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
"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly fine.
. . . though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all."
Friedrich von Logan

July-August 2002, Vol. 24, No. 4


A Couple of Weeks of Half-Decent Government?
by Bill Daly

A week before the July 27 General Election a group of Maoris in Hawkes Bay announced they would march on Wellington. Their intention was to use the election week to protest against the sale of the land called Young Nicks Head. Everybody knows that Maori land claims usually take years to settle, if ever, with a handful of lawyers and negotiators raking in huge fees during the lengthy proceedings. But not so over the Gisborne Maori claim. It was settled within hours. The planned march was featured on television on the Saturday before the Election, and had been dealt with by lunch time the next day. The Government denied it had anything to do with the Election. "Not half", commented N.Z. Herald writer John Armstrong (July 22).
The protesters had another couple of advantages besides election week. Young Nicks Head was about to pass into foreign ownership. It was therefore an issue nearly all New Zealanders would have an interest in, not just local Maori. Prime Minister Clark, by then already slipping in the polls could not afford to have another hot issue hit the headlines. It was a demonstration that the government does know that New Zealanders are against the massive foreign buy-up of New Zealand land and industry, though they would never admit it publicly. As proof they know this because we had Finance Minister Michael Cullen say the government might buy the land to keep it New Zealand owned. The other advantage the Maori had was that Young Nicks Head has special significance to all of us. It is said to be the first land sighted by Captain James Cook in 1769 and named after his cabin boy Nicholas Young who spotted it. It is, as John Armstrong put it in the same Herald article "not solely the preserve of Maori. It is a matter of European heritage and raises the wider issue of nationalism."

There were certainly some significant issues to come out of the Election and the campaign. The Election result almost perfectly matched the larger polls taken in the last few weeks. Prime Minister Clark had hoped for an overall majority for her Labour Party. But she hasn't got it. She must now come to some agreement with the smaller parties. She did not have an overall majority during the last term but she had the full support of the now obliterated Alliance. Compared to the past, the massive support for the small parties would seem to strongly indicate that a considerable segment of New Zealand clearly does not want any one party to have dictatorial power. Clark must now work with either the Greens, Peter Dunne's United Party, or Winston Peter's New Zealand First. She doesn't want a bar of the latter, so it has to be the Greens or United. Ideologically Labour and the Greens have more in common than Labour and United.

United will be an unknown factor with a new team of nine, compared to only one seat previously. United has drawn its support mostly from the conservative and Christian sectors and they aren't Helen Clark's cup of tea. It will be interesting to see what stands, if any United take on some of the key issues. Although Peter Dunne began as a Labour MP, he left on friendly terms to form his own party, and has since sided on nearly every vote with the Nationals.
United's support was the big "unknown factor" in the election. And it all happened in the last fortnight when Dunne's support went from not much above 1 percent to around 10 percent after the party leaders television debate. Clearly there was a large number of people who would probably otherwise have voted mostly for National or Labour but only as a negative vote against the other.

In office, Labour and National have both acted contemptuously, especially since 1984. They have ridden roughshod over the aspirations of most people and have repeatedly betrayed the country's independence. It would seem that some of their traditional voters, aside from the ones that previously moved to Jim Anderton's Alliance and Peters NZ First, were on the lookout for a better alternative. And Peter Dunne gave it to them. It is interesting that many concerned people with Christian values backed United but were not willing to support the Christian Heritage Party, which may well now fold.
Christian Heritage used to have more support. Could it be that Christian Heritage has tended to portray the view that it has no alternative answers (and it doesn't) on issues like the economy and foreign takeovers so that, despite so many good people in its ranks, it would not relieve the ever-growing pressures and stresses we face? In a society that is in partial revolt against religious puritanism (though not monetary puritanism) issues like abortion and pornography, significant as they are, are no longer big vote catchers.
I, for one, would not vote for Christian Heritage because of its unquestioning support for orthodox finance since that is the greatest contributing factor to the destruction of our society and the family, despite my opposition to abortion and pornography. Its further failure, but one shared by today's churches, is to think that most other issues are outside the Christian brief, though some party faithful do have a deeper understanding. (If it is the truth then Christianity is part of the integral workings of every aspect of the world and nature; part of the warp and woof of the universe, as C.H. Douglas expressed it. If it only concerns morals and formal worship then it is barely relevant, because several other religions also promote good morals. To be fair, Christian Heritage supporters have at least grasped that the Faith must have an influence on government; something that many Church leaders still seem to need to learn.)

Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that concerned Christians who want to save their country need, now, to discover mechanisms that can be applied to influence Government policies, rather than attempting to gain power for themselves. It is also a lesson that hopefully the Democrats, once called the Social Credit Party, will now also learn, having lost their two seats with the demise of The Alliance.
Very likely United will also not tackle the monetary issue either and may sit on the fence on other issues like GE and immigration, but the support it got has demonstrated there is a large segment of the population who do not like the policies of Labour and National, but didn¹t want to support the Greens or NZ First. Despite what the regular media commentators are saying, and the politicians themselves, it is likely that most New Zealanders do not see themselves as being on the "right"or the "left"or in the "centre". Most are concerned about a variety of things and perhaps one or two issues are paramount for some people. It would be a fair bet that if a poll was taken that asked if we should stop further foreign takeovers, many people from the so-called 'right"or "left" would find themselves agreeing. It would be the same on issues like GE and immigration.

Very likely, quite a few people gave one of their votes to the Greens over GE and the other (*) to NZ First over Immigration. But the professional political pundits seems quite blind to the fact that most people would rather have a say on an issue rather than have a group of elitists, irrespective of their ideological colouring, making all the decisions for them. Immigration and GE are two issues the government and the National Party do not want to discuss. Both support the Big Business proposition that GE is essential for the economy and that massive immigration is vital if we are to achieve that dangerous absurdity called "economic growth". But issues they did become, when the Greens campaigned solely on stopping GE and Winston Peters tackled immigration and the land rights issues.

Helen Clark will be hoping these issues now go away. But the GE debate may have only just begun. She not only has to face the Greens, whose support she will hope to keep for at least three years, but the fact that GE opposition is also coming from what politicians call "entrenched" conservative circles, namely, the new group Sustainability Council of New Zealand, headed by former Federated Farmers President Sir Peter Elworthy. Even former Labour leader David Lange has suggested the country take a cautious approach.

Expensive newspaper and television advertisements in the week before the Election has only further highlighted in many peoples' minds the fact that GE is mostly about benefiting a few large monopoly companies and does not have the backing of all in the scientific community. Despite not being able to get the media or the other parties to discuss immigration Winston Peter's has again shown that it is a concern for many. Three years ago he held on to his own Tauranga seat by less than 100 votes. This time he thrashed the closest contender (Labour's Marxist-leaning Attorney-General Margaret Wilson,) with a lead of over 9500 votes. At his public meetings around the county Peters spoke against globalism and in favour of nationalism. No wonder he is hated by the various shades of Collectivists. Despite the multiculturalists accusing Peters of being "racist" NZ First did particularly well in the Maori electorates, proving that many Maori do not want the destructive land rights nonsense. National has paid the price for its own treachery while in office, with its lowest support (21 percent) ever. Winston Peters is right when he refers to the Labour-National Party. He is right too when he speaks of their blind lust for power at all cost.

Helen Clark has one advantage over Bill English. She has some basic sense of grass roots feelings or thinking whereas English is a technocrat. He may possibly be a better person, a family man, but his view of the world is one of figures and statistics. He tried to campaign on nothing more than waiting until the media revealed some issue people seemed interested in and then running with it, until something else grabbed the headlines then he'd have a go at that.

The morally bankrupt Nationals were a disaster for the country during their last term in power. They pursued globalism even more hastily than the earlier Lange National Government; did more secret deals with monopoly businessmen; its leader, Bolger, did an about face and supported republicanism; they signed secret international agreements faster even than a Communist government could have, and generally acted with utter contempt toward the public. English was a senior member of that government. He must now watch his back carefully. He rolled former leader Shipley while she was out of the country and she had rolled Bolger in much the same style. Certainly their President won't be around for long. She hailed from the world of Big Business and she had tried to stack the party with fellow cronies from that same world of financial black magic. The country has said it doesn't want such people in government.

The state of tension the Clark government found itself in during the final couple of weeks before the Election probably gave us the best government we have had in a long time. Witness the quick response over Young Nicks Head. The correct role of a government is to administer the policies wanted by society. It is not the correct role of a government to decide what policy should be pursued. Actually that is an unfair responsibility to put on the members of a government. If we had a sanction like the Swiss system of binding referenda, New Zealanders would then be able to give instructions to their political representatives. Those who say it wouldn't work conveniently, or blindly, ignore the fact that wherever power and decision making is more decentralised a society gets better results. Issues like GE, immigration and foreign takeovers, would be much more easily dealt with by an effective and honest system of binding referenda. It would even make politicians lives easier.

If New Zealanders rejected foreign takeovers in a binding referendum then politicians' would not be faced with continually having to deal with special interest groups. It would be pointless for the global business monopolists to come knocking on politicians' doors, because even those politicians in favour of Big Business would not be able to do anything for them.

The Clark government now ought to be coming to grips with the fact that we are living in an increasingly unstable world. There is a strong likelihood of a major war in the Middle East in the very near future. The possibility of wars elsewhere must be considered. Her approach up till now of accepting virtually every application for refugee status or citizenship and of not discouraging future boat people may well be a policy she can hold to over the next three years. At least if she wants to be re-elected in 2005.
If the Americans don't stop the fanatical Zionists from trying to murder all the Palestinians and if Bush does order a major strike against Iraq, the world's refugee problem, sadly, is going to skyrocket. For Clark multiculturalism and multiracialism are like the ultimate truths. She sees no difference between a fourth generation New Zealander and someone who arrived five minutes ago. Her only response to Peters' raising of the immigration issue is the silly claim that this turns New Zealanders against New Zealanders. That is shallow in the extreme.

* For the benefit of our overseas readers our voting system now allows two votes. One for a local candidate and another for a party. We used to get one. Perhaps in time they will give us three votes!
Our Parliament has 120 seats. Election results were Labour 52 seats; National 27; N.Z. First 13; ACT (supporters of Big Business and globalisation) 9; United Future 9; The Greens 8; Progressive Coalition (aligned with Labour) 2.
It was one of the lowest voter turnouts ever with 75% of eligible people voting. A new party called Outdoor Recreation did well, with only a couple of weeks of campaigning, but not sufficiently to get any seats. Its campaign for traditional rights for fishermen and hunters further shows that many people, when given a chance, prefer to have a say on an issue, rather than delegate all their rights to some all powerful party.

* *

"The very process of improvement in technique, in which we have been indulging for years, has been the displacement of labour by machinery. . . . You suddenly have the phenomenon of several million people for whom you have no jobs. That has been created by the very improvements you have been effecting. . . . I think we want to strip some of our old ideas, and at last to get in the position we have not been in now for over a century, and that is that we are not slaves of the machine, but we are its master, that the office is not for us to work in, but to provide a living. When I say 'a living', I mean something more than going to an office. That machinery is there to provide us with leisure and not to give us more work, that transportation is there to give us more time, and not less."
Alfred Mond, in the last speech of his life, as quoted by his biographer, Hector Bolitho.
Mond ran the financial system for the British government during the period of WWI. C.H. Douglas was strongly critical of Mond for what he regarded as Mond's collectivist policies. After a life time of experience Mond had learned something and courageously changed his views.
The quote is provided by Triumph of the Past, July, 2002.

* *

Water: A Gift or A Tradeable Commodity?
by Denis McKenna

'Water is the last infrastructure frontier for private investors'.
John Bastin of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

It is a huge leap from corporate boardrooms and banker's dens in foreign capitals to houses and cowsheds in New Zealand. Probably the only thing held in common is the need for water. Imagine if some huge multinational corporation (s) controlled the world's water. Is there a plan in place that will permit governments to allow this? Tony Orman, writing in The Marlborough Express (30-1-95) quoted an article headed: "Tradeable Water Rights Fight May Become A Battle". His report outlined a looming struggle between giant corporations and the people for access to water. Some quotes from his article follow: -"Water, particularly that in rivers, is by law and tradition, publicly owned. However, freemarket forces are moving in, setting their sights on the target of water. Tradeable water rights have been likened to tradeable fish quotas which can be sold by the owner to the highest bidder. Those opposed to the concept say that in time the resource, whether it is fish or water, ends up being dominated by a few big players."- "The body that first promoted tradeable water rights was The Tasman Institute, a Melbourne based private organisation akin to The New Zealand Business Roundtable, and established in 1990. It is, in the words of a spokesman from its Australian office nonprofit making and dedicated to the public good". "So, what is there to worry about? After all, it's only for our own good!

Tony Orman names four New Zealanders who are (or were when he wrote the article) on the board of The Tasman Institute; Sir Roger Douglas, deputy chairman; John Fernyhough, a director; Rod Deane, then CEO of Telecom; and Mr (now Sir) Ron Trotter of Fletcher Challenge. These men were all among the most prominent leaders of the privatisation plot which in a few short years saw the greater part of our public assets flogged of to New Zealand and foreign corporations. The method was by what Americans call "sweetheart" deals. Remember our railway network? It was sold to Fay Richwhite and an American firm. Then Prime Minister Bolger lent them $400 million of taxpayers money to buy the taxpayers asset! Let's not forget that Fay Richwhite was also the firm hired by Government to value the Railways. Let's also not forget the recent revelation that Fay Richwhite contributed at least $250,000 to the National Party during one year.

Recall the Bank of New Zealand? Sir Michael Fay was on the board. His firm borrowed the money from the bank to buy the bank. Remember that the taxpayers have bailed out the Bank to the tune of $1.2 billion. Then there is Air New Zealand. Prime Minister Clark was a Cabinet Minister in the Labour Government which sold it off. Now, her government has had to buy a huge share in it to prevent its bankruptcy, at a cost to taxpayers of $880 million. In the meantime the airline's board had paid themselves huge salaries and bonuses and are not held accountable for the grossly incompetent decisions they made.

What of our oil and gas fields in and off the shores of Taranaki? These were virtually given to Fletcher Challenge along with a $400 million bonus, by a government dominated by then Finance Minister Roger Douglas. Fletchers have now on-sold to Shell at a huge profit. The New Zealand people are in up to their eyeballs in debt to foreign financiers because of the Think Big schemes of the 1970s and 80s which were imposed by the late Sir Robert Muldoon and former Finance Minister Bill Birch. Birch promised the nation the billions spent would enable the country to become energy self-sufficient. Instead the gas to petrol plant was shelved and the gas squandered for short term government income. These days Birch is another supporter of Globalisation and global interdependence, and survives on a generous public pension and lucrative consultancy fees, including one for around $50,000 for six weeks work for the Auckland City Council. On his past record it is no surprise that its partial implementation has caused the council considerable strife. Roger Douglas was Finance Minister at the time Fletchers took over the oil assets. With the track records of Douglas, Birch, and the others mentioned above, may God help us if they and their types are to control the nation's water!

Tony Orman went on to state: "Recently a Sunday newspaper disclosed a 'Secret Report' made by Investment banker CS First Boston, prepared for ECNZ [Electricity Corporation of New Zealand; CEO is John Fernyhough] and the Business Roundtable (whose members include Trotter and Deane) which recommends Ocorporation and privatisation of water". "Business Roundtable CEO Mr Roger Kerr denied the CS First Boston Report was being kept secret, saying, It will be made public in due course". He added: the report will look at all issues from structure to water quality, distribution, charges, corporatisation and other aspects".

"The programme to take control of the world's water was first promoted by the World Bank three decades ago. The Bank has invested in irrigation, water supply, sanitation, flood control and hydro power, mainly in Third World countries over the years. It has closely collaborated with many United Nations organisations, such as the UN Development Programme and the UN International Union of Local Authorities. This latter is where many of the ideas behind our local body 'reforms' came from, including the forced amalgamations.

In March 2001, negotiations started for implementing the World Trade organisation's (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). This is one of 15 agreements adopted as part of the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations which greatly expanded the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) The Urugury Round also created the WTO so as to enforce the agreements. Today 139 governments have taken their people into the GATS. GATS covers legal, accountancy, advertising, travel and media services, as well as municipal services such as sewerage, water and garbage, and other essential services like health and education. It also means deregulation of services at local, regional and national levels and subjecting them to the WTO's Global Rules which benefit only the huge multinational corporations. Early in 1997 the Business Roundtable and overseas water companies addressed a $1500 a-head conference at a plush Auckland hotel. Their aim was to promote the concept of public water systems being sold off, or at the very least their management and administration privatised. Following this conference the first significant step was taken by the Papakura City Council which decided to allow the 'franchising' of its public water supply. Papakura's water piping network has not yet gone, but its management has been sold, along with the rights to build any further components for the system. Any new assets will be privately owned for decades to come. Profits will flow away from Papakura, and mostly overseas. Unlike in the past profits will not go back into the community.

Will the rest of the nation's public water be privatised? The company now running Papakura's water is United Water. It is owned by two foreign corporations, one being Transwater from Britain and the other the French firm Vivendi. Vivendi's board is headed by New York based Canadian Edgar Bronfman and his family are the major shareholders. Vivendi bought the Bronfman media and liquor empires two years ago. The liquor business included Seagrams Gin. Any Papakura residents partial to what has been called 'mothers ruin' will be paying the same foreign company for both the gin and water in their glass. When the Bronfman family moved their assets from Canada to the US several years ago they were permitted by the Canadian tax authorities to underestimate their worth by a huge amount. Many Canadians were scandalised and there were wide media calls for an investigation. However the calls were ignored by the Canadian government.

United Water/Vivendi controls the water supply to the city of Indianapolis in the USA, to Adelaide in South Australia and Ballarat in Victoria. Australia is well down the road of privatised water services. Are we to follow? An article in the Australian newsletter Strategy, in August 1984 reveals that water reform was just one of the many reforms laid out in the Amalgamation Treaty, from the aforementioned UN International Union of Local Authorities. New Zealand¹s councils were arbitrarily amalgamated two years later by the Labour Government led by Lange, Douglas, Prebble, Bassett, Clark, not to mention Mike Moore who now head the WTO. Did any of the politicians tell us that the forced amalgamations were due to us becoming a party to this UN agreement, which is also linked to the UNESCO 'Biosphere Programme' which purports to have the control over all water catchments, farm dams, rivers, streams, soaks, creeks, springs if they begin on farmlands and other sources.
In April 1999, The Intelligence Survey (Melbourne) printed an in-depth article on the Australian water privatisation plot. The author was Ewen M. McBride, an independent researcher from New South Wales. McBride quoted an announcement from Australian Seven Networks Austext, which stated that a Paris meeting of UN members had agreed that fresh water was to become a 'commodity'. It warned: "Fresh water supplies world wide will be price-controlled by speculators in the futures market. This is the way the prices of money, oil, cotton, sugar, etc., are presently regulated, and our fresh water asset is to join these commodities. If the global money movers control water they will then ultimately control the level of agricultural production and prices for their own profit".
McBride¹s research revealed plans for a 'tax on rainfall'. He states: "The Hunter region of the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DL&WC) has produced a report to IPART (Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal) on bulk water pricing. The department¹s original report to IPART in 1997 suggested a method of pricing water from underground bores, rivers, streams and surface water. Two years later dairy farmers were paying $330 per megalitre for irrigation estimated at 6 megalitres per hectare, and vineyards pay $2,600 per megalitre at 5 megalitres a hectare."
"Water meters will be installed on all bulk natural sources of water. Farm dams will have level gauges to record increases in dam levels.

From a different source (Department of Local Government) it has been discovered that not only will rural users be slugged, but residential areas will be charged (taxed) on rain that falls on the quarter acre blocks. 'Gauges will be installed at strategic locations throughout local government areas so that falls of rain can be averaged in each area. Then a charge will be levied on ratepayers for the disposal of the surplus (storm) water. Of course, we have already paid for drainage in our water ratings. So the Drainage Charge (tax) will be a tax on rainfall, and you cannot escape the rain that soaks into your land because it is measured by gauges.'

The New Times Survey (Melbourne, February 2000) had an article by Mr G. Friend of Lockyer Waters, who wrote of a situation where a farmer was presented with a bill for $15,000 for the water stored in his own dam on his own freehold property. He refused to pay the demand and consequently armed sheriffs confiscated his $58,000 wool clip. There are reports that residents in country towns in Victoria have had their own rainwater tanks disconnected and blocked internally to make them connect up to their town supply. Another farmer, Julian Kaye from Elmhurst was charged $30,000 by his local rural water authority for rain that falls on his property. The authority claimed Mr Kaye's 45-megalitre dam would trap water destined for "the authority's Wimmera river catchment" and they should be compensated. Charges were set at $636 per megalitre up front and yearly charges of $4 per megalitre for all water used from his dam.
New South Wales has a $100 per year charge on all septic systems as an inspection fee. No inspections have ever been carried out, but people are still forced to pay the fee. Is New Zealand to plunge down this idiotic road?

Tony Orman's Malborough Express article was published over seven years ago. He warned us that large multinational corporations were out to control our public water supplies, and perhaps even to attempt to own all water stored or used. Under the bureaucratic Resource Management Act (RMA) which followed the amalgamation of councils, all water, it is claimed, is vested in the Crown, regardless of whose land it is flowing over or under. Since the RMA was made law as a result of the UN Rio Environmental Summit, are we starting to see a gradual shift toward dragonian laws dictating what one can or cannot do on one's own private property.
Rural News (July 2001) carried an article headlined "Farmers around the country at risk of being swamped by rainfall tax". Written by Jill Ralston it told of the plight of a group of high country Waikato farmers who had been required to pay part of the costs of protecting residents on the low-lying Hauraki Plains. Under the scheme, land owners are charged a 'contributor tax' that the farmers label a 'rainfall tax'. They disputed the authority's claim that land clearance - which occurred before the flood protection scheme was built - had increased runoff and added to the cost of maintaining the scheme. After a two and a half year battle in the High Court with the Council over the rainfall tax issue, the Judge allowed the Council the common right of discharging runoff onto lower land. Graeme Trower, Chairman of the Upper Piako Catchment Group said he feared that other regional authorities will adopt similar ratings schemes. "The decision goes far beyond flood control schemes, and affects every rate struck by every city, district and regional council in the country."

Environment Waikato was clear, said Graeme Trower, in its intention to apply the rainfall tax across most of its ratepayers so as to subsidise all the flood control schemes that they maintain. It has already started in the South Island. People that live near the Mataura River, near Gore are being charged a rain tax, and a farmer in Whakatane is taking a case against Environment Bay of Plenty against a similar rating scheme. The Waikato farmers took their case to the Court of Appeal and on July 10 were told they had lost and would have to pay the rainfall tax. A Dannyvirke farmer bought five hectares of 'scrubby bog' in 2001, which, unbeknown to him had been declared a 'designated wetland' ten years earlier. He drained the swamp at a cost of $12,000 and was then ordered to restore it, at an estimated cost of $80,000. After negotiation, the Tararua District Council accepted $20,000 from the farmer in return for not enforcing the land's restoration (The Dominion 17-1-02 and 1-2-02) In other words it was alright for the "designated wetland" to be drained so long as an acceptable bribe was paid.

The Press (Christchurch 27-2-02) in one of a series of articles on the management of the water resources in Canterbury quoted Neville Bennett, a senior lecturer at the University of Canterbury, who put the case for a 'water market'. He wrote: "Plenty of evidence exists that New Zealand is not using its water resources in a sustainable manner. The appropriate action would be to create a water market to ensure an improvement in the environment and the efficient and equitable allocation of water. A market mechanism that increased the real price of water would close the gap in water supply and demand. The Resource management Act is not proving effective in protecting the environment. Consents are granted to many applications, which have 'minor' effects on the environment. No one looks at the cumulative effect of the thousands of consents granted on water resources."
"The basic problem is that water does not have a price. Millions of cubic metres are allocated for no charge. Being free, the water is used wastefully, because the only cost is the price of electricity for pumping". Some kind of water market is necessary. The regulators would be charged with improving conditions and using resources in a fair, efficient, and sustainable manner."
"A water market would put a price on the water by forcing potential users to bid for a supply. The water regulators would allocate water to successful bidders. Those who tendered highest would use the water for highly priced, profitable activities. The money market would ensure that water priorities were allocated to activities yielding the greatest return. This is efficiency".

Haven't we heard this line so many times before in respect of all the public assets that have been flogged off? A month after nosy-parker Neville Bennett's article appeared in The Press, the Taranaki Regional Council announced it was going to closely monitor farmers using large volumes of water for pasture irrigation. Three weeks later the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) issued a report which said that water for agriculture in Hawkes Bay, Marlborough and Otago was close to reaching its estimated supply limits. There is no doubt that intensive farming is using vast quantities of water. One dairy cow drinks 70 litres a day, plus washing of the milking shed. That's probably about 100 litres a day per cow. A herd of 200 cows would require 20,000 litres a day. Over a year this amounts to 7.3 meglitres. In Australia that could cost the cocky $2409. Pasture irrigation and the odd cup of tea would be in addition to this.

But are we really running short of water? It is one thing to argue in favour of minimising unnecessary waste, but much of what is being said concerning allegedly scarce water, is clearly directed towards the application of previously unthinkable water taxes and controls, and the creation of water bureaucracies, either by governments or government-backed private monopolies. Is the constant reference to water as a 'resource' designed to soften us into believing that we face a future of constant shortages? And if this is the case, how come the same sorts of 'experts' keep telling us that the country is under-populated? If the Aussie charge of $330 per megalitre for dairy farmers was introduced here it would create a market worth around $34 million a year. Add to that the sheep, beef and deer farmers, the horticulturists and the orchardists, plus homes and industries. No wonder the multinational companies have their hearts set on controlling privatised essential services.

But would our politicians really be silly or treacherous enough to permit all our water to be so controlled by a foreign monopoly? Perhaps so, considering their recent record. Consider this from the New Zealand Herald of May 4, 2002:
"Record water deal as privatising trend flourishes. Suez, the world's second largest water company, has won a $US 4 billion ($NZ 9 billion) contract over ten years to supply water services to Puerto Rico, the largest contract of its kind ever awarded. 'The French company, which also reported a 9.7 per cent increase in first quarter sales, said it will supply drinking water and treat the waste water of the Caribbean Islands almost 4 million inhabitants. "It's eminently positive, it's part of the trend of privatising water systems around the world", a spokesman from the French company was reported as saying. Presumably, up until now, and over past centuries the people of Puerto Rico were quite well able to organise their own water and waste systems.

How does this agreement affect a family that may be living off its own rain water tank? Or a poor farmer who scrapes a living on a few acres and has relied up until now on God's Providence? Probably such people will barely even register as statistics on the computers of the company accountants working out of air conditioned offices on the other side of the world. Let us all be warned. With a Parliament stacked with Members of Parliamentarians for Global Action, and most of them sold out to big party agendas, the stage may be getting set for another secret agenda once the Election season is forgotten. Most politicians, irrespective of their political shade, have swallowed the line that New Zealand must have ever-continual "growth", and that we must follow every economic trend presented by consultants, monopoly businessmen, and representatives from groups like the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF. But is this the only course open to us?

During the 1930s Depression two representatives of the Bank of England came here advocating even tighter economic restraints, and the creation of a Central Bank to be owned by the private banks. But in 1935 the newly elected Labour Government of Michael Savage rejected most of that advice. Instead it made use of the newly formed Reserve Bank to provide credit for helping dairy and other farmers. Credit at 1 percent interest was made available to the Ministry of Works for the building of roads, bridges and a series of hydro power stations. The result was that New Zealand emerged from the Depression before most other countries. By 1938 we were reported to have the second highest standard of living in the world. This was achieved largely by making sensible use of our own credit so that New Zealanders could get access to the abundant natural wealth and resources for their everyday needs. It is nonsense for politicians and their economic advisers to claim we cannot do this today. We could do it even more easily now if we just used a little bit of honest common sense. How stupid will future generations think we must have been that we did not know how to run our own water systems, or empty our own rubbish bins, without the help of a foreign company whose management would barely know where New Zealand was, let alone anything about us.

Comment, Ed. On Target: In regard to the above attention is drawn to the June issue of Ian Wishart¹s magazine, Investigate. Wishart publishes correspondence leaked to him which include letters from Roger Kerr of the Business Roundtable to various Ministers of the Crown over the past decade. It reveals, beyond dispute, that Big Business has been directing government policies in respect to asset sales, the open immigration policy, and social legislation designed to make NZ more "attractive" to foreign investors. Let it also not be overlooked that these identical policies are promoted by Helen Clark's friends at the Socialist International, and by the UN-based Parliamentarians for Global Action, of which Clark and many of her Labour and National colleagues are members. Extreme free marketer and globalist Richard Prebble used to represent PGA in New Zealand. He has supposedly gone from being on the "left" to now being on the "right"; not such a difficult manoeuvre when we consider that the extremists in both camps have the same Collectivist philosophy and globalist objectives.

* *

The League's Web Site

We remind readers of the web site for the Australian League of Rights. It is Current issues of the journals of the Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and British Leagues are posted on the site, as well as a list of available books, information on Social Credit and the Social Credit solution to today's problems. Occasionally books available in Australia are not stocked by the NZ League. The web site now also has information about the outstanding American Social Credit-Distributist journal, Triumph of the Past, published by Michael Lane of Ohio. Mr Lane has brilliantly mapped out the history and lineage of the early Social Credit movement, highlighting the social, economic and political environment of the period, and tracing the several streams of thinking that lead to Douglas' analysis and suggestions.
Several recent issues of Triumph have examined the extraordinary work and writings of one Charles Ferguson, who, like Douglas, was closely associated with mechanical engineering societies and also appreciated the practical application of Christianity. Ferguson and Douglas both drew from some of the same sources, and Ferguson used the term Social Credit as early as 1913, although there is an even earlier reference from another source. Several earlier issues of Triumph provided a seminal review of Thomas Robertson's remarkable book Human Ecology. This is currently only available in a photocopy form from the UK but has been a popular reference work among Social Crediters as well as many others. Human Ecology traces the history of the Collectivist problem and provides an amazing insight into the nature and function of society, the social and economic purposes and benefits of human association, and the relationship of individuals to each other and to the group. Social Credit is not about the study of history as an end in itself. It is concerned with practical solutions to society's problems, and we are impressed with the huge and challenging task, in this respect, that the editor of Triumph has set himself.
His challenge is directed to thoughtful people everywhere, not only social crediters. For those without the time or inclination to read the lengthy Human Ecology, Mr Lane's review is highly recommended. In any case it should form part of a study of the book. We understand that some of Mr Lane's articles may shortly be available in booklet form. Those wanting to enquire directly can write to Triumph of the Past, PO Box 29535, Columbus, Ohio, 43229, USA. An annual subscription is $US22. A personal cheque for the equivalent in $NZ can be sent. This is currently about $NZ54. Blame the government for the difference.

* *

Foreign Control: Key Facts
(Source, Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa,

Foreign direct investment (ownership of companies) in New Zealand increased from $9.7 billion in 1989 to $49.3 billion in 2001
- an increase of nearly 400%
- Foreign owners now control 47% of the share market. In 1989, the figure was 19%
- In 2000 alone, the Overseas Investment Commission (OIC) approved foreign investment totalling $4.1 billion (the OIC only has to approve company takeovers involving $50 million or more. Until 1999, the threshold was $10 million. So the totals were much higher).
- The area of rural land sold to foreigners has increased from 42,000 hectares per year in 1991 to 93,000 in 2000.

New Zealand figures, as of March 2001, list the biggest foreign owners of New Zealand as, in order, Australia, Netherlands, US, UK, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan. (Canada's figures are listed as "confidential"). ? Transnational corporations (TNCs) make massive profits out of New Zealand. For the 2000/01 financial year, US-owned Telecom made a $643 million profit. It paid out 50% as dividends to its owners. Previously, it paid out never less than 70% of annual profits as dividends, and went up to 98% for the 1998/99 year. TNC profits can truly be called New Zealand's biggest invisible export. From 1995-98, TNCs made $10.6 billion profits: only 6% was reinvested. ? Foreign "investment", in the great majority of cases, is actually a takeover, not new investment. ? Foreign investors are not big employers - they only employ 18% of the workforce. Foreign ownership does not guarantee more jobs. In fact, it quite often adds to unemployment. TNCs have made tens of thousands jobless. ? Foreign ownership does nothing to improve New Zealand's foreign debt problem. In 1984, total private and public foreign debt stood at $16 billion. In 2001, it was $123 billion, more than 100% of NZs Gross Domestic Product, despite all the asset sales and takeovers. ? Ownership means political power. Foreign control means recolonisation, but by company this time, not country. ? Nearly everything that has been done to New Zealanders in the past decade has been done to "make the New Zealand economy attractive to foreign investment". This is what it all means to ordinary New Zealanders - we are involuntary competitors in the race to the bottom.

* *

by Fred Reed.

What if we are wrong? What if different kinds of people just plain don¹t want to live together? What if federal bullying, stamping our feet, and holding our breath and turning blue won¹t change things? A powerful current in today's compulsorily appropriate thought is that hostility between groups is anomalous and remediable, an exception to natural law ­ that it results from poor socialization, defective character, or conservative politics. If only we understood each other we would then love one another. Such is the theory. But we don't love each other. When the desired affections fail to develop, which is the usual outcome, we try compulsion. People must love each other, under penalty of law. Any expression of displeasure with another group is punished. We brainwash our children with an almost North Korean intensity to persuade them that groups should cuddle and value one another.And still it doesn't work.
Might it not be just a bad idea?

If one looked around the world, one might reasonably conclude that different groups should be separated, not coerced into proximity. Note that most of the internal violence that afflicts nations occurs between ethnic, racial, and religious groups ­ not between rich and poor, between those who bowl and those who golf, or between capitalists and socialists. Would it not make sense, when possible, to separate disparate populations? In the United States, serious violence ­ riots, burning of cities, not to mention a heavy (and carefully disguised) element of interracial targeting in crime ­ takes place along the black/white/Latino fault lines, with occasional black/Jewish fighting in New York. Again, race, religion, ethnicity. Different kinds of people don't get along.
Why do we not recognize this?

The pattern is universal. In France, horrified fluttering recently arose when Jean-Marie Le Pen, a very anti-immigration sort of fellow, got 17% of the vote in presidential elections. How surprised should we be? France has some five million North African Mohammedans. Antagonism is predictable. When the French were in North Africa, the North Africans didn't like it. Now that the North Africans are in France, the French don't like it.
Is there a pattern here?

Tension is high in Germany between Germans and Turks. In India, Mussulmans and Hindus riot bloodily. In Ceylon, Tamils and Sinhalese; in Iraq, Kurds and Iraqis; in Ireland, Protestants and Catholics, in Yugoslavia Sin Burundis. Canadians and Quebecois are not killing each other, but they think about it. Given that the mixing of disparate peoples leads with remarkable consistency to trouble, and that the price of the trouble can be high, might it not be reasonable to take this into account when making policy? Might it not be wiser to permit, or even to encourage, people to live with their own?
In particular, might it not be desirable to discourage immigration from anywhere to anywhere instead of encouraging it in the name of fuzz-headed adolescent enthusiasm, and thus preparing the way for conflagration?

For some it is too late. The United States has lost control of its borders and lacks the political will to do, well, anything. We amount to a dead whale decaying on the beach of civilization. Other countries may yet have time. We are, of course, unendingly told that to favour separation is to be racist, hateful, and reactionary. It is always easier to call one's questioners names than to answer their questions. But need one be a racist to favour a comfortable distancing?
Or is to do so just cultural good manners and wise politics?

Originally, racism* meant a belief that one race was inferior to another, usually one's own. The street definition is a dislike of another because of his race. I do not regard myself as racially superior to, say, the Japanese. I certainly don't dislike them for neglecting to be white. I've spent time in the Japanese hinterland, crawled the mountains, eaten in remote noodle stands. I like the culture and the people. Passing through Tokyo last week, I reflected (as always) at their superior efficiency and civility. I have no racist notions, by either definition, of the Japanese. But do I think we should encourage heavy immigration of Japanese (assuming they wanted to come), or they of Americans? No. A very bad idea. Antagonism would result. The differences are too great.

It works this way. Suppose that you are a considerate traveller, American, and go to a foreign town ­ pick your country -- unaccustomed to outsiders. The likelihood is that you will be treated with courtesy and some degree of curiosity. Should you attempt to learn the language and take an apartment, the people will be flattered by the former and unconcerned by the latter. Should other Americans come (or Germans, or Chinese), the locals will be unconcerned ­ at first. The early arrivals will per force adapt to the local culture However, as the numbers reach a certain point, visitors will begin to be seen as invaders. They will cluster together, come to constitute an alien enclave and then, without intending it, to impose themselves on the natives. The ways of the immigrants will inevitably conflict with the ways of the natives. As an example, Americans are noisier than most Orientals, prefer informal camaraderie to formal courtesy, and have different notions of proper manners in public. Behaviour that is informal and friendly in one society is oafish in another. It isn't a question of right or wrong, but of expectations. Soon interests will diverge, hostility appear, incidents occur, and retaliation follow.

Us-agin-them thinking is natural to people. Note that in the United States, when blacks move into white neighbourhoods, nothing happens - at first. When the proportion of blacks reaches a certain point ­ thirty percent is a figure I've often seen - the remaining whites flee. The same happens in reverse. When white gentrifiers move into the black city, they clump together. When they become conspicuous by their plenitude, resentment arises among the black population. By contrast, when groups have their own territory and do not too much come into contact, feelings improve. Neither side feels in danger of being dominated by the other. Thus homogeneous countries tend to be happier countries. All of this is obvious. And yet we follow policies sure to cause unending trouble, certainly cultural suicide, perhaps catastrophe, because of bullheaded insistence that things be as we wish, not as they are. The spirit of Marxism is much in evidence here ­ the view that people are amorphous, anonymous, barely sentient putty to be shaped by soulless theoreticians. (Can there be a more contemptuous word for humanity than "the masses'?) For all of this, I think, we will pay a price.
* Actually the correct term for this is racialism. Racism is the belief that races have certain defining physical characteristics. (Ed. On Target)

* *

Mass Immigration and Culture

"The prevention of a rising tide of illegal immigrants from gradually swamping the precarious civilisations of the West will soon become the most urgent of political priorities. With the gathering momentum of the South to North movement - further energised by increasingly profitable and powerful criminal organisations - the British people can no longer afford to think of immigration in terms of bygone traditions. We should be thinking more realistically of our prospects for survival as a nation in an already tight little island set in a world of expanding population and mobility - and if not as a nation, at least as a haven of relative civility and security in a 'global village' becoming increasingly grasping, frenzied and savage." - Ezra Mishan, former Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, who now writes on economic, political and environmental issues.

Quoted from Right NOW!
January/March, 2001

". . . We had already said that the only thing that defines us as a people is non-discrimination toward other peoples; we thus had no justification for saying that maybe it's not such a great idea to import people adhering to radical Islam or Mexican nationalism into the United States. Having cast aside our own culture, we had no choice but to yield, step by step, to the elevation of other cultures. This is how America, through an indiscriminate and unqualified belief in individualism, ended up surrendering to its opposite - to multiculturalism. '

. . . What has been said up to this point will offend many conservatives, particularly Christians. For one thing, the Christian church consists of people of every culture and race, so why can't a nation? The answer is that the church is a heavenly organization, it is not responsible, as a nation is, for the defence and preservation of a particular earthly society. Mexico and Nigeria, for example, are largely Christian, but in cultural terms are radically different from the United States.

"To believe that all peoples on earth should join our country is the very idea that God rejected at the tower of Babel. God said he did not want all men to be united in one society, because that would glorify human power. If I may presume to say so, God had a more modest idea of human life on earth. He wanted men to live in distinct societies, each speaking its own tongue, developing its own culture, and expressing God in its own way. This is the true diversity of cultures that constitutes mankind, not the false diversity that results from eliminating borders and coercively mixing everyone together, which destroys each country's distinctive character. Consider how today's multicultural London has lost much of its Englishness, and increasingly resembles multicultural New York.

'So I would respectfully suggest that when Christians translate the spiritual idea of the unity of people under God into the political ideology that people from all cultures should be allowed to come en masse to America and other Western countries, that is not the traditional teaching of the Christian church, that is a modern liberal idea, that is the Religion of Man, which has been infused into the Christian church over the past fifty years.

"But if this is the case, how can we reconcile our spiritual unity as human beings under God with our actual cultural differences? The answer is that in individual and private relationships, people of different backgrounds can relate to each other as individuals, without discrimination of culture and ethnicity. But on the group level, on the level of entire peoples and nations and mass migrations, cultural differences do matter very much and cannot be safely ignored.

"It would therefore be a tragic error to limit our thinking about immigration to technical matters such as law enforcement against illegal aliens and security measures against terrorists, as vitally important as those things are. Beyond the immediate threat of mass physical destruction, we face a more subtle but no less serious threat to the very survival of our civilization.

". . . as I've tried to demonstrate, we cannot hope to stop or significantly slow that immigration unless we abandon this contemporary idea that America is defined by nothing except individual freedom and opportunity - the idea that America has no particular culture of its own that is worth preserving. Rethinking these beliefs and rewriting our immigration laws accordingly will not be easy, but if we fail to make the attempt, we will simply continue sliding, slowly but surely, toward the dissolution of our culture and our country."
by Lawrence Auster, author of The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism. (American Immigration Control Foundation Monterey, Virginia. Softcover, 96 pages, $US4.00. Available from The Social Contract Press, 1-800-352-4843). Quote is from The Social Contract, Spring 2002.

* *

Weeding Out the Truth
by Zac Goldsmith (editorial The Ecologist, May, 2001)

Sometimes, what you don't do sticks in people's minds more than what you do do. Two years on from 'Are the Experts Lying?', The Ecologist's 80-page indictment of what we called the cancer industry, the fact that we did not mention the role of tobacco is still the cause of regular correspondence. Why, people still ask, did we avoid what is in most peoples' minds the single greatest cause of cancer? One commentator has even suggested we were in the pay of the tobacco industry. Smoking undoubtedly causes lung cancer. The link is long established, and only the tobacco industry itself would still deny the obvious. But because the link between smoking and lung cancer is so well established, it has become convenient for other industries to blame virtually every form of cancer on smoking. Sir Richard Doll for instance has said that cancer increases of late 'can be accounted for in all industrialised countries by the spread of cigarette smoking'. But of the dramatic rise in cancer incidences since 1950, 75 per cent have been in sites other than the lung. And among non-smokers, the incidence of lung cancer has more than doubled in the past few decades. What's more, studies have shown that Chinese smokers are less likely to contract lung cancer than their American counterparts.
It is simply not true that smoking is solely responsible for the current cancer epidemic. In other words something else, on top of smoking is causing cancer of the lung. Yet the cancer establishment appears intent on avoiding an examination of those 'hidden' causes, instead flogging and flogging again the same old horse.

According to Dr Chris Busby of Green Audit, 'lung cancer correlates with air pollution generally. In a recent study of 104 wards around Hinkley Point nuclear power station the highest relative risks for lung cancer followed the tidal rivers, indicating that there's a strong component of radiation exposure from inhaled particles in the aetiology. These particles are looking more and more likely to be the culprits.'

What characterises modern society more than almost anything else is the level of contaminants surrounding us. There are more than 100,000 man-made chemicals in use today, of which barely a fraction have been tested, and not properly by any means. We surround ourselves with nuclear plants whose radioactive emissions are carcinogenic, despite claims by the industry to the contrary, and we persist in sending plutonium-powered satellites into space that, if an accident were to happen, would spray radioactive particles of Plutonium-238, hundreds of times more radioactive than plutonium used in atomic weapons, over the entire planet.

The cancer epidemic is caused by numerous factors. Smoking plays a very major role, but cannot account for all cases. In a sense, tobacco has become a scapegoat for all the other cancer-causing industries. It is a sacrificial lamb, but because of the nature of the industry it will not die. We all know smoking causes cancer, yet we continue to smoke. They are hopelessly addicted to nicotine, and the tobacco market is somewhat assured in the Western world (not to mention the Third World where markets are only now being prised open). The same however does not apply to producers of DDT, Dioxin, BGH and other known carcinogens. If the establishment finger were to point at them, all hell would break loose. People are neither addicted to them, nor do they benefit from their use. An honest campaign against such influences, at even half the level of the anti-smoking campaign, would trigger almighty ripples through fundamental modern sectors, not least the chemical, pharmaceutical, nuclear and plastic industries. In short, it would not pay for the establishment to play such a game.

Finally, campaigners have failed to distinguish between tobacco and the industry behind the plant. Yes, smoking causes cancer. But a quick look at some of the ingredients in a modern cigarette reveals some unpleasant truths. One organic tobacco company in New Mexico for instance provides a comparison between their own tobacco, whose ingredients include tobacco leaves and nothing else, and that tobacco marketed by the tobacco giants which commonly contains up to 600 different additives. Could it be that the latter varieties greatly increase the risk of smoking? Judging by the ingredient list, too long to include here, it seems more than likely. In which case, the villain of the story may not be tobacco per se, but rather the monsters that have come to dominate the tobacco market. It is they who have corrupted the plant with countless additives, pesticides, and other man-made chemicals, not to mention their biotechnology plans. And the result is that among the long list of the tobacco victims, we must include the traditional cultivators who have with great skill and difficulty, maintained small tobacco patches on the same land for generations without depleting the soils and the smokers, who are not only poisoned needlessly by increasingly squalid tobacco, but whose personal freedom to smoke is undermined by a backlash that is unable to discriminate between good and bad. (end of Goldsmith article) - We are reminded of a comment from Australia's Eric Butler some years ago. He recalled a well-known Australian naturopathic doctor, Dr Ian Brighthope of Melbourne, telling him he had a hunch that the connection between cancer and smoking had became a significant factor after WWII when chemicals were used in the growing of tobacco. The late Dr Kitty Little of Britain maintained there was a strong link between increased cancer and increased use of diesel. Dr Little came to the conclusion after observing increases in lung cancer rates in Rhodesia following the increased use of diesel vehicles and machinery. We have seen a manual for a modern John Deere tractor which had a printed warning inside the front cover from Californian health officials saying diesel or its emissions was 'known' to cause cancer. Some honest research should be able to establish the truth or otherwise of these factors, but we are unlikely to see this in the near future.

* *

Bankers and Bilderbergers
(from Electronz, May 20.

. . . New Zealanders suspect they are being milked. . . by a conspiracy of the banking network. Not surprising that from a population slightly under 4 million, the overseas-owned banks admit to repatriating $1·4 Billion in 'dividends' last year. . . In the wake of the recent defection of the [Reserve Bank] Governor to a life in politics, the reputation of the Bank cannot help but be harmed. . . Many New Zealanders will need to be forgiven for concluding that the New Zealand economy is fast becoming the equivalent of a provincial outpost for . . . the offshore owners of the vast bulk of its capital resources.

Bilderbergers A.G.M. In Washington . . .
Thanks to subscriber 'B. R.' of N.Z. drawing on details from the Aida Parker Newsletter. . .we can circulate, for passing along to anyone interested, that next month the Bilderbergers are having one of their international conferences in Washington. The info reads:
. . . At the end of May, from the 30th until June 2nd, a shadowy, still largely anonymous group, the Bilderbergers, will assemble in Washington for their 48th annual meeting. That should strike terror into every loyal American heart, for when the Bilderbergers come to town, it is invariably bad news, very bad news for some. These are the creme de la creme of the long-planned New World Order, primarily international money monopolists, the global puppeteers. As Professor Carroll Quigley disclosed in his famous work, Tragedy and Hope (p. 324) these financial vultures seek
". . . nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country, and the economy of the world as a whole. The system (will) be controlled in a feudal fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in private meetings and conferences".

This year about 120 Bilderberg delegates will meet at the plush Westfields Marriot hotel, just seven miles south of Dulles International Airport. High on this year's agenda will be how to further exploit Bush's "war on terrorism" to increase their control of the much desired "world-without-borders" while, as ever, generating immense wealth for themselves. There will of course be journalists and publishers there, but they won't be writing about it. The real point of their presence will be to prepare readers for policies already decided upon by the One World moguls. (end of Aida parker quote)
. . . If undermining national sovereignty and allowing foreign powers to override democratic institutions is treason, then why are internationally subversive organisations like the Bilderbergers treated as VIPs instead of as traitors?

* *

Dr. Vandana Shiva Speaks Out
(from Electronz, 27 May 2002:

At Porto Allegre where the World Social Forum was conferencing, one of the keynote speakers delivered a hard-hitting paper which delivers hope in some ways, and bruises to the status quo. . . . To quote:
The famous Arthur Anderson that has been trapped in the Enron scandal has been hired by Governments of the world to create a vision of what the future should look like. Anderson's vision is that basic needs are emotional needs and we need to move into a future need state in which basic needs like concern for health [and] concern for the environment will become tertiary needs. And what will be the primary needs? - new corporations, competition, new technology and a new economy. It basically [means] the earth is dead, fictions of our measurements are real, and real experience is unreliable. We are now being told our [national] economies are fictitious, the fictitious economy of $US3 trillion moving per day is real, the fictitious corporations are real - we are not, our rights are not real, theirs are. And when their rights are fettered militaries will be mobilised.
During the period since September the 11th, both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have never stopped talking about how war against terror is not just a war against al Qaeda, it is a war in defence of the Western way of life. It can only be maintained by the 20% repeatedly taking away the life support systems of the 80%. 80% of the population must be written off as disposable and therefore the war against terror is a war against 80% of humanity, merely for deriving their life from the resources that the corporations have set their eyes on. And what the corporations would like to do is make us believe what Arthur Anderson is saying. . . These are real recommendations coming out of World Bank policies, coming out in reform policies, neo-liberal agendas: that we don't need water for irrigation if the rich can pay for washing their cars and stocking up their swimming pool. . .

In my view that is a philosophy of bankruptcy. It is an ethically bankrupt world-view. It is also an economically bankrupt world-view and the bankruptcy of Enron and Argentina tells us that. Even on their own terms they cannot deliver. The only reason it works is because there is political bankruptcy to support economic bankruptcy. Free trade cannot run without holding the White House captive. A captive White House that is telling us now in India that we should bail out Enron in India because they are going bankrupt in the United States. . .

Comment by Electronz: Clifford H. Douglas wrote that money was the most efficient mechanism for turning human beings into slaves, so to those who have some understanding of monetary system philosophy it is no surprise that the central instrument in the globalisation operation is not just money, but the ability to create it, multiply, and destroy it entirely at their own discretion, to achieve their own secret agendas and policies. Until at least some countries, such as Godzone, bring their national money supply and system under democratic control the world will slide deeper into the mire. . .

* *

Mugabe's Continuing Terrorism
(Extracts from Rhodesia Christian Group Newsletter, June 2002, PO Box 5307, Bishop¹s Stortford, Herts., CM23 3DZ, England)

Speaking on May 8th at the RAF Club in London, [former Rhodesian Prime Minister] Mr Ian Smith told us that President Mugabe's motorcade includes four armoured Mercedes with darkened windows. No one knows in which vehicle Mr Mugabe is travelling! It may be that Mr Smith has been overtaken by events. For the President has now received a new state-of-the art limousine which is the most expensive car in the world to run. This new Mercedes, with yet more armour than its predecessors. . . chews up petrol at two litres per kilometre. It weighs five tonnes and contains office facilities, TV, internet etc. It cost not less than £657,000 [over NZ$2 million).
Meanwhile, Israel has sold up-to-date heavy anti-riot equipment to Zimbabwe. It seems that President Mugabe feels less secure on his throne than Queen Elizabeth II on hers. Queen Elizabeth has just celebrated her 50-year reign with huge public rejoicing, much ceremony and walkabouts in the towns and cities of Britain. Her jubilee has been celebrated with scarcely less enthusiasm in many overseas countries. . . . One trusts that Lord Carrington is proud of the glorious "independence" he has inflicted on a reluctant Rhodesia. It is quite an achievement to have transformed what must have been the happiest and most prosperous country in Africa into a land where some people today are dying on their feet of hunger. The hideous story of the looting and expropriation of the highly productive commercial farms of Zimbabwe is well known.

At least it was well known, until the cataclysmic events in the Holy Land and on the Asian subcontinent swamped the marginal publicity which was beginning to draw the world's attention to the Zimbabwe disaster. That publicity is now virtually non-existent. The truth is, however, that since the rigged presidential "election" in March the situation in the country has careered from bad to worse. The courageous efforts of persecuted journalists in Zimbabwe to get the truth across place them among the unsung heroes of today's unfolding tragedy. The British Foreign Office knows all this, cares little and does practically nothing. (The exception is the granting of refuge to African asylum seekers.)
The British government has indeed many pressing problems. It has proved willing to send troops to Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, which are scarcely major concerns of ours, but will raise no finger to help Zimbabweans whose predicament is the result of British irresponsibility. Frankly, it cares little for our own kith and kin, who are left to the efforts of tiny groups such as ours which are almost destitute of financial resources. The drought throughout Central and East Africa is real and grim, and no fault of President Mugabe. Droughts are endemic in the region. However, people did not starve in Rhodesia. The country had a responsible government which planned in advance for such contingencies. The excellent work of the World Food Programme today does not suffice to stave off the growing food crisis. And the reaction of the British government is no comment and precious little action.

Zimbabwe normally consumes two million tonnes of food every year. This year's harvests are forecast to produce 750,000 tonnes. The government is trying to ensure that such food as is available goes to its own supporters. . . . The seizure of the commercial farms is now nearing completion. The so-called "war veterans" and Mugabe's new youth militia (both government-paid, of course) have done their worst. But many of the new African settlers, put in place by the government, are today suffering the fate of the former farm employees: they themselves are being moved off to make way for the new masters. That these people have just begun to scratch together some sort of new life - build huts and hoe land - is of no account.
All settling after March 31st 2001 are described by the Home Affairs Minister as "pretenders and imposters" and have been told to get out and return whence they came. Those who have done so have received an icy welcome. . . .
The new "owners" to whom the farms now purportedly belong are not farmers at all. They are close relatives of Mugabe, cabinet ministers and sundry other high-ups who helped their boss to rig his "re-election" as president in March. A new generation of black fat cats. Meanwhile thousands of rural Africans who have fled to the towns are being collected in trucks and just dumped sometimes in the bush. . . .

A bulletin such as this contains no space to detail the escalating political violence against the opposition Movement for Democratic Change: the beatings and the torture, and the endless harassment and assaults (and imprisonment) of journalists. It is not even possible to give all the facts about the latest, and twelfth, white farmer to be murdered. Mr Charles Anderson at Dumnagies Farm at Glendale, 50 miles north of Harare, was shot dead in June. We do not know what has happened to his wife Cindy. The farm has been "awarded" to Ngoni Masoka, permanent secretary in the department of Land, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement. What we do know is that the media have allowed the whole event to disappear into a black hole. It is not news any more. Maybe someone at the Foreign Office made a routine note? The BBC's Fergal Keane wrote earlier (in the UK Independent, May 4th):
"The danger - and it is acute and imminent - is that Zimbabwe will slide into starvation and bloody chaos. We face the risk of huge numbers starving to death, of violent confrontation in the streets and the movement of huge numbers of refugees into neighbouring countries." Another journalist who has justly attracted attention is Michael Hartnack, a white Zimbabwe citizen who is fighting to retain his passport and his citizenship. So far he has visited three different offices, stood with other applicants in an 8-hour queue over two days (some were beaten back with sjamboks) and been told to come back in November. It is impossible to tell half the story or to give any impression of the true horror of Zimbabwe today. We have every admiration for those who continue to struggle on, and are aware that in spite of everything much Christianity and much goodness and kindness still survive in Zimbabwe.
The world condenmation of the brutality that accompanied the election process, orchestrated by Robert Mugabe's government, has been reported by the media. We continue to be concerned as we understand that much of the brutality continues as retribution against Zimbabwe citizens who exercised their democratic vote against Robert Mugabe in the Presidential Election. The country has now been put on an emergency basis due to massive food shortage. We are troubled that if and when food aid is sent to Zimbabwe that food will not reach all the population which is in desperate need. There are great concerns that food will be denied to those who voted against Robert Mugabe and in particular the Matabele peoples who have already suffered from his administration. This was evident from reports that indicate up to 20,000 Matabele were exterminated by Robert Mugabe's Fifth Brigade in the early 1980s. The object was to eliminate any challenge to his leadership -- Matabele leaders were specifically targeted. It would appear that Robert Mugabe's anger is not only being launched against the Matabele peoples but also against white businessmen and their families. If they have right of domicile in the United Kingdom, they are coming here, but with virtually no funding at all as foreign currency has been almost unobtainable for a long time. . .

* *

George Bernard Shaw and the National Dividend
The following is from The Real Bernard Shaw (p.292-293) by Maurice Colbourne (The Temple Press, 1949).
Colbourne also authored in 1933 an excellent defence and explanation of Social Credit, Economic Nationalism, later republished under the title, The Meaning of Social Credit.
This is available from us, for $15. We found our copy of the Shaw volume while recently rummaging in a little Northland bookshop.

". . . Another difference between the Old and the New Economists might be put in this way -- that the Old knew what was wrong, whilst the New have found how to put it right. The Old pointed with magnificent indignation to all the crying scandals, the industrial horrors, the unfairness, and the greed, and having done so in the teeth of an opposition grown fat on a policy of laissez-faire, they are entitled to take their bow with honour and the thanks of humanity. It would be unreasonable to expect them, especially one of their number so unmathematically minded as Bernard Shaw, to grapple in the evening of their lives with momentous conceptions such as the Just Price, or with the implications of the discovery that 'the cost of production is consumption.' Nevertheless, with only common sense and a feeling for justice to guide him, Shaw arrived for ethical reasons at one of the major conclusions reached by New Economists for technical reasons: namely, recognition of the necessity for what is called the National Dividend.
As I write, there lie before me six of Shaw's references to this subject, and had I combed his works more closely no doubt I could have turned the six into sixty. But in no reference is he able to do more than state the desirability of such a dividend, because he did not know, any more than any other Old Economist, precisely and technically where the money to pay it with was to come from.

"On this matter he can only generalize in a woolly way. Thus in the second Fabian Essay (Shaw's first, by the way) he declares that 'a life-interest in the Land and Capital of the nation is the birthright of every individual born within its confines.' Later and elsewhere he talks of 'an equal share in the National Industry.' And again (in 1933): 'Every able-bodied and able-minded and able-souled person has an absolute right to an equal share in the national dividend.' Until he explains just what he means by a national dividend and, even more important, from what source it shall be derived, he remains a sentimentalist beating the air or an underground purveyor of some pernicious scheme to pay Paul by robbing Peter. Where is the money to come from? That is the question. And it is a question Shaw has never answered. But others have.

It is interesting to wonder what would have been the outcome had Shaw lived a generation or two later and his interest in economics been set alight by C. H. Douglas instead of by Henry George. Would he have swallowed Social Credit as voraciously as in fact he swallowed Socialism? It is not unlikely: about both doctrines there is a missionary flavour well calculated to win a born meliorist like Shaw. Be that as it may, if Shaw had not been too old to learn by the time the full implications of the Power Age became apparent to Douglas, he could have learnt from the latter where the money could come from. It could, and can, come from where the wealth it would represent now is, ready and waiting: namely, the common stockpot. For the national dividend is nothing else than the nation's unearned increment of association divided up; at present lying unrecognized and unsung. Once recognized for what it is, it will be found to be as real as a round of beef, and the only steps remaining to be taken will be, first, to assess the increment, and second, to monetize it. Difficult? Yes: but for a nation hardened to formfilling, not too difficult. Where there's a will there's a way. Then, duly assessed and monetized, it can be distributed as a national dividend, equally and therefore ethically, with justice to all and malice towards none. . ."

* *

The Ellis Case

The Ellis case, where a man was convicted and jailed for alleged multiple sexual assualts on children in his care, has received wide publicity. Most of us can only wonder at how conflicting and changing stories by the mostly children witnesses led to the police and courts being so certain that Ellis was guilty of so many charges. Later, when even some of the childrens' parents changed their minds about the guitly verdict, the prosecution and court system seems to have been inflexible, and more concerned with legal procedures rather than justice. We obviously don't know if Mr Ellis is guitly or not of any of the charges but clearly there is no justice when some evidence is ruled admissible and some evidence is continually ruled inadmissible. It does seem very likely that an innocent man may have served a long jail sentence.
At the cost of possibly a huge injustice to Mr Ellis, the best that can be said is that within sections of the legal system the case has caused considerable discussion. We have not read Lynley Hood's book, A City Possessed, but most comments seem to be favourable. If a grave injustice has been done then something more fundamental must be done to restore justice other than diverting attention to whether or not we need to dispose of the Privy Council. The Ellis case and verdict would appear to be based more on politically correctness, rather than hard evidence. Commenting on the Ellis case and Hood's book Robert Mann of Auckland University says (email, March 6):
"The position in a criminal appeal appears to be this.If you are an undoubted criminal caught red-handed but you can point to some defect in police procedure, the Court of Appeal will exercise a power it has arrogated to itself and which Parliament never intended it to have, to rule the evidence inadmissible and set you free. If on the other hand, you argue that you are innocent and have only been convicted because of misjudgments by the trial Judge and by the jury, the Court of Appeal will refuse to exercise the power Parliament intended it to have to revisit the conduct of the trial and the evidence available.This is not how to create confidence in the criminal justice system."
Most of us are appalled at Stalin's show trials in of the 1930s, but how far removed, in principle, are we becoming. The problem has been developing for some time. We recall a judge not convicting a lout for dangerous criminal behaviour during the 1981 Springbok tour, on the grounds that the accused was only motivated by impassioned opposition to apartheid. If any good comes from the possible mis-trial and conviction of Ellis it has to be some responsible thinking by those in the criminal justice system and the police, as well asa heightened public awareness of the potential for injustice.

* *

Globalisation and New Pests

Over a large part of the Southern United States it is not always a wise thing to lie in the grass on a hot afternoon or sit down under a shady tree. There are the traditional problems of snakes and a few species of poisonous spiders, but the outdoors adventurer faces a new plague - fire ants. Some reports say they have come from Latin America but more likely they have been introduced from Asia or Africa in imported timber or other goods. Each year the fire ant spreads a few dozen more miles to the north. Stepping through the grass near a fire ants nest can easily result in anywhere between a couple and 30 or 40 bites. The bite is instant upon contact. A couple of hundred of the more susceptible of the human species have died in the U.S. from the bites. Fortunately for most of us a few days of itching is usually the worst effect.
The aggressive fire ants have killed most or all of the other ant species in the areas they inhabit. American agricultural and other authorities are investing considerable time and money in an attempt to stem or destroy them. Now we read that the same species of hardy ant has invaded Queensland and is spreading quickly, and again the cause is imported goods. In New Zealand we have recently had several reports of snakes being found near our ports; varieties of new insect types have established themselves here in recent years; and the problem is likely to escalate. Why? The simple answer is globalisation. When an economic theory dominates all of mans' activities, and that theory is flawed, we are bound to get some adverse feedback from nature. The theory is that consumable goods should be produced where it is conceived to be financially cheaper and no other considerations should be taken into account. This has resulted in an enormous increase in global trade of timber, food, clothing and every type of manufactured item, both new and second hand. There are even numerous examples of the same types of goods being transported between countries, and of raw materials being shipped or flown thousands of miles, processed, then shipped back to the originating country. With such a crazy policy how long will New Zealand be able to remain free of snakes or fire ants or the wide variety of poisonous spiders, etc, that exist in many other places?
Recently a species known as crazy ants was found near the port of Auckland. But are these ants as crazy as humans, especially of those who control financial policy?

* *

"You can't get away from advertising any more. . . You know those weird plastic isolation bubbles they keep people in who don't have immune systems, so bacteria won't eat them? I'm going to get one, and live in it. It's because I'm sick of looking at footage of snow storms, and hearing about how some dismal deodorant will fill me with the purity of nature. Or how if I drink Pepsi I'll turn into a grinning New Age wimp with a waxed chest, and hot babes will chase me like ants after a sandwich." - Fred Reed, (fredoneverything, July 15, 2002

* *

Our Fraudulent Electricity Reforms
(from Electronz, 6 May 2002.

Ever since the so-called power reforms in NZ were, like everywhere else, forced into Parliament by stooges for the Washington Consensus there has been a continual suspicion that the stated objective of reducing power costs was simply a deliberate smoke-screen. The suspicion is that it was part of the insidious pressure toward globalisation, and was a backdoor method of letting overseas corporates buy ownership of a large slice of NZ's highly efficient hydro-backed power industry. This indeed is exactly what has happened, so, from total NZ community and state ownership, it is admitted that several billion dollars worth of the industry is now overseas owned. The only sector in Godzone which has enjoyed any reduction in power costs is the large businesses, many of which - like the power companies - are also now overseas owned. By contrast, electricity costs to domestic consumers (which were in the world's four lowest) have only been climbing ever since Utilicorp came to town.
To try and escape from the public criticism of government for these increases, the Labour Party came to power with the promise of a special industry inquiry to ensure that the benefits of the 'reforms' were equitably shared. The inquiry was set up, but to guarantee it would not be too embarrassing for the Labour Government (which initiated the asset selling spree in the mid-eighties), the chairman was chosen very carefully and surprise, surprise. . . The 'appointment' went to Lawyer David Caygill, who by a remarkable coincidence had been in the Cabinet of the previous Labour Government. And the 'answer' his committee provided? - the establishment of a 'Governance Board' (GB) was politically quite comfortable. The only problem was that its dominance [is] by members of the MEUG (Major Electricity Users Group) . . .

Chris Daniels (NZ Herald) quite correctly described the situation: "An Electricity Governance Establishment Committee chaired by former Labour Minister David Caygill must now alter its planned 'rulebook' before it can proceed. Setting up a governing body is one of the dreams of Energy Minister Pete Hodgson, who has so far been content to let the industry organise its own affairs. The Commission decided that the proposed board structure could allow too much domination by the industry's big names - those 'vertically integrated' companies that generate and sell electricity."

Comment by Electronz: The first NZ Labour Government [1930s] used the financial policies of the then Douglas Social Credit Assn., including backstopping crown initiatives with Reserve Bank credit, to achieve a remarkable burst of economic development which included a chain of highly efficient hydro-power generators. It is sad to watch the treasonable actions of another so-called Labour Government dismantling them and hacking off pieces to foreign power corporates corporates which, right now, are indulging themselves in hiking up power prices to the hard-working and hard-pressed Kiwis who paid for their power-generating assets in full over the years with their taxes.

* *

Briefly: Auckland city council owns 25 percent of Auckland Airport which it plans to sell. 97 percent of the 2343 submissions it has received, including a 7515 signed petition, oppose the sale. Councillor Victoria Carter proposed a motion for a public referendum which was opposed by 12 Council votes to 8. Opponents of the sale should keep a list of how councillors voted on the referendum motion and publicise it prior to the next elections. This is plutocracy, not democracy.
- President Bush has proposed new extradition and secrecy laws, new vaccines, tighter border inspections and a major effort to protect infrastructure such as power plants and pipelines. The initiative, announced last month in the White House Rose Garden after the president met key members of Congress also calls for high-tech methods to identify people and for national standards on state drivers' licenses. But it stops short of urging a national identity card that some have called for but others have resisted, citing fears of government intrusion. Bush urged lawmakers to complete work on establishing the Homeland Security Department. Like the new anti-terrorism laws being implemented around the world, September 11, has provided a means of imposing new restrictions on home populations. Bush has not suggested America's borders be made more secure, and the policy of multiculturalism be re-examined.
- Denmark is defending itself against criticism of its new asylum and immigration policy. Since introduced asylum seekers have dropped from 528 to 308 per month and the Red Cross says it will have to close five of its camps. The Danes have also cut social security payments to asylum seekers; made it illegal for non-EU citizens under age 24 to marry Danes to prevent arranged marriages. As expected the EU bureaucracy is critical. (source: European Foundation Intelligence Digest, No. 147, 25th July 2002)
- Less than 24 hours after Belgium announced plans to take fluoride chewing gum and tablets off chemists shelves, the European Union told the country¹s Health Ministry to change its mind or face court action. Hopefully such actions will increase the desire of Europeans for the return of their national sovereignties.
- While President promotes war against Iraq some of the nation's top corporate entities have been in the financial firing line. Besides the Enron scandal, Xerox has been fined $10 million after admitting misappropriating about $3 billion in revenues. Telecoms giant, WorldCom has admitted hiding $3.85 billion in expenses. Oil and energy giant Haliburton Co would not escape regulators' attention if mistakes are found to have been made, says a top US financial market regulator, Harvey Pitt. Accounting policies at Haliburton Co which were adopted in 1998 while Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive are being examined. Haliburton is a major contractor to the US Government. Along side this is a shaky Wall St and tens of millions of Americans worry about how safe their retirement investments are. Enron are accused of running a pyramid scandal, but isn't that what the whole modern debt financial system is?
- Recently the government offered $7.3 million for education aid to Indonesia. Indonesia has a massive military, while we can't even afford, so the government says, a small fighter squadron. The links between basic education and poverty reduction are well known internationally. Research shows that basic education contributes to higher living standards, income levels and participation in democratic processes, said Prime Minister Clark. Sounds to us like an old socialist social studies course.
- New Zealand home ownership has slumped to its lowest level since the mid-1950s (Sunday Star-Times, 26-5-02). And we thought massive foreign investment and rich migrants were supposed to make us better off?
- Denis McLean is a former Secretary of Defence and our Ambassador to the U.S. In a somewhat confusing article (NZ Herald, May 14) he seems to accept that nationalistic feelings are natural, yet nationalism interferes with "enlightened collective responses to global problems". No intelligent person denies that countries should have cooperation and mutual assistance but for them to do this effectively they must have their sovereignty.
- On at least two occasions now public authorities have bowed to a demand from the Chinese Ambassador and banned peaceful 'free-Tibet' protests against delegations from dictatorial China. More recently a peaceful Chinese group had their paid advertisement removed by Auckland Airport management. Are some of our politicians and bureaucrats already acting as if we are a Chinese colony?
- Fonterra, the new giant dairy company has shown that big is not always best. At the start of the new milk system its new computer collection system left about 10 percent of its 13,000 suppliers' milk uncollected. It is also reducing payments to farmers by around 25 percent. Things can go wrong with little companies too. But when all your eggs are in one basket the effects will always be far more serious.
- Unions have reported that overwork is damaging many families. Everybody knows that many workers are now doing more hours than a couple of decades ago. Many also do not get two days in a row off each week due to Saturday shopping. This has happened during a period of improved labour-saving technology and increased unemployment. If we are to have any sort of society worth saving then union leaders, along with the rest of us, must re-examine the very concept of work, and the urgent need for a distribution of some new purchasing power outside of the production system. A good place to begin an investigation of how this can be done is to seek an answer to the child' question: "Where does money come from?"

Letters: "I read Winston Peters' speech in the Herald. The questions he raised should be considered. Although I am an Asian migrant, I don't like to see heaps of new immigrants coming here with major language or financial difficulties. Our goal is to attract young people and professionals. The other fact is that a legal migrant will help up to six people to come to New Zealand in five years - they may be his family, friends or classmates. That's a time bomb. . . You may say, I'm selfish. At least I say it for all of us here. . ."(Oliver Li, New Lynn. N.Z. Herald 1-7-02)
- "³I read the Herald every day online and, as a born and bred New Zealander, have become increasingly concerned about immigration issues. Not long ago I spoke to a new immigrant . . . and he remarked how easy it was to obtain citizenship. His exact words were: We would have gone to Australia, but it is so easy here and this country is seen as a soft touch, it was our only option. I am not even qualified'. Surely questions need to be asked as to why we are becoming the doormat of the Pacific. Is this the reason New Zealanders are leaving in droves?" (Hayden Dickson, Perth. N.Z. Herald, 22-7-02)

To Australia

During August New Zealand League director, and On Target editor, Bill Daly, will be addressing a number of meetings at the invitation of the Australian League of Rights. Our next issue will carry a report from him. The meetings, covering parts of Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria, will focus on the state of the world in the light of September 11th, the escalating threat of war, oil politics and globalisation, and the Social Credit response to this greatest of all monopolies.