Hi Richard;How are they different from (urban) Plantations?RegardsEd G
3. History/Historical .a. a colony or new settlement.b. the establishment of a colony or new settlement.
Well this was depressing, but somehow not surprising. Young people need to realize all that is going on now, but it seems so many are clueless. Thanks for this, Richard, so important to read.Susie
thanks. The rich seem to find ways to work around the rules or just break them or just have the governments they own make new ones. We will see if the natural world these cities intend to destroy is as easy with them as humans are. Can’t bribe a plant, let alone a rainforest of them.
Richard,interesting, amazing, shocking that the world at large – its leaders, especially those not yet of globalized neoliberal stock – are watching the spread of ‘charter cities’ — and this – after the Madagascar experience.Though the deals in Madagascar may have turned sour, there are still 1.3 million fertile land being exploited for food production to be exported to Korea and elsewhere in the world, by South Korean business conglomerates… Madagascar, one of the poorest countries in Africa, gives away some of its most fertile land to foreign capital for explotation, while at home, in Madagascar, malnutrition is rampant.Aren’t these huge warning signals for things to come in Honduras and probably soon in other US-corporate controlled Central American States?Not even leaders like Chavez, Morales, Correa and Ortega cry out and bring this to the world’s attention.peter
From: •••@••.••• [mailto:•••@••.•••] On Behalf Of Alanna HartzokSent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 6:46 PMTo: TOESSubject: [toeslist] Thrive the movieI FINALLY viewed Thrive and it greatly exceeded my expectations. Have any other TOES people seen it? Here – http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie
Richard,I had never heard of “Thrive” until just now — I checked it out a little bit, though perhaps only a little bitI sense that you see some danger hiding there — what danger do you see there?Herb
From: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
Date: 23 August 2012 07:22:29 GMT+01:00
To: Foster Gamble <•••@••.•••>
Subject: re/ If you and I can’t align any better
So you are saying that I spent most of my life researching and 8 years making THRIVE as part of a NWO scheme? C’mon Richard, you are usually a better researcher than that. It’s totally false, flippant bullshit. Ask Jim Fadiman or Catherine Austin Fitts, or anyone who actually knows me and my work.
Jim and Catherine speak very highly of you, and they take strong exception to my comments about Thrive. And in the film your genuine enthusiasm shines through. I don’t question your personal motivation. My evaluation of Thrive is based on the film and the movement, and the effect they have in today’s world. Once we unleash a creation into the world, it has a life of its own, and it will lead to both intended and unintended consequences.
How does my work differ from all of your excellent writings exposing the destructive agenda?
As regards exposing agendas, Thrive is very good, and so is Zeitgeist. They both present well-produced compendiums of revelations that have been circulating on the Internet for many years. They are well enough produced that some new converts have probably been brought into the fold of the awoken, but the main effects of each are (1) to gather in some segment of the already awoken, (2) to channel their thinking toward specific solution paradigms, and (3) to channel their energy into specific movement agendas. The exposing part is not part of the real message; it’s simply an appealing wrapper that delivers the viewer to the real message, to the channeling.
My concern, re/ Zeitgeist and Thrive, is with the solution paradigms and the movement agendas. Zeitgeist’s solution paradigm is technocracy and the carbon economy, which is exactly the NWO formula. No politics, just rule by designated experts. As to who does the designating, Zeitgeist has nothing to say. Thrive’s solution paradigm is about laissez-faire economics, with is the same system that has caused so many problems over the past two centuries. And rather than technocracy for governance, Thrive proposes no governance at all. In both cases, the movement agenda is about signing up as a member, participating in online forums, and attending movement events. Neither movement has any kind of realistic vision of how change can be brought about.
Given that the NWO is the ‘problem context’ both movements address, it is only fair that the movements be judged on the basis of what role they play re/ the NWO agenda. What is needed, of course, is something that can overcome that agenda. Neither movement has any hope of doing that. Meanwhile, both movements encourage the belief that we don’t need any kind of political process. And of course there will be no political process in the NWO, just mandates and directives from the elite-appointed ‘experts’. How can I escape the conclusion that the net effect of both movements is to channel people into marking time while the NWO is installed, and to prepare them to accept the principles by which the NWO will operate?
When I sent you an in-depth reply to your previous demonization of THRIVE, you declined to post it. Now you are doing it again.
Your in-depth reply opened up more questions than it answered. As I said then, I would like to clarify some points between us, before posting some version of our dialog to cyberjournal. I may be misunderstanding Thrive, and I don’t want to be saying things that are factually wrong. We did some back-and-forth clarifying, but you stopped responding when I brought up the question of laissez-faire economics.
If you and I can’t align any better than that when our work is so similar in its findings, it dims my hopes for constructive dialog and collaborative solutioning. Please get off it so that we can get on with it!
I think this dialog is very constructive, and I wouldn’t bother with it if I wasn’t trying to collaborate. The first step in collaboration is achieving a common understanding of what we’re trying to accomplish. At the moment, we have different understandings of what a better world would like, and different understandings of how to bring about change. The only thing that is ‘so similar’ is our understanding of the current regime. If we want to align better, we need to expand the scope of our mutual understanding.
back to you,richard