SUPERANNUATION – AND THE FABIAN SOCIALIST ROAD TO COMMUNISM

by James Reed
What is the “capitalist” agenda of the Fabian Socialists regarding superannuation? There is a simple answer given by the more conventional right wing/ conservative critical economists like Aaron Clarey (“Enjoy the Decline: Accepting and Living with the Death of the United States”, 2013) - and more complex answers.
Clarey gives a general economic critique of the US economy and sees the US in terminal decline, largely from the creation of a crippling ‘nanny state’. To finance continuing socialist experiments in Obama-land, the ever-oppressive US government will be looking at vampiring the US$18 trillion in “retirement plans”.
Clarey points out that in 2008 Argentina stole people’s private pensions by nationalising the funds to deal with debt problems. Bolivia, Hungary and Bulgaria did their own versions of this thieving. In the US there have been grunts and murmurs from the more socialistic of Democrats about nationalising US retirements funds, probably to be done in Hilary’s reign.

The Banking Swindle
In Kerry Bolton’s must read book, “The Banking Swindle: Money Creation and the State” (Black House Publishing, London, 2013), it is shown that there is indeed an evil empire, but it is that of Mammon, the money power. The major banks essentially own each other and form an international financial cartel which maximises profits through boom and bust cycles. The entire system works on a system of systematic parasitism, where the poorest 80 per cent of people, the majority, pay more interest than they receive, to the top 10 per cent.
Add to this the exploding compounding nature of public and private debt at unsustainable rates and the situation is, as Dr. Bolton says, one where “the whole parasitic debt finance system totters and falls like a house of cards”. p.10)

The source of this systemic instability is, Dr. Bolton explains in great historical detail, the fractional reserve system of debt finance, where the banking system can create credit by loaning out, without having the reserves to meet all of these outlays simultaneously. That is why a run on the banks leads to a bankruptcy. Banks make the gamble that not everybody will want all of their money out at the same time. The system rolls along based on usury, with interest charged on this smoke and mirrors ‘credit’. That interest, however, has to be paid back with real wealth – which when expressed in ‘money’ terms creates more cycles of this usury and debt. (p.21) Bankers forever get richer as debt levels spiral out of control.

Parasitic Finance
Cutting to the chase, Dr. Bolton says, “It is the nature of parasites that they eventually destroy their hosts and either move to a new host or self-destruct. The financial system, under which most of the world operates, is by nature parasitic and therefore, not only destructive, but self-destructive [and]… the debt-finance system contains the seeds of its own destruction. Since it is fundamentally parasitic it cannot do anything but turn upon itself when the host has been bled white.” (p.41)
The key to the crisis is this: “If a private bank can create and lend credit as a profit-making commodity by charging interest, then why can’t a government create its own credit as a public service and purely as a means of exchange of goods and services without incurring debt through exorbitant interest?
Credit and currency are supposed to be a convenient method of commerce, instead of exchanging a bag of potatoes for a sack of flour, etc. It is because credit has become a prerogative of private banks, instead of governments acting on behalf of the people, that the interest incurred on credit loaned, loaned as debt, sucks real money, created from actual production, out of circulation, and enables it to be relent by the money-lenders at interest, and so the process continues, with debt accruing all the while, with financial booms and busts.” (pp.43-44)

IMF Complications
There are a few complications to this picture. The International Monetary Fund, according to British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, is experimenting with the idea of replacing fractional reserve banking with state-created money. Wouldn’t this solve everything? Well the plan, known as the Chicago Plan, was originally funded by J.D. Rockefeller in 1890. The plan of “100% money” was advanced by economists such as Henry Simons and Irving Fisher and essentially block the creation of money from nothing. New bank credit can only occur through earnings retained as issued money, or through borrowing existing government-issued money.

This proposal is being made now not because of the “goodness” of the IMF (they are evil), but because the fractional reserve system is becoming obsolete – because the Lords of International Finance now own almost everything, as Patrick Wood has said in commentarywww.augustForecast.com. Control now flips to the direct control of resources rather than indirectly owning resources through debt-based finance.
Further, the move would create a real Leviathan State-something Eric Butler wisely saw when the League fought against bank-nationalisation. ** Central to this new agenda is continuing the reign of centralism rather than localising, decentralising and democratising money.

Unions and Superannuation
In this chaotic environment superannuation in Australia needs to be understood. Two excellent papers by Mike Gilligan an Online Opinion – “Australia’s Superannuation – DNA and Transparency” and “Australia’s Superannuation – Doomed by its Origins”, explains the threats. Gilligan argues that the breakdown of Australian superannuation is inevitable because inherent flaws in the system, said by the financial elites to be the “best in the world”. First, “funds have been unconcerned about basic responsibilities such as their product and its risk”.

The financial dealings of the funds is less than transparent. Indeed the trustee boards of superannuation funds are dominated by union control, a legacy, Gilligan explains, from the Keating creation of compulsory superannuation, which was done as something of a deal between Labor and the Unions.

Union memberships were declining and far-sighted union officials saw the potential of an entity with minimal accountability and transparency capitalising on the forced savings of hardworking Australians. Thus “the unions have purposefully built a new financial network around universal super. Industry super funds contract services, increasingly supplied by entities of their own creation, which they have capitalised, and are linked, more or less visibly, with unions-funds management, administration, asset consulting and, more recently, banking.”
Union elites are parting even with declining membership because the money is coming from somewhere else, Gilligan says, and none of this may be illegal at all.

The Self-Destruction of Super
Gilligan points out that public super funds lose on average 11 per cent of their compulsory deduction to fund expenses and that is on top of a 15 per cent tax. As most Australians are taxed at a rate of 32 per cent or less, they gain little by having their money in super funds. Further, the risk associated with super has been ignored, as super is subjected to market risks associated with equity, debt, currency, property and commodities, and the influence of time is ignored. Single-period, that is, annual risk is addressed, but not longer-term risks.

Treasury analysis based on “sensitivity analysis” has been based on the assumption of high investment returns. And markets are risky, and for the reasons detailed above in this essay, are likely to get riskier. Keating’s scheme is thus a disaster waiting to happen thousands of times worse than the ‘pink batt foul-up’.

Gilligan concludes his brilliant economic detective work
“I can find no parallels for long, plodding implacable policy aberrations on the scale of our super which so directly affect citizens’ pay-packets.” Further, it is too late to rework retirement policy. As I see it the best thing now is everybody for themselves. Hope the ship doesn’t sink before you get your nest egg. Younger people need to have a disaster contingency plan. The big collapse lies ahead.

** The Man From Runnymede by Jeremy Lee:
Bank Nationalisation By 1948 Eric was involved in the battle to forestall Chifley's attempt to nationalize the banks. He had written a series of brilliant articles, Steps Towards the Monopoly State, being published weekly by an old established Melbourne paper, The Argus.
As a description of the threat to Australia's freedom by centralized power from a variety of sources - revolutionary, bureaucratic and corporate - his material was prescient. Before his final articles appeared, The Argus had changed hands and Eric's message was stopped in its tracks. They are all currently available in booklet form.

But he was already well enough known for the traditional enemy, the Trading Banks, to approach Eric and ask him to train their staff to effectively fight nationalization. It must have been an invidious choice. But he knew that a "State Monopoly of Credit" - as outlined in Karl Marx's famous "ten steps" in the Communist Manifesto, was an even worse alternative to the world-wide power of private banking. For the bank nationalization battle the gloves were temporarily laid down, to be picked up as that particular skirmish was over. A small number of branch bank managers became supporters of the League.

Further reading:

The Douglas Manual - Chapter: Illusions of Nationalization compiled by Philip Mairet
https://alor.org/blog/entry/the-douglas-manual-1  

"Socialism in Practice Destroys Responsible Government"

"Social Credit and National Accounting" by Victor Bridger

IMMIGRATION CURBS TO PLEASE UKIP VOTERS

Well, well, well. The UK Government “will outline a range of measures intended to curb immigration in next week’s Queen’s Speech in the hope of wooing voters who have switched to UKIP. Landlords will have to make sure that their tenants are legally in the country when they make tenancy agreements under the plans. Ministers are still considering how to restrict access to benefits, the NHS and other public services as part of a drive to make…”

Cameron eats words after Farage’s feast
David Cameron was forced to eat his words last night after UKIP stunned the establishment with massive electoral gains. As Nigel Farage’s insurgent party attracted almost every fourth vote in county council elections, the Prime Minister vowed to respect those he had previously derided as “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”.
The 139 seats seized by UKIP across the country surpassed expectations and redrew the political map. (Even without winning a single constituency, Ukip could still transform the 2015 general election)... The Times 4 May 2013  

GET READY TO FIGHT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFERENDUM

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The League has published a lot of material detailing the dangers of Constitutional change to formally recognise local government. As it now stands (The Australian 22 April 2013, p.1), the referendum question is to be put in the September 14 election. Tony Abbot is likely to support it.

Yes, a referendum on this, but never one on immigration – thus write “Reduce Immigration” on both of your ballot papers, it is still a formal vote. Consequently a thinking person needs to be suspicious why the elites want this change. The move has been previously tried by both the Whitlam and Hawke governments who were anti-state.

Essentially this is part of a grand plan to eliminate the states and centralise power in Canberra with mega-councils playing an administrative role. As we cannot trust the power elite –EVER – never, never, vote for any Constitutional change however “motherhood”. Likewise for the forthcoming Aboriginal recognition proposal.  

A NATIONAL SUMMIT ON "FUTURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT"

It was Alison Walpole of Victoria who sent us the details of the National Summit to be convened by the Municipal Association of Victoria, and to be held in Melbourne 22-23 May 2013. The summit is open to anyone with an interest in local government – as long as they have a spare $594! There won’t be too many struggling ratepayers attending, they find it hard enough just to keep up with their present rate charges! But there is another matter that needs to be taken into account.

But what about the Delphic Technique? Have you heard of it? Probably Not.
I am sure you have heard of ‘sustainable communities’. Hardly a day passes that one doesn’t come across the term in public view. The American folk who are also fighting the encroachment of Big Brother with his ‘sustainable communities’ have warned us to look out for the techniques being used to gain local ‘consensus’.

After reading up on the Delphic Technique I was reminded of what Alison Walpole wrote to her local paper on the subject of local government: “Let us hear the truth,” wrote Alison to the Editor of the Wangaratta Chronicle 6th April 2013.

“Many times I have written to your paper and the CEO of the Rural City of Wangaratta, in an attempt to prompt discussion, and asked "What Is the Future of Local Government?" Whether from ignorance or intent there has been almost no response from former elected Councillors. 

Did they not read in Council minutes of Wangaratta Rural City Council involvement in a CSIRO Research Project-Sustainable Communities? 

Did they not understand Council involvement in development of the Hume Strategy for Sustainable Communities 2010-2020 regional plan? 

Did they really believe the Rural Land Strategy and expect Rural Land Owners would accept it and hand over control of their land?

Now we have new Councillors who ask intelligent questions and expect honest answers!” Bravo Alison!  

THE DELPHIC TECHNIQUE - LET’S STOP BEING MANIPULATED

The following comes from American folk fighting for their land rights and is written by Albert V. Burns: “More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get ”input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.

You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings. Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly, the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly. Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.

The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war. However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a predetermined end.

How does the process take place?
The techniques are well developed and well defined. First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be a likable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize. It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the audience, to establish one or a few of the people as “bad guys” while the facilitator is perceived as the “good guy.” Facilitators are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the “friend” of the rest of the audience.

The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.
At this point, the audience is generally broken up into “discussion—or ‘breakout’—groups” of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator. Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints. Generally, participants are asked to write down their ideas and disagreements with the papers to be turned in and “compiled” for general discussion after the general meeting is reconvened.

This is the weak link in the chain, which you are not supposed to recognize.
Who compiles the various notes into the final agenda for discussion? Ahhhh! Well, it is those who are running the meeting.
How do you know that the ideas on your notes were included in the final result? You Don’t! You may realize that your idea was not included and come to the conclusion that you were probably in the minority. Recognize that every other citizen member of this meeting has written his or her likes or dislikes on a similar sheet of paper and they, too, have no idea whether their ideas were “compiled” into the final result! You don’t even know if anyone’s ideas are part of the final “conclusions” presented to the reassembled group as the “consensus” of public opinion. Rarely does anyone challenge the process, since each concludes that he or she was in the minority and different from all the others.

So, now, those who organized the meeting in the first place are able to tell the participants and the rest of the community that the conclusions, reached at the meeting, are the result of public participation. Actually, the desired conclusions had been established, in the back room, long before the meeting ever took place. There are variations in the technique to fit special situations but, in general, the procedure outlined above takes place.

The natural question to ask here is:
If the outcome was preordained before the meeting took place, why have the meeting? Herein lies the genius of this Delphi Technique.
It is imperative that the general public believe that this program is theirs! They thought it up! They took part in its development! Their input was recognized!
If people believe that the program is theirs, they will support it. If they get the slightest hint that the program is being imposed upon them, they will resist.
This very effective technique is being used, over and over and over, to change our form of government from the representative republic, intended by the Founding Fathers, into a “participatory democracy." Now, citizens chosen at large are manipulated into accepting preset outcomes while they believe that the input they provided produced the outcomes which are now theirs!

The reality is that the final outcome was already determined long before any public meetings took place, determined by individuals unknown to the public. Can you say “Conspiracy?” These “Change Agents” or “Facilitators” can be beaten! They may be beaten using their own methods against them.

Because it is so important, I will repeat the suggestions I gave in the last previous column.

One: Never, never lose your temper! Lose your temper and lose the battle, it is that simple! Smile, if it kills you to do so. Be courteous at all times. Speak in a normal tone of voice.

Two: Stay focused! Always write your question or statement down in advance to help you remember the exact manner in which your question or statement was made. These agents are trained to twist things to make anyone not acceding to their agenda look silly or aggressive. Smile, wait till the change agent gets done speaking and then bring them back to your question. If they distort what you said, simply remind those in the group that what he or she is saying is not what you asked or said and then repeat, verbatim, from your notes the original objection.

Three: Be persistent! Wait through any harangues and then repeat the original question. (Go back and reread the previous column.)

Four: (I wish to thank a reader of the previous column for some EXCELLENT suggestions.)
Don’t go alone! Get as many friends or relatives who think as you do, to go along with you to the meeting. Have each person ”armed” with questions or statements which all generally support your central viewpoint. Don’t sit together as a group! Spread out through the audience so that your group does not seem to be a group.

When the facilitator or change agent avoids answering your question and insists that he must move on so everyone may have a chance to speak, your own agents in the audience can then ask questions, worded differently, but still with the same meaning as yours. They can bring the discussion back to your original point. They could even point out, in a friendly manner, that the agent did not really answer your question. The more the agent avoids your question, and the more your friends bring that to the attention of the group, the more the audience will shift in your favour.

To quote my informant:
“Turn the technique back on them and isolate the change agent as the kook. I’ve done it and seen steam come out of the ears of those power brokers in the wings who are trying to shove something down the citizen’s throats. And it’s so much fun to watch the moderator squirm and lose his cool, all while trying to keep a smile on his face.” Now that you understand how meetings are manipulated, let’s show them up for the charlatans which they are.
Source: Ether Zone September 23, 2002 http://etherzone.com/cgi-bin/search/search.pl?Terms=Albert+V.+Burns

** Important: DVD on ‘Sustainable Development’ (explains the Delphic Technique) prepared by Henry Lamb. Contact Doug and Jean Holmes and get your copy. Phone: 8396 1245  

THATCHER’S EXTREME 'CONSERVATISM'

Further to the discussion on the death of Lady Thatcher. “Thatcher's extreme "conservatism " failed because it did not recognize the intrinsically distributive character of nature. She did not understand that the real purpose of production is consumption. She was the quintessential Puritan and did not understand the implications and potential of our Cultural Heritage as it allows the displacement of human labour from production processes.

She recognized the fundamental correctness of efficiency but did not know how to distribute the results that flow from it. Her philosophical Puritanism precluded such understanding. Almost all Governments eventually fall on the rocky shoals of such financial ignorance.  

ALL IN A GOOD CAUSE - THE ‘50 TO 1’ PROJECT

Dear Sirs, my name is Gordon Alderson.
As a Member of the Management Committee I am sending you this email on behalf of the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics party.
I am assisting Topher Field, an Australian film maker and activist, and Lord Christopher Monckton on a project called '50 to 1'. It's all about the TRUE cost of trying to 'stop' climate change vs the cost of adapting to climate change as and if it happens.
I think it may be of interest to you.

A short video explaining what it's about is here:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/50-to-1-project-the-true-cost-of-action-on-climate-change/x/3160625

We are running a crowdfunding campaign to try and raise the required budget to make the project a reality.
We would be extremely grateful for your financial support and for any publicity, blogging, emailing of contacts etc., which you could do so that the word gets out about the 50-to-1 Project.
Account details for donors willing for their support to be immediately available for the Project are:
ACCOUNT NAME: Lord Monckton Foundation : BSB: 083004 : ACCOUNT: 125962000 : REFERENCE: 50to1[Donor Name]
Please have a look at the link and do with it as you see fit.
Best Regards Gordon Alderson : Project Coordinator 50-to-1 9
Victoria Street, Rippleside Vic Australia 3215 Mobile Phone: Int-61-425 789 471  

CANADIAN CBC IS HIRING – BUT NOT CAUCASIANS, WRITES PAUL FROMM

Casting call! Hello! If you’re here to find instructions regarding a self tape audition submission for the male Kids’ CBC Host, you’re in the right place! Below, you will find a PDF with the audition material and all of the instructions.

Please only submit if you match the following criteria:
• Male between the ages of 23-35yrs
• Any race except Caucasian
• Non-union
• Must be able to carry a tune (ability to dance or move well is a bonus but not necessary)
• Comfortable being in front of a camera and not afraid to show a silly side
• Great with kids; the type of guy that pre-schoolers would love to be around
• Loves physical comedy, would enjoy hanging out with puppets all day and can be funny on the fly

So does this also mean “no Irish” need apply?
Here is the Government of Canada’s position on discriminatory hiring in the public service. According to one of Stephen Harper’s former Presidents of the Treasury Board, Stockwell Day, “While we support diversity in the public service, we want to ensure that no Canadian is barred from opportunities in the public service based on race or ethnicity,” Day said in a statement.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who was also involved in the decision to review the government’s hiring practices, which give priority to qualified applicants from minority groups, said everyone should be considered for federal jobs.

“We are in favour of appropriate diversity in the public service and reasonable efforts to achieve it, but we don’t think any Canadians should be excluded from applying within their government,” he told CBC News.
“It’s OK to encourage people from different backgrounds to apply but in our judgment it goes too far to tell people that if they are not of a particular race or ethnicity they cannot apply [for a job] that is actually funded by their tax dollars.”  

LETTER TO THE PRESS

Editor of The Age, 9th May 2013
The very concept of creating honorary Australian citizens is open to question - is there any real need for such an institution? However, even if there is, Raoul Wallenberg does not seem an appropriate choice ('Recognising rare courage', 9/5). This is because he did not make any special contribution of significance to our nation.
Honorary citizenship, if used, should only be granted to persons who have performed marked service to Australia and whom a huge majority of Australians clearly wish to so honour.
Your editorial argument otherwise is tortuous and unconvincing. That Wallenberg was a wartime hero is admirable, but not an adequate justification of his reception of this particular honour.

- - Nigel Jackson, Belgrave Victoria  

LEAGUE OF RIGHTS 2013 NATIONAL WEEKEND - FORWARD NOTICE

The 2013 National Weekend beginning with the 67th New Times Dinner on the Friday evening, 4th October will be held for the first time in Adelaide, South Australia.

The dates and events are as follows:
New Times Dinner, Friday 4th October :
Seminar, Saturday 5th October : Guest speakers will be announced at a later date.
Divine Service and Action Conference, Sunday 6th October.

The South Australian League members and supporters are looking forward to hosting this annual event and welcoming interstate visitors into their midst. The advance notice will help you plan a holiday along with attending our New Times Dinner, National Seminar and Action Conference. |
The Friday evening New Times Dinner will be held at the Public Schools’ Club (within Adelaide proper).
The Saturday and Sunday events will be held at Lothlorien, Happy Valley (in Adelaide’s south).

The following accommodation addresses are within reasonable motoring distance of Lothlorien, Happy Valley.
These are only suggestions, you may already know where you would like to stay.

• Tollgate Motel, Glen Osmond: Conveniently situated between the scenic hills and the shopping district of Glen Osmond Road. Tollgate Motel accommodation from $68 single. Phone Number 08 8379 1651 Website: https://www.tollgatemotel.com/
• Glenelg Lake Holiday Units, Glenelg North: Glenelg Lake Holiday Units are situated in the pleasant seaside town of Glenelg in South Australia. From $77. Address: 1 George St, Glenelg Nth. Ph: (08) 8322 6007.
• Mick O’Shea’s Hotel/Motel, Main South Road, Hackam. Phone 8326 2939. $110 per night. Discount for early bookings.

The Internet-Google is very helpful for viewing the various accommodation venues.
The South Australian State Weekend will be replaced by the National Weekend in October 2013.
Please note the changes.