migchels' blog.
The top ten lies and mistakes of Austrian economics:
Click to view link
I do not claim, and have never claimed, to be an expert on Austrian economics. But, regardless of my expertise, the facts that I have exposed in my articles stand.
To imply, as you seem to do, that because I am not an expert on Austrian economics, I am not justified in pointing out the connections between Libertarianism/Austrianism and the elites (Money Power, Jesuits a.k.a Illuminati, and so on) or to identify some dubious ideologies at the core of Libertarianism (Satanism), is a transparent and gratuitous ad hominem attack.
The facts stand on their own merit, regardless of who writes about them. Sorry, NAPpy.
Posted by NAPpy on 03/06/12 02:52 AM
Thanks for actually taking the time to make an honest reply to my questions. I just read through the posts on your cite.
I've been exploring the ideas of combining darknet technology with Agorist ideas, but, with little idea of what to do with the concept after that.
Is MLG similar?
Organizing to do what? Just whatever spontaneously evolves?
I'm interested in further detail if you have any.
Posted by memehunter on 03/06/12 02:46 AM
NAPpy, my comments refer directly to Hayek's ideas. Where did I attack "Hayek, the person", as you said (admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to separate the person from his ideas, but I am referring to things Hayek wrote or said)?
For the rest of your comments about Mandeville, leading Austrian scholars, and which ideas are wrong, I refer you to my articles which, I believe, actually focus on ideological connections to a large extent:
Click to view link
Click to view link
If you are unable (or, most likely, unwilling) to see that these articles actually address ideologies, I'm afraid I cannot help you.
Posted by NAPpy on 03/06/12 02:40 AM
As we've said several times, why do you cite Austrian economics out of context?
Please tell me who the leading Austrian scholars are, and what ideas they are given credit for?
Please comment on my questions regarding general economic theory?
Please comment on my questions regarding general ethical theory?
If you made an honest effort to read what you've been critiquing (out of context) then you would find that you are using the NAP out of context.
I provided references in a previous post (this thread) for leading sources of libertarian legal theory, if you're interested.
I'm fine with your skepticism of Austrian economics--I've only adopted it myself in the last 4 years. What annoys me and other feedbackers is that the context of your posts does not seem to indicate a familiarity with the material.
Are you familiar with the material?
If you are, then why don't you criticize specific ideas? I personally have several objections to Austrian theory, and would welcome a discussion with someone familiar with the topic.
If you're not, shouldn't you criticize less, and study more?