By Foster Gamble
November 22, 2016
Like many of you, I have grave concern over the seething fear, anger, hatred and violence in the U.S. right now, based on what I see as deep misunderstandings and overly simplistic “black or white” thinking. That Clinton vs. Trump was our “choice” is huge confirmation that we continue to participate in a system of grabbing for illegitimate power that is corrupt to its core. It is chillingly reminiscent of the era of the Spanish Civil War — that started with the social awkwardness of Left vs. Right arguments among family members, work associates and political groups and devolved quickly into civil war where brothers ended up shooting at or torturing one another. Each side’s self-righteous certainty that they were the ones who should have power over others was soon taking thousands of lives and sparking larger wars throughout Europe.
Many requests have come in asking for my take on the U.S. election. Because I am so deeply anti-political and anti-state, I have been silent publicly on the topic since my blog on DEFINING POLITICS — Knowing What We Are Talking About Could Save Our Lives, one year ago. But I now feel motivated to respond, given the opportunity, and the stakes.
The mainstream media is feeding our frenzied divide with one another, keeping the meaningful conversations and reconciliations at bay. I see the “divide and conquer” strategy in full swing, where conflicts between genders, races, classes or political parties are created and used by the few at the top to keep the masses fighting each other, weak, preoccupied and in support of authoritarianism. Our film, THRIVE, describes this in detail. It is the essence of the system in which we are mired.
So how do we move from here to an empowered relationship with ourselves and each other? It’s critical that we deepen the conversation and swim upstream into the assumptions, the contradictions and the moral basis of human relations, because as a species with weapons of mass destruction, we can’t afford not to get this clear and right, right now.
Most people share virtually the same values; the differences show up in how to achieve the better world we all want. Remembering this is an essential first step in communicating effectively and respectfully across the political divide. I will take that step here, with a trans-political view of Trump and an open letter to him to address the opportunity we face by looking through the lens of principles, not politics.
It’s an interesting exercise for me, because I do not subscribe to the belief that we need rulers to keep us from total breakdown. Indeed, I see principles, not politics, as the missing nucleus of this entire standoff between people, and from the election.
I see rules (protecting sovereign rights), not rulers, as the structure that will best allow for the realization of our true potential. I am a Voluntaryist who looks through the lens of the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), forbidding the initiation of force (except in true self-defense) or fraud and requiring universal equal rights. I am a firm believer that 1) a small group of people having control over the money supply and then 2) mandating taxation — the foundations of all governments — are both theft, and are therefore morally reprehensible.
Nonetheless, we have a new “ruler” at this stage, and I believe we can all benefit from up-leveling the conversation to see how his policies will impact on our lives, especially since we have an opportunity for it to be a very different ride than if we simply had the next corrupt establishment globalist taking power.
Trump’s obvious shortcomings made it more difficult for people all along the political spectrum to appreciate the fact that he is the only general election, major party Presidential candidate in at least 100 years to be outside of, and go up against, the Rockefeller/Rothschild/Clinton/Bush globalist machine. The reality we are in seems to be that Trump won, and I believe that it’s because he represented this overdue checkmate to the longstanding corruption. I feel relief that Hillary Clinton, with her decades-long documented trail of blood and tears (Whitewater, Iraq war, Libya, Benghazi, selling out U.S. uranium to Russia, clandestine and vulnerable classified emails, DNC voting manipulations, Mena drug running, suspicious deaths of potential scandal whistleblowers, etc.) is not in a position to take us headlong into a proxy war — potentially nuclear — with Russia in Syria.
That said, Trump’s proposed policies reflect a mind-boggling combination of repugnant misunderstanding and insightful leadership. His inability to articulate and defend policies effectively didn’t help. But the inconsistency is what presses us to move past politics to principles, and to guide Trump and his team to find the missing moral compass.
I object strongly to any of Trump’s proposals that are based in violations, such as:
- expanding Guantánamo
- reinstituting torture
- condoning carpet bombing
- threatening to kill the families of those trying to defend against imperialist attacks on their families, their cultures and/or the theft of their country’s gold
- supporting random “stop and frisk”
- punishing women for choosing what they do with their own bodies
- dividing immigrant families already here in the U.S.
- expanding nuclear, fracking, coal and other destructive and unnecessary energy technologies
I do, however, recognize Trump’s equally powerful proposals for non-violation that we can celebrate — and which demonstrate, by contrast, how the principle of non-violation is missing in the proposed policies above.
For example, I deeply appreciate Trump’s stated intentions:
- to make peace with Russia
- to audit (and hopefully shut down) the Federal Reserve
- to disband NATO, which I am convinced has become simply the emerging imperialist One World Army for the New World Order, and obligates countries to commit soldiers, weapons and taxpayer money to any member country that claims it is being threatened.
I admire his informed positions against:
- mandatory vaccination
- coercive globalization
- establishment politics
- the TPP — The Trans-Pacific Partnership and other coercive sovereignty destroying trade deals
- the bankers’ scheme of using false premises about global warming data to authorize a one world government structure, under their control, and the mandatory global taxes to fund it.
The destructive human-caused pollution of the air, soil and waterways is very real and is one of the reasons our ThriveConnect initiative is working so hard to bring forward new, clean energy technologies. But pollution is not solved by Cap and Trade, nor by a propagandized, false understanding of what causes climate change. (See my blog on this here.) Similarly, consequences of climate change cannot be effectively addressed if we imagine that simply changing our personal habits will mitigate it all. We need to change our personal habits, our energy access approaches and we need to understand the other factors affecting the climate, most especially… the sun.
I believe Trump’s stance for lowering corporate taxes is a step in the right direction that will increase the integrity of our system while naturally and morally creating jobs and wealth at home. His tariffs, however, will be an unnatural obstacle to truly free exchange that will further strife and state control of commerce. The funds he will need for infrastructure and other projects could be easily raised by eliminating the illegitimate Federal Reserve and its debt and cutting imperialist spending rather than increasing the military budget.
It is said that Trump, unlike close to 80% of American parents, has not spanked his children as they were growing up. That is a start toward a core moral policy that hopefully he can build upon.
Many on the Right are calling Trump “racist, bigoted, sexist, misogynist, xenophobic,” and even a neo-Nazi. I have watched very carefully, and I fully understand how tens of millions have gotten this impression, both here and abroad. He fed right into it, as did the Liberal and even the Conservative media. I still believe he and his team have the opportunity and the obligation to meticulously clear this up, if I am correct in my observation that these accusations are not actually accurate or to be the basis of his policies.
RULE OF LAW — DISTINGUISH FROM BIGOTRY
Because Trump made sweeping statements about illegal immigrants and suggested completely inappropriate things like dividing Mexican families who are already here, he understandably got labeled “racist.” I have listened to and watched hundreds of his interviews, and what I understand is that Trump is not against immigration; he is against illegal immigration — just exactly as President Bill Clinton was in his State of the Union address in 1995. Listening to the border guards who supported him, to him and to his spokespeople, it seems he was carelessly expressing a concern about the astronomical rates of rape and other crimes during illegal border crossings and in border towns full of illegal immigrants. The careless way that he expressed this was unclear and ripe for misinterpretation, but there is a lot of evidence that what he is after is cleaning up unchecked illegal immigration.
Our conversation on “refugees” from the Middle East is confused by the lack of acknowledgment that the majority of them are fleeing their home countries because of the violence of U.S. attacks, intended to destroy their culture, infrastructure and currencies, followed by taking over their gold, oil and banking system. Stop the wars and most of the tragic and unmanageable exodus would stop, too. I believe this would only have gotten worse with Hillary in charge.
So a very real question emerged, and Trump named it. What about the genuine threat from some military age disaffected men with no desire to integrate into western culture who feel they have nothing left to lose after what U.S. foreign policy has done to them? How do we protect the U.S. from their retaliation and potential terrorism while honoring the worth of the many wonderful, well-intended people from the Middle East who are willing to go through the legal and limited entry process and then pull their own weight in this society? Forced acceptance of refugees or simply migrants, as we are now clearly seeing throughout European countries like Germany, Italy, Austria and Sweden, can lead to grave economic and social destruction of the host countries. It doesn’t work to penalize one group in the course of attempting to help another. I listened through all the careless talk and media propaganda, and I never heard Trump say actual anti-Muslim statements, but I did hear him acknowledge that we have a complex issue. Putting a pause on widespread immigration from countries that have most reason to retaliate on U.S. turf is not the same as “anti-immigration xenophobia.” It requires that we stop creating the motive for such retaliation and stop acting like we are not vulnerable to the consequences of globalist terrorism of which the U.S. has been a central culprit.
Few on the Left or Right seem to truly understand that the main problem with so-called immigration is not “foreign people,” but the entitlements they expect — housing, healthcare, welfare, education — at the mandatory expense of taxpayers already struggling to make ends meet.
This is an excellent example of where the Non Aggression Principle would ultimately solve the problem by allowing people to travel anywhere as long as they are not violating other’s private property or requiring people’s financial support against their will, which is what the state-mandated entitlements are. I perceive Trump as wanting to vet potentially dangerous immigrants and uphold laws against illegal immigration. Kellyanne Conway and others on his team do a pretty good job of describing this, but Trump’s inadequate and confusing rhetoric has millions angry and afraid — I believe unnecessarily — although understandably. I know that many of the Hispanics who voted for Trump were legal immigrants who don’t want their jobs taken by others taking shortcuts and coming illegally — demanding free services while not contributing to the public coffers. Trump clearly has to clarify what he really means around all of this. It’s not realistic, moral, appropriate, or safe to try to round up over 11 million illegal immigrants, but his focus on deporting the criminal element is viable — while at the same time ceasing to allow illegal immigrants from, in effect, taking the hard earned money from others in the form of unearned entitlements.
Any accomplished athlete, scientist or artist fails many times in the process of reaching a high level of proficiency. The same holds true for business. I believe Trump’s bankruptcies may have trained him well for dealing constructively with the $70+ trillion in government and banking elite-created U.S. debt and unfunded liabilities that threaten to enslave our grandchildren.
By acknowledging that millions of people in America are in trouble, Trump can engage us in finding real solutions. We are now operating in a global environment where many countries are choosing to align with China and the other BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa) countries and the AIIB Bank — already representing over half the world’s population. These countries are choosing to use currencies backed by gold and other real commodities, which the dollar is not. In vast numbers, voters know this, and it is a tribute to social media, and the many informed, “real news” alternatives to mainstream media, that people are flocking to them in the millions to hear something real. With more reliable and independent sources of information, we can take the next step in even greater discernment and motivation to transcend the divisive nature of politics in favor of the unifying principle of Non-Aggression. Toward this end, and with hopes that this larger conversation can help to heal some of what is tearing our country and our relationships apart, I offer this