Foster and Kimberly Gambles’ Response to Duane Elgin

By Foster and Kimberly Gamble

This is in response to Duane Elgin's Critique of THRIVE, which you can read here: http://www.thrivemovement.com/duane-elgin-critique-of-thrive-movie

To see the full dialogue between the Thrive Filmmakers and Pioneers, and to add any comments, please visit: www.thrivemovement.com/public-dialogue-between-thrive-movie-filmmakers-and-pioneers.


Dear Duane,

We appreciate the opportunity to engage at this deeper level. We see no conflict between following the money and following the meaning, nor do we see any disparity between awakening to conspiracies and providing catalysts of collective awakening. 

Indeed, we see understanding what is in the way of our thriving to be a profound and valuable catalyst for our awakening.  We also find it unfortunate that you “see no point in having a conversation from your premises that are so contrary to my own since the movie is already out” when in fact this seems like a very fruitful time to engage people who come from a full range of perspectives in the dialog. This sentiment- that we should have consulted with everyone and altered the movie so that we were all in agreement before it was released reveals an interesting presumption: that we only present the facts and views that we can collectively agree on so that no one is pushed beyond their comfort zone. 

For years we publicly and privately stated that we were “following the money in every area of human endeavor to uncover the covert agendas that were keeping us from thriving”...as well as “bold strategies for reclaiming our lives and our future.” You and other dissociates must have assumed that we would stop at the usual “corporate greed” level of understanding although that was never our stated or implicit intention. 

Apparently you also believe that having people in the film agree with our conclusions is more important than introducing a critical, bold and thought-provoking conversation into the world. Our research indicates that our dire predicament calls for critical thinking, diverse opinions, debates and grounded strategies for how to change the status quo now. You humbly acknowledge that you have not “done the research” on conspiracy. Well we have done over a decade of investigation and analysis on the domination agenda and, in that process, became convinced that knowing what is in the way of our thriving is a critical part of strategically transforming the economic stranglehold that is being perpetrated on billions of people all over the world.

In our view, nothing about Story #1 that you describe precludes self-reflection – It merely provides information to include in that process. If eco villages are covered with toxins and authoritarian restrictions that make it impossible to self-organize as we choose, then self-reflective, self-organized, self-actualizing communities are going to have to engage in some strategic, informed actions and we believe THRIVE helps clarify how to leverage those actions. These stories are not mutually exclusive in our worldview and in fact story # 2 is dependent on Story #1 for full actualization. 

As for climate change, we welcome this opportunity to clarify the critical conversation we are seeking. We do not believe and have never said that climate change is a hoax or merely a hypothesis. We challenge anyone to find a statement from us that says that. We do, however, believe that there is important research that presents conflicting information on what is causing what aspects of climate change and that this full range of data warrants our attention. 

We do not just agree with the conclusions of the people who do any of the research. We do try to look to who funds them and what ulterior motives they might have - whether it’s Exxon or East Anglia. We try to apply the same approach we used for decades that resulted in THRIVE: expose ourselves to differing opinions so that we can decide for ourselves what we believe. In the case of climate change, we found the conflicting data to warrant expert debates that we find sorely lacking. For instance: other planets in our solar system have been warming along with Earth. This suggests that the sun may play an important role in the Earth’s warming. If this is true, then we should be considering what coastal communities should be doing IN ADDITION to our curtailing human pollution. Not “instead of “ limiting our pollution, but “along with.” We found it compelling that 33,000 scientists, including many former AGW advocates, have come out against the theory that humans are the sole cause of climate change. And while some go into denying changes altogether, which we do not, we nonetheless don’t think it’s wise to dismiss all of their research just because we disagree with the conclusions or motives of some of those involved. Given the severity of the situation and the dire consequences unfolding, doesn’t it make sense that we want all the information on the table?  

For real self-defense, as in Aikido, an accurate and thorough assessment of reality must come first, not party politics or claiming all scientists agree when in fact they don’t. Why don’t’ we have public debates about the data? Why don’t all studies and advocates from all sides reveal their funding? Why don’t we insist that polluters be prosecuted directly instead of letting the corporations buy their way out of responsibility with cap and trade? Money will not avert climate change no matter what is causing it, and whether human pollution is causing it solely or interfacing with solar changes, it needs to be stopped. Similarly, we question the motive behind using this obvious catastrophe to fund a world government that would be run by the same people who are causing devastation in country after country and which then would supersede the rights of the people in the eco-villages you are counting on to be the change.

We are frankly astonished and concerned that our mere questioning whether the sun is colluding with human pollution to cause climate change, and sighting research that reflects a wide range of data and conclusion, has inspired John Robbins and you to dismiss us as deniers. This “divide-and- conquer” closed-mindedness will do more to cause the damage we are all seeking to avert because it deprives us of curiously and respectfully discussing each others insights. We watched An Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle and many other films and read all kinds of books and literally hundreds of articles and studies - with various perspectives - and made those resources available on our website because we encourage people to check it out themselves and then engage with us and one another. We did this research and cohered a wide range of information to facilitate this conversation. We encourage you to answer and provide data for the following questions so that readers here can benefit from our different research: 

  • What is causing other planets in our solar system to warm at the same time as our planet?
  • What caused the medieval warming period?
  • Why does Al Gore’s own hockey stick graph show throughout history the rise in temperature preceding the rise of CO2 – sometimes by hundreds of years? Could it have to do with the sun warming the oceans? (We encourage anyone to freeze frame it and check it out for yourselves)
  • Why doesn't someone like Al Gore debate this and other key contradictions with someone like Bjorn Lomborg or anyone publicly?
  • Are you aware of the plan to make carbon credits the new "one-world currency"?
  • Is it possible that the good intentions of environmentalists are being manipulated to create a global tax paid to the world bank that would transcend national sovereignty and fund the one-world government? 

This is not a trivial issue. The freedom of humanity could lie in the balance. We need to watch carefully at Rio +20 for the distinction between curbing pollution and funding the global police state.

Whatever the cause of climate change, we agree that we need to be strategizing together for communities to have the information they need to respond effectively. We believe that this will best be served by meaningful debate based on all of the data. We encourage people to take advantage of the controversial and differing opinions that we purposely cohered at thrivemovement.com to facilitate the critical thinking that our dire predicament, and true potential, warrants. Thank you for your participation toward this end.

Foster and Kimberly

P.S. - Regarding your “connecting toruses” clip, we too regret there was not time for it in the film (which required that we cut 400 hours of footage down to 2). The essence of its message was already conveyed in the description and animation at 2:03 of THRIVE. But we love it too, and that is why it is featured on the DVD Bonus Scenes and on our website!