Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
 
 
Home Blog Freedom Potentials The Cross Roads Veritas Books
Newtimes Survey Podcast Archive Video Archive PDF Archive
Actionist Corner YouTube Video Channel BitChute Video Channel Brighteon Video Channel Social Credit Archive

On Target Britain

FOOD FOR THOUGHT The very significant vote obtained by the extremist National Front in the French presidential election was predicted by my late father, Sir James Goldsmith. In 1994, in his prophetic book, The Trap(1), he warned of a rise in far Right and nationalist movements across Europe as a reaction against the creation of a European federal superstate. He believed that the imposition by Europe's political elite of a European state upon the people's of Europe, without their knowledge or consent, was bound to end in political disaster. In order to fight extremism of any sort in the future, we must hope that France's - and Europe's - political elite learn the lesson. Benjamin Goldsmith, letter to The Daily Telegraph 25th April, 2002 Matthew Green M.P.
[Liberal Democrat, Ludlow, Shropshire] is reported as being in favour of regional government. Please may we know why?
Christopher Gill, Chairman, the Freedom Association Letter to the Shropshire Star, 28th May, 2002

THE EUROPEAN FLYTRAP

Any intelligent observer of the political scene will be aware that a determined battle is going on to induce, cajole or otherwise force the people of individual European Nations into ever-closer and formal union, ultimately integration, in the shape of a bureaucratic, European "Super-state". There are several strings to this, such as the end to war between the European Powers propounded by General Charles de Gaulle and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer after the 1939-45 War, collective economic and industrial survival in an increasingly globalised economic model, a counter to the Power of the United States, mutual defence and so on. Behind this vision we find personal political ambition within this "scaled-up" form of centralised government, short term financial and commercial advantage; either way, which governs attitudes to European federalism or national independence, and the employment bait of professional bureaucratic opportunism.

Classic potential losers in this are individual national agricultural economies. Self-sufficiency in food production must be rationalised, developed and centralised so that we quite needlessly eat each others' common produce simply to sustain massive and expanding global retailing, agri-chemical, biotechnical and transport systems and conglomerates. In August, 2001, we looked at some of the philosophical back-ground and duplicity involved in what is fast becoming obvious as the planned break-up of the United Kingdom(2). The late Sir James Goldsmith was an international wheeler and dealer who mixed easily with the likes of the Rothschilds and George Soros. Then, in 1994, in a remarkable case of poacher turned gamekeeper, he exposed the dangers of globalisation in his book The Trap(3). He fought the 1997 General Election with his Referendum Party in an effort to force a voice for ordinary people on the European question. Political self-seeking, self-preservation, the party whip system and internecine party-political differences had already allowed the electorate to be cheated and railroaded. The "New" Labour Party was in the hands of an International Socialist caucus, whose ethos is centralisation, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair. The Conservative Party, riven by internal ambition and philosophical differences, has remained effectively dead in the water. Christopher Gill, who resigned at the General Election of 2001, had been Conservative Member of Parliament for Ludlow, in Shropshire. Incorruptible, he had recognised the dangers of European integration. He had realised how British social morality, culture and heritage had been systematically undermined as part of the process of weakening the resistance of the people to these forces. He was a rare politician who could not be bought, black-mailed or otherwise induced to accede to European integration. His former constituency, Ludlow, in Shropshire, lies at the heart of the Welsh Marches, a large and mainly agricultural region that borders on Wales to the West and impinges to the East on the industrial Midlands. The principal regional newspaper, one of the largest in the country, is the Shropshire Star, a daily.

CARRY ON BOB The Mass Communications Media are largely beyond the reach of ordinary people. Policies and coverage are those of the Global Power Brokers and others who own and control the Media, and who influence political parties. The late Harvey Ward, former Director-General of Rhodesian Television and Radio Services, and deeply informed on international affairs, pointed out that the struggle at the top was already lost, and that resistance had to come from the grass roots of society. For this reason we have regularly suggested to subscribers to On Target that the greatest potential lies with local radio and the local press, and that to utilise these outlets effectively it is vital to generate continuity of interest, to be well-informed on one's subject, and to be persistent. Unfortunately, experience has shown that, almost entirely without exception, the author of a promising letter, when contacted, does not want to know. A pet topic had been aired and the originator simply does not wish to become further "involved". That was, until we met Bob Wydell.

Bob Wydell's work brought him into contact with a wide range of people. Now retired, he suffers uncomfortably from arthritis and has every reason simply to enjoy the pleasures of his garden and his family. Bob Wydell writes for the most part to the Shropshire Star, and principally on Europe and the threat of a Single European Currency about which he feels strongly. He follows his instincts but studies his subject carefully so is well-informed both to express his views and counter opposition. As we observed the correspondence columns over the months we realised that Bob Wydell had developed the ideal situation; sometimes with as many as two or three letters a week, he had a following. He was making the readership think about the European Union and all that it implies for ordinary people. Discussion was being stimulated, Members of Parliament and other interested parties were being drawn publicly to explain or justify their position. Not all the correspondence has been favourable, but when we mentioned the flak Bob simply smiled and said cryptically "Water off a duck's back". What follows is a selection of correspondence, mainly from Bob Wydell, in chronological order, from the Shropshire Star. Whilst this cannot be complete to include other material sometimes referred to, it demonstrates the course of the debate and shows how one person can provide the stimulus and even develop a following of his own. This is extremely important in bringing the question of the European Union into the open, especially with any future referendum or political initiative in mind. We have run paragraphs together, or taken key extracts from longer letters for editorial purposes of layout and space, and added our own emphasis where necessary. Each letter is shown under the title under which it appeared, together with the date.

"Going over the top in bid to end exploitation" (Bob Wydell, 3rd September, 2001)
We all want an end to the exploitation of the young at work, but Brussels, as usual, goes over the top. You can wave goodbye to your paper boy-girl when the E.U.'s Young Workers Directive 94/33 comes into force. From then onwards, your newsagent will have to register each paper boy-girl with the local authority, who can, if they wish, require a private medical examination of the child. They must also have written permission from the young person's school, make sure that any cycle is road legal, including lights, provide luminous safety wear and be aware that upon the implementation of this directive all children under the age of sixteen will be entitled to holiday and sick pay and that it is a criminal offence to employ children under the age of thirteen. Saving the best bit until last, the Eurosprouts of Brussels decree that anyone employing five or more people, even if most of them are children, must provide a pension scheme for his employees. While waving goodbye to your paper boy-girl, give the milkman a wave. His bottles have been declared "environmentally undesirable" and if Federal Europe finds you "undesirable" you do not last long. I expect that they will be knocking on my door soon.

"Thick jibe is absolute nonsense" (13th September, 2001) What's in a name? Helmut Winkler's dismissal of my assertion that a majority of the people across Europe are against further integration, by declaring them thick, left me gobsmacked. There would be little point in holding general elections if the majority of the populace is deemed to be "neither particularly bright, well informed or has much grasp of wider issues". He is right to correct my use of the term Federal although it is in popular use. Unfortunately, Mr Winkler failed to complete my education and tell me what I should call it if not Federal. What do you call an organisation with an unelected executive - a Parliament with few powers, which seeks to rule over every aspect of our lives and demands an annual arm and a leg financially for the privilege? I have yet to receive my instructions from Brussels on what time to put the kids to bed. But I am sure it won't be long!

"Fancy a fairy tale Euro foe?" (Bob Wydell, 22nd September, 2001) My thanks to Dick Perkins for the compliments he heaps upon me - pedantic knowledge, probable paranoia, carping, negative, never a hint of creativity and, of course, always anti E.U. As long as I can remember Dick Perkins has made a point of missing the point - yes my efforts are prolific and my letters are anti E.U. - I firmly and deeply believe that further integration will prove very costly for this country. I resent the stealthy undemocratic way we are being systematically sub-merged in the E.U. doctrine. Yes my letters may be carping and negative Mr P but they are good enough to get into print, good enough to keep the subject on the front burner and in the public eye - exactly the opposite of what you naive pro feds and this government wants! That is the point Mr Perkins! I have managed some creativity in the past Mr P, drop me a line for a selection of fairy stories especially written for pro feds. I find them quite easy to write as the pro feds believe anything and everything fictional.

"Federalism by stealth" (Bob Wydell, 6th October, 2001) "Bright is ring of words when the right man rings them, fair is the fall of song when the singer sings them" Quite a speech Mr Blair - worthy of the first president of an enlarged Federal Europe! It was always on the cards that the events last month in New York and worldwide reaction would either provide the federal empire builders with a smokescreen to cover their devious actions or spawn a contrived excuse to fully integrate with Federal Europe for security reasons. Hence Mr Blair's ability in a speech about terrorism to completely omit his own dismal failure in Northern Ireland but still work the subject around to Federal Europe. Watch the regulation writers in Brussels gather speed, the directive dispensers move into overdrive and the treaty tamperers extend their "One size fits all" policy. Watch while Mr Blair attempts to bounce us into Federal Europe.

"Why was Bill read anyway?" (Richard, Earl of Bradford, 19th October, 2001) Our British Parliament held the Third Reading of the Bill to ratify the Nice Treaty; and, as expected, it was a total formality. The Labour M.P.s voted in favour en masse and, with such a huge majority, it passed easily. But why was there any Third reading, as the Nice Treaty needs to be ratified by all fifteen countries of the E.U.? The Irish held a referendum - if only our Government had had the courage to take a similar line of action - and voted to reject the Nice Treaty. Despite the fact that the Irish are the biggest net recipients per capita of funds from the E.U. Obviously they have seen through the federalist agenda of integration, and don't like the idea of losing their independence and their traditionally neutral stance. However, despite the fact that it should have stopped progress of the Treaty, the British Government have ignored the Irish vote, going ahead anyway. Doesn't this say a lot about why they wanted us to give up the veto in many areas?

"Bitter pill to swallow" (Bob Wydell, 17th November, 2001) Heed well the warning from Denis Brookes, U.K.I.P. [United Kingdom Independence Party] chairman, regarding the impending change to our law. Britons have lived under Anglo-Saxon law for a thousand years. It is not perfect but the twin tenets of justice and fairness have always been at its head. You will find the Napoleonic system a bitter pill to swallow especially the new improved Federal Europe version which gives its prosecutors and law enforcers immunity from prosecution while allowing them to attest a person in this country and transfer them to any other E.U. country for detention and trial. That detention, I might add, can be renewed indefinitely for three months at a time without reference to a judge. Ignore Federal Europe at your peril.

"European ambitions revealed" (Bob Wydell, 1st December, 2001) Prime Minister Blair took the first public step in his quest to become President of Federal Europe when he announced in Birmingham yesterday that "Federal Europe is our future!" Realities, it seems, are easily dismissed when ambition is rampant - the reality of countries outside the federation doing very nicely thank you, the reality of a heavily regulated, protectionist trading block in the era of instantaneous trading on the worldwide web. The realities of the crippling cost of membership, the sequestration of our pension fund and the total loss of sovereignty, but most of all the reality of Mr Blair's wishful thinking that he, or anyone else on this island, can influence the French or Germans in any sphere of federal hope. Read the small print Tony! - the message from our continental friends is "Britain has a major part to pay! in Europe" - not play!

"Note plight" (Bob Wydell, 13th December, 2001) I hope that the holiday abroad fraternity will note the plight of our [plane] spotters in Greece, note how easy it is to find accommodation in a Greek prison and choose their holiday destination accordingly.

"The Euro gravy train going at full steam" (Bob Wydell, 25th February, 2001) It is doubtful that Federal Europe would survive without the massive financial contribution by Britain, £11,888 billion in 2000 or £33 million every day! It seems that while passenger and freight trains in this country are prone to delays the federal gravy train is unstoppable. I can understand the logic behind richer countries paying in, and poorer countries taking out to help equalise the economic growth but when does it end? Britain was a net contributor when we joined along with Ireland in 1975, Ireland was designated net gainer status, receiving £9 for every £1 she paid in - it worked, Ireland became the Tiger economy of the Western world, outstripping them all and now with the best of them - why then does Ireland still have net gainer status? And why has Britain's contribution risen year on year to the staggeringly obscene amounts we are paying today? When you receive your inflated Council Tax demand this year, remember why the Government cannot help you, remember the state of our roads and railways, our schools and hospitals, remember these vast amounts of money we are handing over and wonder why it does not entitle us to a seat on the committee which decides the destination of that money - it is obviously the worst deal in the history of the world. Jack Straw [then Home Secretary] suggested reforms to Federal Europe in Paris [and] he was told that no one would listen to Britain until we accepted the Euro and full integration - delay those crippling payments Jack, and you will find that they are all ears!

"Problems created at home by British" (Philip Bushill-Matthews, Conservative Member of the European Parliament (M.E.P.), West Midlands) Bob Wydell is at last nearly getting my name right but has a bit further to go with some of his "facts". The European Parliament does have some control over the E.U. Commission. Though more control is clearly needed, it is often forgotten that the Commission has no votes so cannot decide anything. Decisions rest with the elected heads of governments in the E.U. Council of Ministers, decisions increasingly shared with the elected European Parliament. However, neither the Commission nor the Council will be holding the E.U. Public Inquiry into Foot and Mouth Disease (F.M.D.). This is being set up by the European Parliament itself, despite Labour's attempt to block it. Bob is quite wrong to say that Europe dictated what the U.K. should do to cope with the outbreak. Europe's policy on F.M.D. was substantially shaped by the U.K. against the wishes of other member states. The problems of mis-management were very much home-made by U.K. Government incompetence, as the public inquiry is expected to establish. Bob is however correct that it is an absurd waste of time and money for the parliament to meet in Strasbourg as well as Brussels - but France vetoes any change. If vetoes were to disappear we could get rid of Strasbourg immediately. But in the U.K. we would then lose our right to set our own taxes and steer our own economy, a right that is preserved as long as vetoes continue.

"Don't let them take control" (Bob Wydell, 4th March, 2001) After writing last week of the arrogant statements made by our politicians regarding Federal Europe, I realise that we do not have the monopoly. Helmut Schmidt, when asked how he had been able to progress so far with the federalisation of Europe without ever asking the German people, replied with astonishment "What is it to do with them!". Raymond Barre of France continued in this self-righteous vein with, "I have never understood why the views of ordinary people should be taken into account!" These are the ideals and attitudes of the people who seek executive authority to rule every aspect of our lives - only a fool would hand over without a fight.

"Changes only line the pockets of the rich" (T. Astley, 11th March, 2002) What a good letter from Bob Wydell in your 4th March issue. How very true of the attitudes of today's so-called statesmen. Our own say they are devolving power to the people - yes they have set up very expensive talking shops. But they don't really amount to a lot do they, except to line some very nice pockets. The latest scam is in planning. We see that any major plans will be taken out of local hands - no matter how it affects anyone. The ordinary man or woman will have absolutely no say, even less than now. If these ideas are forced through willy nilly then we can look forward to a lot of civil unrest. Even our elected councils, community, parish, county or regional will be overruled by some unelected body. How do I know this is in the wind? I suggest people consult today's press appeal for people to write to the Prime Minister urgently. No point shouting after the event, get your protests in and let them know they cannot get away riding roughshod over us as they please. Talk about giving us more say, not likely, taking what little chance to argue our point of view away like this. Our Government came with such high hopes and ideals. They have returned to the taxpayer a few little morsels to keep us quiet, such as the winter fuel payment, free television for the over 75s, jigged the car taxes etc., but all the time taking by the back door.

"Ignorance on Europe" (Bob Wydell, 3rd April, 2002) I watched the [television] Panorama "debate" on a Federal Europe recently. I was amazed at the breathtaking ignorance shown by a peer of the realm about the content and consequences of treaties already signed, never mind the ones in the pipeline! I noted the cynicism of the businessmen present, spouting any old nonsense to get themselves closer to the 450 million customer base Federal Europe will provide! I nearly choked on the fatuous remarks made by the Britain in Europe spokesman who sought to assure us that Federal Europe only wanted to control our economy to prevent us getting into debt - and I wasn't impressed with Michael Howard's analogy of the Euro as the E.R.M. writ large - enter and you are locked in. Apart from the eloquent and lucid arguments put forward by the three ladies involved on the panels, it was a dog's breakfast of a debate and I was reminded of the clarity of Idris Francis regarding Federal Europe when he said "How much longer can this farcical pretence continue? The E.U. knows what it wants, we know what it wants, we do not want it -what else needs to be said!"

"Easy label to pin on opponents of opinions" (Bob Wydell, 11th April, 2002) I am glad to see that Britain is opposing the ill thought out laws on racism and xenophobia proposed by Federal Europe with arrest warrants which allow extradition to any of the 15 member countries without due procedure. Both of these accusations are easy labels to pin onto anyone whose opinions you disagree with and both are difficult to defend. My own firmly stated view that Britain's interest would be best served outside Federal Europe seems to find favour with some of your readers but at least five have immediately and incorrectly branded me as xenophobic, having a "morbid fear" of foreigners. None of these people know me. They do not know my race, creed or colour. They just assume, indiscriminately accusing, throwing mud in the sure knowledge that some of it will stick in our modern society. I have stated on this page in the past that I spent over four years living in Germany - could a true xenophobe survive such a test? This is why such legislation is dangerous, it is easily manipulated by petty and small minded people who brook no opinion to be aired other than their own. My "morbid fear" is of a semi-secret police force with unlimited powers and no responsibility.

"Where the power is in Europe" (Bob Wydell, 1st May, 2002) I found a literary gem in a charity shop last week. It only cost me twenty pence but ranks alongside the major works of fiction. It is called Factsheets of Britain & Europe; issued in July, 1971. Thirty-one years ago, of course, the federal sting was incomplete and everyone still referred to it as the Common Market. But the document clearly states the pecking order of power in Europe. First would be the unelected Council of Ministers, who would take the major decisions, then the unelected Commission would propose how treaties would be implemented, and finally the elected European Parliament would supervise! The booklet says: "Inside the Community we should be members of a developing group of equals in which our government could prevent anything which ran counter to our major national interest and could promote developments which were to our advantage"!

"Lost the plot over satellite monopoly" (Bob Wydell, 4th May, 2002) Mr Jenkinson informs us that there are 30 G.P.S. satellites already up there, not one. He also tells us that the E.U. is not anti-American (I did say France!), and that the reason that Federal Europe wants its own satellite is to combat the monopoly of the Americans. He kindly explained that if there is only one of anything then it is called a "monopoly". I'm afraid I lost the plot here. If there are already 30 up there how does that constitute a monopoly - unless they are all American and I cannot see the Russians allowing that situation to develop. Mr Jenkinson adds "the U.S.A. might start to charge or make things go fuzzy" but whiter than white Federal Europe's satellite system "will be a civil one, remaining available to all, regardless of potential conflict". Your blind acceptance of the federal word is commendable Mr Jenkinson, especially in view of its 40 year record of duplicity. I thank him for the "gentleman" tag, but he's got my politics wrong as well. I was a card carrying member of the Labour Party until the carpetbagger took office and muddied the waters. I would vote for Old Nick himself if I thought he could extricate us from this phony alliance.

"Throwing away our rights to autonomy" (John Farmer, 10th May, 2002) Regarding Richard Long's castigation of Bob Wydell. Why are Europhiles unable to refer to we Europhobes without being deeply offensive? He would throw away, forever, our right to govern ourselves for his own short-term gain, which is an illusion anyway, when you look at the high unemployment and weak economics on the Continent. I would warn him - the tighter the federation the more disastrous the explosion. We will then have a mega -Yugoslavia. Our scepticism is justified by, for example, "their" subsidising our trawler owners to scrap their trawlers. This would be fair enough if it ensured the recovery of our fish stocks. But it won't because at the same time they are subsidising the Spanish to build huge trawlers, which will scoop up 10 tonnes of fish per day. We should use the Royal Navy to protect our fish stocks, as the Icelanders did. They now have a sustainable fishing industry.

"Always so interesting" (E.M. Stasnnett, 14th May, 2002) Unlike Jason Jones and R. Jackson, I for one look forward to reading Mr Wydell's letters concerning our membership of the E.U. They are always interesting, informative and highlight the tremendous daily outpourings of our financial contribution to the Brussels coffers. Just think Mr Jones, all that money could be directed to improving those public services that we all need at sometime in our lives, services that were once the envy of European neighbours but have now fallen away so badly due to our inability to find sufficient funds. Keep up the good work Mr Wydell.

"Millions of jobs will not be lost" (Jonathan Carr, 14th May, 2002) In reply to Richard Long's letter of 2nd May, his suggestions that millions of jobs would be lost if we left the E.U. or did not join the Euro are quite wrong. E.U. Commissioner Neil Kinnock admitted on B.B.C. Radio recently that being in or out would make no difference at all to employment in the U.K. What is a matter of record is that the last time we fixed our currency to the Euro (E.R.M.), it cost a million jobs and 100,000 businesses went bust. The time before that when we fixed our exchange rate to the Gold Standard in 1926 it resulted in millions being unemployed. Let's put the facts before integrationist propaganda please. Trading insults about little Englanders' xenophobia and isolation is generally resorted to when Euro integrationists cannot defend their case. Just this week the Government complained that E.U. regulations are costing us £30 billion a year and that comes on top of our £1.3 million per hour membership fee. Just imagine how many jobs that would buy Mr Long.

"Ashamed of Euros" (Jean Jones, 14th May, 2002) Bob Wydell voices the concerns of many people who see our sovereignty being eroded by stealth - the E.U. Parliament to be precise! I wouldn't polish my shoes with the flag "Euro" Phil insists on flying at Telford. I fly the British flag over my front door. If Europe is so great, why do illegal immigrants want to come here? Our economy is fine, our forces are the best in the world, these pro-Euros should be ashamed!

"In a state of change" (K. Edwards, 23rd May, 2002) Regionalisation of the United Kingdom is not a new concept but is part of the plans for a federal state of Europe. The process began with the devolution of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will be the end of county and local councils, elected by the people. England is to be divided into nine regions - divide and conquer of the old Left has returned. The maps for these regions have already been printed, the first batch omitted the title "England" and were designated "regions of the E.U.". Each region will have its own assembly appointed by Brussels, funded by Brussels. Our taxes will go to Brussels and will be fixed by Brussels. The object is to bring the U.K. into the Federal States of Europe by the back door.

IN THE HEAT OF THE BATTLE AGAINST INTEGRATION This selection of letters is only a fraction of the on-going dialogue in one regional newspaper. It is obvious that the forces assembled in West-minster and Whitehall to engineer the absorption of the United Kingdom in a Federal European "State" are considerable and unscrupulous. This has long been beggared by divisions within the major political parties, which obscures any definitive or credible party-political line on the principle, degree or form of European integration. This is further bedevilled by the party-political whip system. This functions to ensure conformity of M.P.s to the party line, and effectively emasculates them from their individual positions on matters of vital public importance and, in turn from the democratic wishes and concerns of the people whom they purport to represent. A classic example of this was the vicious treatment of a handful of Conservative Party rebels against ratification of the Maastricht Treaty during the Government of John Major. With the crunch time of a general election, most people tend to gravitate anyway to one of the main political parties according to their perceived position in society. At this stage minority parties with a specific agenda, such as Sir James Goldsmith's Referendum Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party (U.K.I.P.), or even that of M. le Pen in France, rarely get a look-in. The U.K.I.P does not even appear to get a mention in Whitaker's Almanack or Dod's Parliamentary Companion, and the Powers behind the Media make sure it stays this way. The way forward must therefore be open dialogue at regional level. This prevents M.P.s and M.E.P.s sheltering behind evasive palliatives in letters to individual constituents, and forces them out into the open through the local press. It is this dialogue that gets people talking amongst themselves, and generates awareness in pubs, clubs, the workplace and in the home. This is why the role of correspondents like Bob Wydell is so important, and why it should be multiplied across the country if the British people are not to fall unsuspecting into the flytrap of European federalism.

*************************

BOOK REVIEW by "Kitz"
The Silent Takeover - Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy by Noreena Hertz. William Heinemann, 2001. 242 pp. Much of this book focuses upon the accelerating growth of multinational corporations in a shrinking world, brought about by the liberalisation of international finance and the dot-com revolution. The resultant casualty is, according to the author, Noreena Hertz, democracy. The book outlines the failure of governments in intervening in the economies of states, the Keynsian model, accompanied by and superseded by the collapse of Communism and the subsequent triumph of neo-liberal economics based upon the ideas of Friedman and Hayek and put into practice by Reagan and Thatcher, and subsequently taken up by much of the rest of the industrialised world.
Within this framework, multinational corporations became globally all-embracing, sometimes exceeding the assets of some states and often dictating national policies. Hertz acknowledges that with the collapse of Communism there is no other alternative to capitalism, with or without a human face, hence her preoccupation in the major part of the book with multi-corporatism. She writes of the extent to which multinationals will go in the interest of profit in a global environment. She writes of corporations breaking up their chains of production all over the world seeking out the cheapest labour costs, the most friendly tax environments and how they can even dominate national policies, getting away with it in a prolonged period of global economic boom.
Handing over the economy to the market, she writes, seems to have been the right choice but she asks the question "So what is the price we will have to pay for it?" Intriguingly she does not say who the "we" are but it can only be we the people of this planet, those at the sharp end of globalism! She explains this truth with facts and figures. In one chapter she writes of the four in five of U.K. households having video recorders and 34 per cent having computers and in another she writes of the number of households existing on no less than half of the average weekly income. Technological advance is enabling machines to replace people and where people are in employment the terms of service are contractual, sometimes limited to one year. The quest to hang on to jobs in this environment means parents being unable to satisfy the daily needs of their children and the growth of the placebo drug industries. No wonder juvenile crime is currently hitting the headlines.
A contrasting picture perhaps, but all in all a depressing one. As she frequently does all her chapters end up with questions and the one question that is striking is the one at the end of the chapter "Let them eat Cake" - "Where do our true priorities lie?" And here, like many others she comes across the effects global corporatism has on national politics. For example, in order to protect our arms industry and in this case the jobs of B.A.E. employees, the trumpeted ethical policy of Robin Cook soon foundered as senior B.A.E. executives pointed out that the sale of Hawker fighter jets to Indonesia would affect the burgeoning import industry to Indonesia. Predictably, thereafter, ethical policies were firmly put on the back burner. One can go on and on in this vein but let me quote figures from Hertz concerning the tobacco industry in the United States - "from 1987 through 1996, the tobacco companies have contributed more than $30,000,000 in contributions to members of Congress . . . "
Then she leads us into a rather confusing picture. Curiously, she appears to applaud the virtues of multinational corporatism since corporations often do what national governments cannot do or are reluctant to do. In Nigeria, for example, Shell with its huge investment in Southern Nigerian oilfields, decided that the best way to protect it was to actually take on the role of government and launched a $52,000,000 social programme including the building of schools and hospitals to such an extent that one of Shell's chiefs in Nigeria commented, tongue in cheek, that government's in the oil business and we are in local government". Thus in spite of a leaning towards the generosity of multinationals she nevertheless and in spite of the sub-title of her book Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy she is obviously not entirely persuaded by multinationals' altruism vis-à-vis the State and is forced to return to the enduring issue that in democracies there can be no alternative to the State by virtue of its reliance upon its voters and taxpayers. There are, I consider, issues that are either omitted or sidestepped in this book. She writes of free trade when it should be fair trade and free trade and had the opportunity to do so when she clearly explained the machinations that go on in the World Trade Organisation. She also writes of the "new" constructive opposition emerging in response to global capitalism and although she is optimistic about its role in the 21st Century she does not indicate how these diffuse and disparate groups can came together and deal with the likes of Rupert Murdoch, for if democratic governments are to exist for the people he and many others of his ilk have to be confronted. Finally, a source of irritation - the book has no index.

REFERENCES Note: Prices are shown where available from Bloomfield Books, and represent only a selection relevant to the theme of this edition of On Target. Material geared to the text is numbered. Publications of general interest questions of European Union are listed unnumbered. A wide range of reading may be found in the Stock Price List (S.P.L.), which may be obtained post free on request from the address on the last page. Books temporarily out of stock are annotated*. Out of print, or older works, may be obtained through the Book Search Service, or the Second-Hand Book Service, both of which are operated by Mr. T.G. Turner, for which details are available as for the S.P.L.
(1) Goldsmith, James. The Trap. Macmillan, 1994.
(2) On Target, Vol. 31, Nos. 3 & 4, 11th & 25th August, 2001.
(3) Goldsmith, James. Op. cit.
(-) Treaty establishing [originally "constituting"] The European Coal and Steel Community, Paris, 18 April, 1951. Cmnd 4863 of 1972).
(-) Treaty establishing The European Economic Community, Rome, 25 March, 1957. Cmnd 4864 of 1972.
(-) The Convoluted Treaties - Vol. II - Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Rome 1957. (Treaty of Rome, with amendments, but excluding Maastricht and Amsterdam). Nelson & Pollard Publishing, 1993. £5.80.
(-) The Unseen Treaty - Treaty on European Union, Maastricht 1992. Nelson & Pollard. £4.95.
(-) Powell, J. Enoch. The Common Market - The case Against. Paperfronts, 1971.
(-) Mowat, R.C., M.A., D.Phil. Creating the European Community. Blandford Press, 1973.
(-) Body, Richard. Europe of Many Circles - Constructing a Wider Europe. New European Publications, 1990.
(-) Body, Richard. The Breakdown of Europe. New European Publications, 1998. H/B, £11.70.
(-) Connolly, Bernard. The Rotten Heart of Europe - The Dirty War for Europe's Money. Faber and Faber Limited, 1995. H/B, £20.50*
(-) Booker, Christopher, and Richard North. The Castle of Lies - Why Britain Must Get Out of Europe. George Duckworth & Co., Ltd., 1996.
(-) Mote, Ashley. A defence of British Liberty. Tanner Publishing, 2001. £12.95.

Further material may be found in the Bloomfield Books Stock Price List (S.P.L.). This is available from the address below. Prices for all material include postage in the United Kingdom. Overseas orders add 20% for surface mail (Europe add 20% for automatic air mail) or 55% for airmail. (U.S. readers should add 55% after adding postage to the U.K. prices, and send payment in U.S. dollars with a cheque drawn on a bank in the U.S.A. made payable to "Donald A. Martin"). All from Donald A. Martin, Bloomfield Books at: 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury, Suffolk, England, CO10 2TD.
EXTRA COPIES: As a service to our readers, extra copies and back numbers of On Target are available at £2 for a single copy, £1.50 each for 2 - 10 copies, 75p each for 11 - 50 copies, and over 50 copies at 50p each. (quantity prices only apply per issue). ON TARGET INDEXES. These are available from Bloomfield Books, currently for Volumes 22-29. The price is 50 pence per copy, per volume (all 8 volumes - £3.50). See address below. On Target is printed and published by Intelligence Publications (U.K.) 26 Meadow Lane, SUDBURY, Suffolk, ENGLAND CO10 2TD. By private subscription only at the following rates: U.K. - £20 per annum U.S.A. - Surface Mail U.S.$45 per annum- Air Mail U.S.$50 per annum Elsewhere overseas - Surface Mail £25 per annum - Air Mail £30 per annum Reproduction, without prior agreement, of the contents of this publication is subject to the acknowledgment of the source, together with the address and subscription rates, and provided a copy of any reproduction is sent immediately to the publisher. Editor and Publisher: Donald A. Martin Copyright © D.A. Martin Deputy Editor and Research Department: Barry S. Turner

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159