Foster Gamble of Thrive

7 Comments

1. I was always confused with politics and economic issues as reported by the mainstream media. Many discussions didn’t really “gell” or make sense at face value. Conversely, many U.S. policies violated the basic economic principles I learned in college (accounting major, economics minor), assuming benevolent directives (stop laughing). I became concerned after watching “An Inconvenient Truth”. Some articles I read in publication such as Scientific American and Technology Review contradicted the movies claims. During a Thanksgiving visit I asked my PHD uncle (literally a genius IQ) his views regarding the issue. Were the claims legitimate? Was it just another political money grab? Que? His face saddened a bit, and then he responded that it was political, but that it was much more than just a money grab. It was funding for the NWO in addition to the political payoffs. He spent some time explaining what he knew and suggested a few books (The Road to Serfdom, The 5000 Year Leap, etc…). He reservedly offered that I might listen to radio personality Alex Jones, albeit with a cautious ear. I’m not sold on AJ personally, but he a tremendous source of reference material, and he has some fantastic guests (where I first heard of you!). The next six months were painful, spent assimilating information and opinions from radio interviews, DVDs, books, etc… coming to understand that much of my belief system was based on incomplete knowledge and outright lies. The process was/is disconcerting to say the least. Trying to wake up others is even more of a challenge. Now two years past, I’ve made preparations (transferred 401K to precious metals, food stocks, decreased monthly expenditures, etc…), but I’m still despondent over what’s going on with my country and the rest of the world. Some solutions have been offered (and personally taken), but I haven’t been exposed to any knowledge of game changing efforts that would materially diverge the Globalists / Breakaway Society from their agenda. Any effective solution would have to derive its power base from a mass awakening, leveraging our main advantage, our vast numbers (and the good lord our creator, of course).

   I watched the Thrive video. At the end, I literally jumped out of my chair (no one else in the house), and yelled “YES! Let’s beat these bast__ds!!!!!!. To have hope and energy again is just so fantastic.

   Please offer my very deep appreciation to Foster Gamble and all the contributors to Thrive. I have the highest regard for them and their contribution to our species (as currently defined, genetically).

   Additionally, your spots were just fantastic as well! I continue to rely on you as the best source of financial/economic advice (love other commentary as well). You should change your name to Catherine Awesome Fitts!

   Regards,

   David C Schmidt

   Citizen Patriot at large

   P.S. You might consider having Joseph P. Farrell on the broadcast. I don’t partake of all his views, but his take on Physics and Finances in Babylon’s Banksters was a fascinating and enlightening read (for some reason I’m reluctant to use the term “illuminating” any more).

   Log in to Reply

2. Questions having seen Thrive movie last week:
   Aliens was touched on rather than developed. Do non believers prefer your softer approach?
   What’s the strongest psychops operating in opposition?
   What was your response to the worst thing you’ve experienced so far…how did you learn to deal with it personally?
   A 20 something college grad watched the movie with us, the first question I received was about the Thermo Dynamic law and free energy. Adam Trombly had the answer in my Solari Report. What’s the biggest hurdle from the movie for the public to work through?

   Thanks carrying your vision to save humanity!

   Log in to Reply

3. Hi Catherine,
   it’s exciting to be a participant in a positive and genuinely uplifting movement which I hope will continue to, pardon the double entendre, “Thrive”. I have had the opportunity to watch the streaming on the day of its launch and I now possess a copy of the dvd which I have viewed with friends.
   Personally, It’s launch couldn’t have happened at a better time as I needed to be reminded that there still exist compassionate people in the world who continue to strive for the betterment and preservation of humanity.
   (Standing up for my rights in the judicial system has depleted me of everything, both physically and mentally and leaves me with the realization that one can never really be prepared for what lies ahead and what one may be up against in these rapidly changing times!)
   I did suggest last week, and forgive me if I was a bit abrupt, the idea of boycotting
   various elements which make up a corporation’s profit margin, whether consumer goods and services or their ethical practices, locally, nationally and perhaps globally. The internet can be a used as a powerful resource to disperse these ideas. But the logistics of such an idea is quite an under-taking.
   My question for Mr. Gamble: the goals in the film may take generations, how does one begin such an undertaking without being locked out of your lively hood and shunned in both your public and private life?

   (As an aside, it was an affirmation for me to see you, Catherine, David Icke, Griffin and others collectively discuss these concepts as I have continued to read your books and ponder your concepts in hopes of contributing to a healthier society.)
   Namaste.

   Log in to Reply

4. The cliche “the market can remain unreasonable a lot longer than you can remain solvent” applies to suppressed energy systems as Adam Trombly is an example of too. Historically societal energy shifts, wood to coal, coal to oil took about 40 years and coal and oil were not effectively a secret or suppressed energy source then. Cliff High’s work identifies the “new electrics” emerging. Can you flesh this out much further? I am uncomfortable basing choices on wishes. Thank you so much.

   Log in to Reply

5. These comments are from a colleague of ours in Asia who is at a very high level in international finance and also sympathetc to our values. So here is a critique from someone who is essentially an ally:

   We watched the movie. I think the sentiment behind it was very good, however I think the some of the arguments were weak. I’ll focus on what I know best; economics and finance. Here are some observations:

   1) His claim that the Morgans, Rothchilds and Rockerfellers control the banks is not true. For example, the biggest shareholder of Citibank is GIC (Singaporean sovereign wealth fund), while the biggest shareholder of JPMorgan is State Street asset management. Other big shareholders of these banks include Vanguard and Fidelity. So the biggest shareholders are index-tracking funds or other funds that the average guy puts their money into for their 401Ks or pension funds, rather than the private wealth of certain families. This brings to light one of the fundamental problems with the current system, which is that the shareholders (these funds) are often run by fund managers who have very short-term horizons or churn their portfolios or often switch jobs such that they cannot really provide a long-term oversight of the companies they “own”. This allows the management of the companies to also focus on the short-term and not take into account the longer-term consequences of their actions. I should add that none of the management of the big banks are from the Morgan, Rothchild or Rockfeller families as far as I know.

   2) That the banking elite through controlling the central bank intentionally induce major financial crises in order to take ownership of real assets is far-fetched. First of all, while the Federal Reserve is a private company by incorporation, through the Federal Reserve Act it is effectively a government arm. It behaves and functions in exactly the same way as other central banks around the world that are explicitly created as government agencies. Second, the central bank role is to try to manage the business cycle. Before central banks, the frequency of booms and busts were high, so central banks were created to dampen the business cycle. In lean times, they lower interest rates to help business, but when inflation starts to pick up, they jack rates up to curb excesses. Also, I should add that during boom times, you get what is called “regulatory capture”, which simply put means banking lobby groups start to unduly influence regulation (ie reducing it). Both the central bank and regulators often get it wrong, and they do tend to focus on the fortunes of big businesses, but there is no evidence that they wanted the 2008 financial crisis to happen. Since the crisis, the regulators have started to de-fang the banks; a significant number of bankers have been laid off and average incomes are down 25% since 2007.

   3) The no bail-out idea that the Thrive Movement seems to be advocating seems to be premised on an incorrect reading of the 2008 crisis. Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie were bailed out over the 2007-2008 period, but then they decided not to bail out Lehmans, which triggered the global meltdown. The bottom line is that largest liabilities a bank has is normally deposits by the average guy on the street. If a bank goes down, it cannot repay it’s liabilities, which means that the average guy loses all his money deposited in banks. There are a range of different ways one get regulate banks to prevent them from going off the reservation, for example the Canadian and Australian systems appear to be quite robust. The extreme alternative of allowing unregulated money-lending systems to emerge would be more dangerous in many ways. For example in China today there has been a massive growth in the non-official banking sector ie a sector not controlled by the government or any regulator. The growth of that sector has been caused by China’s aggressive restrictions to restrict the size of the official banking loan market, so that a black market of banks has arisen. It’s not too uncommon to hear of stories of loans with 100% interest rates.

   4) On the point of trying to bring down income inequality; all societies across time and cultures have suffered from larger income disparities. Who you compare yourself also matters – for example the average American is probably in the top 5% wealthiest in the world. Most people in the rest of the world have a much lower material quality of life than most Americans. In terms of income inequality, the US is worse than much of Europe, but it is better than South America, Singapore and Hong Kong.

   While there is some evidence of a link between happiness and income inequality. It should be added that the more “equal” societies tend to have less diverse societies (eg Sweden, Norway and Japan). So it seems that the more diverse society you have in terms of immigration and ethnicity, the larger the inequality you tend to see. It seems that redistribution of wealth tends to work best when others in society are from the same ethnic group as you.

   5) On world government and a global currency, they are also off. The IMF has a “world” currency (SDRs) which they use for accounting purposes. It’s really just an average of existing currencies, rather than a new world currency. The US has been against the promotion of the SDRs, while the Chinese have talked about it, but don’t really care much about it.

   To say that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) is more powerful than the Fed (in their pryamid diagram) or similarly the IMF/World Bank is above the US Treasury is naïve. All those international organisations are subordinate to the big countries’ (like US, Germant, China) central banks and Treasuries. Moreover, the documentary seemed to have a very western perspective of the world and completely misses the influence and impact of the second biggest economy in the world, China. There is no evidence that certain US families, the US treasury or IMF control China. China also has the largest banks in the world now, which are run by the Chinese.

   6) That the monetary system is just phantom numbers is true at one level insofar as the overall monetary stock is not backed by real assets or notes and coins. But when a bank “creates” money by lending out more money then it has in notes and coins, it needs to attract enough deposits back to match those loans or they need to find a substitute for those bank deposits, perhaps by taking deposits from corporations or even the central bank).

   The risk the bank is running is that if the loans go bad, then they will have a shortfall they need to fill. They can do that by using their capital (the shares they have issued or retained earnings). This means that there is a limit to how much money creation a bank can do as it will start to take on bigger and bigger risks. This is exactly what happened in 2008, and caused the meltdown. To stave off a bank run, the central bank would have to step in to provide funding to the banks or otherwise the banks would be forced to liquidate their loans (eg mortgages, so foreclose).

   The monetary system does amplify at times asset booms and busts and can cause inflation. But it is a very successful system for material wealth creation. The Chinese, who have a monetary system like everyone else, have seen over 100million people move from living standards close to those seen in India to levels seen in Portugal in the space of a few decades. Of course, there is a cost to material wealth: spiritual and emotional poverty and environmental damage.

   I could go on, but I think I”ll stop!

   Log in to Reply

6. Catherine… Below my posting to the Bioregional group and some of the reservations concerning some aspects of Thrive, which I find really too beautiful and provoking to miss… and use in good faith. I guess in essence, it is easier for me to “suspend my disbelief” when it comes to extraterrestrials and point zero energy than when it comes to accepting that the “self-regulating” markets might be something to still attempt in the future… but I’m not sure what in von Mises’ ideas captivated Foster Gamble’s imagination… My continued desciphering of all Karl Polanyi was saying in The Great Trasnformation, back in 1944, pretty much cancels a future in which land, people and money would still be considered “things”… Also, the idea of globalization is still basically a good one… except when the globalizing is done from the top instead of upward from the ground… “Think globally act locally”… Also, I see that not enough place is being made somehow for the concept of that space which lies between the “individual” and the “collectivity”: the community which is both private and public, but in ways more palatable than the public or the private, these days… We need to think in those three terms and not so much in the bipolarity of individual and collectivity. Families are in fact the community… direct and extended family sharing a common ground and leaving space for the individual, in a libertarian spirit which I don´t believe has much to do with the liberalism of classical economics or the likes of Ayn Rand, quite close as I understand it to that Mises guy… My plea below in favor of flexibility and getting involved in clarifying our terms, as Thrive invites us, so elegantly, to do… Best regards from south of the border, your friend Sylvia Maria Valls aka Mamadoc. http://www.institutosimoneweil.net
   The post in the Bioregionalists’ blog:
   PERCEPTION is a creative matter but the power to perceive freely, i.e. to say, creatively, can be stifled through brain washing or by what is also known as “culture.” There is a certain generation that has been totally brain-washed about “conspiracy theories”… including the conspiracy to pretend that “alien” (extraterrestrial) intelligence is not for real, not here. “Martians” are a figment of our imagination or wishful thinking or cartoon material but no more than that. It took me a while to “suspend my judgment” in relation to what may be possible or not. I was never a part of the generation that has been more recently brain-washed to instinctively respond against the notion that anything in our national scene could possibly result from some sort of a “conspiracy”! That of course is what conspirators need you to believe.
   To hang on to our reason while suspending judgment is not only possible but a must. We must recognize, hence, that even though the parameters of our reality are being forced beyond belief, way past anything we have been allowed to understand as possibly conforming to acceptable or probable “reality”, that the world is nonetheless a coherent whole which includes coherence as much as incoherence, just as white is the color that includes all colors and black the absence of all color. This coherence simply emerges for us in time through a series of realizations –of understandings– manifesting themselves in our immediacy, becoming aspects of our accepted social agreements (partly due to acculturation and partly to verification). At any rate, our social agreements concerning many things are being rapidly revolutionized.
   That a Tower of Babel has emerged from the discussion of whether Thrive helps us to understand becomes increasingly clear. Unless we define our terms, it will not abate. At this point, I think we should not knock the film’s potential to enlighten up to a certain point concerning what has been going on/may be going on… The conspiracy theories do clarify some things, to my mind, and pedagogically speaking, I think the film can be quite useful, but only as long some of the “black holes” in it are clarified… something we have been invited to do… So, let´s assume this task of clarification while avoiding projecting additional darkness thanks to certain prejudices: “let us suspend our disbelief”… A “system” cannot be disassociated from those who implement it: as long as a system exists, it sucks everyone into it… including often those who think they are against that system. Brain-washing ourselves from the brain-washing is a task at hand for all. In this process, we do not need “debate” as much as “dialogue”: the free circulation of ideas that allows thought to “thrive” indeed.
   My basic disappointment came at the end of the film which I managed to see only last week. This is the part that attempts to project or envision the …Future!: Future? Whether there will be one at all for those of us already here and under fifty is indeed in question. The “solar air” or “flash” that accounted for the failure of the telegraph back in 1859 could leave us without internet and all electronic capacity overnight so that, among other things, the 700 existing nuclear plants will simply melt and release their venom throughout the planet. The continued poisoning of our environment resulting from agro-chemicals is a true scandal in the face of the unwarranted effort to stop so many of us from using “drugs”.
   I am presently launching an effort to get people to understand that “crimes against health” (the Mexican way of referring to using dope et al.) should not be meant to involve people personally using their preferred “drugs,” with or without prescription, as much as governments and industries engaging in irresponsible sale and application of agro-chemicals . Just as one of a long list of examples.
   Ignorance may be bliss but it is a sure recipe for doomsday, as well. The notion that Ludwig von Mises has anything sound to say concerning the future strikes me as deadly an avenue of investigation as it did Ken Lassman (in a post I´ve been unsuccessfully looking for). And what can one say about von Mises’ ally, Ayn Rand, a god-awful woman if ever there was one, and not just because of the fact that everything Christ had to teach (whether you believe in “Him” or not) is belittled for the sake of allowing a Utopian and altogether illusory notion to survive concerning the benefits (but for whom?!) of “self-regulating markets” (the ABSURD Utopian ideal of XIX and XXth C. “liberals” in the economic sense, of “classical economics” ). Does the Christian Right have the slightest notion of what her proposal was all about? How can you call yourself a Christian and espouse Ayn Rand’s preposterous “ideals”?

   Log in to Reply

   • Also, correction, I meant “suspend disbelief” NOT “judgment”…

     Log in to Reply