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
"If a thousand economists were asked if they wanted to be protected, in their everyday lives, by the police, say, or by an insurance policy, they would undoubtedly reply with a unanimous 'yes'. Everyone wants protection for themselves, their families and their communities from people, events or influences that may harm them. But try adding an 'ism' to the end of the word and economists reach for the cross and garlic, politicians go into paroxysms of outrage, and commentators prophesy a return to the 1930s overnight."
Colin Hines in The Ecologist, March, 2001

July - August 2001 Vol 23, No. 4


Capitalists and Socialists United for Global Governance

The push for a single global economy is far from new but since 1980, and particularly through the 1990s that push became like a frantic and ruthless panzer movement. We can easily appreciate why very large corporate giants want it. Such companies see themselves as having outgrown their own original national economies. They dominate international trade. They have learnt to manufacture their products in low cost impoverished countries where they have access to an endless pool of labour which daily faces conditions far below that ever faced by the average negro slave in the American South. They can then sell their wares in those countries still able to maintain higher indivdual incomes.

But the harder question to find an answer to is why so many politicians of all ranks have been so willing to allow their own countries to be deciminated by the globalist tornado. When there is a raging storm the normal thing is to close all the windows and doors. But modern politicians follow new theories and want everything opened up.

A feature of the modern politician and political party is the practise of having an array of "advisors". Since they seem to be incapable of making any worthwhile decisions without all this advice we are left to wonder if elected governments are necessary at all. At least that is one impression gained.
He are some possible reasons for the internationalist bent of politicians, irrespective of which party label they carry

A modern politicians gets his seat because of the party endorsement so he is more dependent on the party hierarchy than he is on electors.

There is considerable evidence that all the big parties in the developed world are now chiefly dependent upon corporate donations and sponsorship. Gone are the days when a large grass roots membership raised most party funds.

To maintain their "image" politicians and parties want a friendly press, and the press is both part of the corporate world and dependent upon it's advertising money.

Most politicians want a prosperous future, especially if it also enhances their ego. What better than to prime oneself for a top ambassadorship, or a job at the UN, the WTO, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the World Bank, or for a range of company directorships.

To be fair, not all are completely selfish. Some are genuinely shell shocked when they first go to the capital. Eventually they either capitulate to the lust for power and prestige or more quietly hope to last out for three terms and so win a generous pension for life. An occasional one becomes a martyr.

Another compelling reason is ideology. This is dealt with more adequately elsewhere in this issue where we have reprinted a speach by Mr Paul Hellyer former deputy prime minister of Canada and author of
The Evil Empire: Globalisation's Darker Side.

The internationalist ideology is part of the "big is best" idea. It supposes that centralisation is always better. It supposes that individuals, families, communities and nations cannot decide what is best for themselves. Every little aspect of our daily lives must be centrally organised and directed.

Shared Ideology
Most capitalists will reject the suggestion that they hold to the same ideology as the socialists. But the ideological capitalist, as opposed to a practical businessman, has the same regard for the individual as a communist. In the eyes of both the individual is an economic unit. Communist dialectics teaches the inevitability of the centralised state. Widespread private property must be ruthlessly banned because it will be a hindrance to the collectivist state.
Monopoly Capitalism likewise teaches the inevitability of the global economy and the abolition of independent nations. Under capitalism, so called, the widespread ownership of private property is also seen as a hindrance. Widespread private property gives a measure of independence to the individual and the family. Capitalism only pretends to support private property but its policies of economic centralism make it increasingly difficult for most people to obtain or keep private property.

G.K. Chesterton observed that in his day much was being said by capitalists in support of private enterprise but there was no mention of private property. Anything that hinders global "free trade" is regarded as evil by the ideological capitalist. This includes national sovereignty, monarchy, small businesses and private farms, national and cultural customs and traditions, and even representative government. Perhaps especially that.

Anything that hinders global capitalism is regarded as evil and anything that advances it is good. When the Lange Labour government came to office in 1984 they embarked on major revolutionary changes. The so-called socialist politicians of the party hierarchy, suddenly discovered they shared the same dream as that of Monopoly Capitalism. It is usually suggested that they saw the errors of socialism and changed, or alternatively, that they betrayed their former loyalties. But what did they change from, and what did they change too.

They were international socialists. They supported the goals of the Socialist International. They opposed the continued political and economic sovereignty of New Zealand. They supported the growth of an international bureaucracy and an international economic order. After their so-called conversion what did they do? They didn't reject the concept of an international order replacing national sovereignties. Is it possible that they suddenly found a new way, a new ally, which shared the same objective.

It has recently been pointed out that a large number of former young socialist revolutionaries in Europe are now either bureaucrats in the EU, politicians in the various parliaments who promote absorption into the European ideal, or associates of monopoly companies benefiting from the new order. More than one socialist ideologue over the years, in rare moments of honesty, has stated that the bigger and more centralised business becomes the closer it approximates to the ideals of socialism.

Debates about the left and the right of politics merely obscure the issue. "Former" socialists who support monopoly capitalism are described by the press as right wing, while some who now oppose collectivism in favour of national sovereignty and preservation of local communities and the small private business are accused of being on the "left".

Globalism Not Natural or Inevitable

But despite all the propaganda about the inevitability of globalism the fact is that when given a measure of real freedom most people naturally shy away from bigness. If globalism is really inevitable why is it necessary to have a host of international agreements all designed to enforce the new globalist agenda on nations and people. Two years ago opponents around the world won a significant battle against the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment designed to lock nations into permanently allowing the free coming and going of global corporations. But other agreements have closely followed. There are not only agreements concerning so-called "free trade", but others designed to standardise legal systems.

It is more than coincidental that governments around the world are imposing "hate-crimes" or "racial vilification" legislation. As has happened in Europe the court system is being internationalised. The March issue of our contemporary The New Times Survey, in an article by editor Jeremy Lee, pointed out:
"At the end of the year 2000 Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, and the Attorney-General Darryl Williams, made an embarrassing gaffe by announcing that Australia would join the push for an International Criminal Court. . . What is proposed in this treaty? "

In July, 1998 160 nations signed a treaty proposal to establish an International Court to 'try individuals for the most serious offences of global concern.' Twenty two nations so far have ratified the proposal - one third of the number required for the Court to be established. Once in place, the treaty will apply to all nations, whether they signed or not. "The Court will be able to arrest and charge a citizen of any country for an alleged crime committed anywhere, in peace or war. There will be no statute of limitations. Because the system of law to be applied is not consistent with British or Australian law (and also other judicial systems) all nations will be required to amend their laws wherever they conflict with the new international norm. "Even where an individual has already been convicted by his national legal system, he can be charged a second time for the same offence. The list of crimes ranges from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity to enslavement, torture, rape, forced pregnancy, persecution on political, racial, ethnic or religious grounds.

It is proposed that the crime of "aggression" be included at a later date. This could well be extended to "aggressive" writing or speaking. "Eighteen judges from different jurisdictions all over the world will sit in the Hague and will be able to travel with prosecutors and staff anywhere on earth with diplomatic immunity."

We can understand the old fashioned international socialist ideologe pushing for this. But there are no protests from the new global capitalist elites. They realise that for economic globalism to succeed it must be accompanied by an international legal system and an effective international system of prosecution.

On the business front new treaties include one promoted by the World Trade Organisation, presently headed by former New Zealand socialist politician and short time leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister Mike Moore.
We quote Jeremy Lee again:
"At the end of the 'Uruguay Round' in 1994 - the same round that led to the creation of the WTO, the idea of GATS (The General Agreement on Trade in Services) was launched, and is now administered by the WTO. It involves the dismantling of government barriers to the privatisation of public services. It also aims to make it impossible for governments to provide public services on a not-for-profit basis, without the participation of private companies. GATS will enable the WTO to limit government actions relating to public services through legally binding constraints. Any government flouting WTO rulings in this regard will face sanctions. "

Maude Barlow, writing in The Ecologist (Feb. 2001) described the implications: " 'GATS is paving the way for the privatisation of public services across the world. Nothing will be exempt - education, healthcare, social services, postal services, museums and libraries, public transport; all will be opened up to corporate interests. Every and any service currently provided by governments in the name of the public good will be opened up to private corporations, and run for profit. GATS could, quite simply, be globalisation's last frontier; the end of the very concept of not-for-profit services. "
'GATS will come into force in over 130 countries, quietly, and with little fuss, in less than two years. If nothing is done. . . . Services is the fastest-growing sector in international trade, and offers rich pickings for canny corporations. . . . "
'Services, health, education and water are shaping up to be the most potentially lucrative. Global expenditures on water services now exceed $1 trillion every year; on education they exceed $2 trillion; and on health care they exceed $3.5 trillion. . .' " Jeremy Lee concludes by urging that every party leader and member in Australia now be asked for full details on GATS and the level of Australian participation.

We must do the same in New Zealand. Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Alliance Mr Anderton how much he is aware of it and how well informed. He did, while in opposition, quite strongly oppose the MAI agreement. We would be grateful to hear of any worthwhile or interesting responses. Considering that the Victorian State Parliament in Australia just passed the most draconian racial vilification legislation, in line with international directives on hate crimes laws, we need to be asking our MPs and party leaders where they stand, and is similar legislation proposed for here.


The European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe. The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation".

The case has wider implication for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy. The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and "ultimately peace". However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and therefore not protected speech.

Mr Connolly, who has been told to pay the European Commission's legal costs, said the proceedings did not amount to a fair hearing. He said: "We're back to the Star Chamber and Acts of Attainder: the rights of defendants are not respected or guaranteed in any way; the offence of seditious libel has been resurrected."

Mr Colomer wrote in his opinion last November that a landmark British case on free speech had "no foundation or relevance" in European law, suggesting that the European Court was unwilling to give much consideration to British legal tradition. Mr Connolly now intends to take his case to Europe's other court, the non-EU European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Comment: Mr Connolly worked as an analyst of European monetary integration in Brussels until his sacking. He claims the aim of the Eurocrats in creating monetary union is to produce a financial crisis in the smaller countries to effectively make them colonies of France and Germany (more information from


Could a similar crisis be engineered to propel New Zealanders into accepting a joint NZ-Australian dollar, then ultimately to be incorporated into the US dollar?
We already know that top civil servants here and across the Tasman have been discussing a joint currency for a number of years. Our largely worse than useless politicians probably hear about it at the same time as the rest of us - from the rare media snippets that sneak through.

Centralism Versus the Human Spirit

"Bioregionalism" is a term used by an author Kirkpatrick Sale to describe a growing dynamic in many parts of the world where people and communities seek greater independence. We don't think it needs a name, as it simple describes how people really want to live according to their material and spiritual needs. While we are under no illusions that those seeking to create an economically and politically centralised world "dis"-order presently appear to be in control of all the big guns, the foundations of that order are severely unstable.

Considerable numbers of people may have been conned intellectually into accepting that globalism is inevitable, but the reality is that anyone who still has a functioning heart and soul instinctively is drawn to the need for personal independence and to the traditional and natural institutions that protect and nurture this; home, family, community, and homeland (dare we say Kingdom?).
The following interesting extracts are from an article by Kirkpatrick in the March, 2001 issue of The Ecologist: "A few years ago, writing a biography of Christopher Columbus for the quincentenary of his discoveries, I came across a wonderful Spanish term - Querencia - usually translated as 'love of home'. It is that, to be sure but colloquially it means much more than that too, as I came to learn. Querencia is the deep sense of inner well-being that comes from knowing a particular place on the Earth; its daily and seasonal patterns, its fruits and scents, its soils and birdsongs. A place where, whenever you return to it, your soul releases an inner sigh of recognition and realisation. "That is pretty much what bioregionalism is.

There's more to it, of course. . . But it is useful to look at Columbus. . . Columbus never knew a home in all his travels, never experienced a love of place, much less a deep fellowship with any particular part of land or sea. He was in that sense tragically symbolic of the culture from which he sprang, the culture he was to implant in the New World. . . .And nowhere more so than in the Americas, especially the part settled by successive waves of European immigrants. . . "

And if today 20 percent of its population changes residence every year (as against 8 percent in the UK, for example), where social cohesion is so thin that its murder and incarceration rates are the highest in the world, and the barest minimum of civic participation (i.e. voting) engages less than half the population, and then but once every four years, that is the inevitable result of being what historian Samual Morison has called a 'tenacious but restless race' - never knowing, except in rarest instances, the comfort of querencia.

Surely that is why this nation, and the industrialised system it has spawned has so little regard for the natural world. We don't live on any part of the land long enough to know very much about it, and it enters our consciousness mostly only when we wish to exploit it. In that sense Americans today are the true inheritors of the early settlers whom Alexis de Tocqueville described as 'insensible to the wonders of inanimate nature' and 'unable to perceive the mighty forests that surround them till they fall beneath the hatchet'. . . "

Given the consequences today of living in a system devoted to the rapidest accumulation of junk, surely it is not fanciful to feel that some such identification with place as querencia implies is a necessary antidote; and the sooner the better. Surely it makes sense to imagine a society divided into territories and communities* where love of place is an inevitable by-product of a life mindful of natural systems and patterns experienced daily - however far removed this may seem just now for the gigantic, destructive society around us. . . "

In Europe alone, there are movements in more than three dozen regions seeking to assert their identities (besides the Maastricht Treaty's Committee of the Regions), from Wales to Cornwall, to the Basque country and Catalonia, from Lapland and Scania to Pandania and Corsica. Some have ancient roots and some are modern responses to modern problems - as, for example, the Alpine Diamond in the Pennine Alps - but everywhere, as the diplomatic correspondent John Newhouse has written, 'regionalism appears to be Europe's current and future dynamic'. . . . "

It was this dynamic that, more than anything else, led to the breakup of Yugoslavia, and, though the results at the moment don't seem to present a very pretty picture . . . the underlying truth of the matter is that 'Yugoslavia' was a made-up patchwork of ethnic bioregions (Slovenia, Serbia, Crotia, Kasovo, Macedonia and Montenegro were all ancient geographically divided regions) that could not possibly last. That, too, is what the breakup of the Soviet Union was all about: the resurgence of a plethora of regional realities that not even the heavy hammer of Communist conformity could do away with. The three Baltic states, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and a host of various '-istans' from the Caspian to Biakal, as well as a hundred other ethnic groups (and languages) with place-based identities - this is the eternal verity of this part of the world, for this is what its geography (and human development within that geography) has fashioned. . . "

There are even regional secession movements these days. There is an active group in the San Fernando Valley north of Los Angeles trying to take that bioregion out of the city's unwanted reach. There is an organisation in Maine, including a state legislator, pushing to make the northern mountainous section of the state, so different from the coastal region, into the 51st state. Hawaii actually voted for secession and the right to become an independent nation in a non-binding referendum in 1996, and Alaska has an Independence Party seeking to put the question of nationhood status on the ballot there. . . "

In The Interpreters, a book written at the height of the Irish Revolution by the author known only as AE, there is a passage in which a group of prisoners sit around discussing what the ideal new world should look like after the revolution. One of them, a philosopher, advances the vision of a unitary world order with a global, scientific, cosmopolitan culture; the sort of justification often put forth nowadays in the name of globalism. Another, the poet Lavelle, argues fervently against this conception, trying to show that the more the world develops its technological superstructure for global commerce and opinion, the further it gets from its natural roots. "

'If all wisdom was acquired from without,' Lavelle says, 'it might be politic for us to make our culture cosmopolitan. But I believe our best wisdom does not come from without but arises in the soul and is an emanation of the Earth spirit, a voice speaking directly to us as dwellers in this Land'. . .

* Editors comment: The over-intellectualised mind will argue that "a society divided into territories and communities" is a recipe for strife and war. But this is nonsense. If it were true then we could not live in private homes, but need to be housed in giant bunkhouses, since fences and boundaries would be, allegedly, the cause of conflict. Societies are already composed, naturally, of various territories and towns and cities, even if they are not always defined in this way by governments. I live near a small town not far from Auckland. Many of my friends and a number of family live in Auckland. There is no strife because they let me be me and I them. However, if I had to share a bunkhouse with them I think there would soon be very much strife and hatred. Long live fences and territories. - BD.

* * *

"All of us, or at least all those of my generation, heard in our youth an anecdote about George Stephenson, the discoverer of the Locomotive Steam-Engine. It was said that some miserable rustic raised the objection that it would be very awkward if a cow strayed on the railway line, whereupon the inventor replied, 'It would be very awkward for the cow.'
It is supremely characteristic of his age and school that it never seemed to occur to anybody that it might be rather awkward for the rustic who owned the cow.
Long before we heard that anecdote, however, we had probably heard another and more exciting anecdote called Jack and the Beanstalk. That story begins with the strange and startling words, 'There once was a poor women who had a cow.' It would be a wild paradox in modern England to imagine that a poor women could have a cow; but things seem to have been a little different in ruder and more superstitious ages. Anyhow, she evidently would not have had a cow long in the sympathetic atmosphere of Stephenson and his steam-engine. The train went forward, the cow was killed in due course; and the state of mind of the old women was described as the Depression of Agriculture. But everybody was so happy in travelling in trains and making it awkward for cows that nobody noticed that other difficulties remained. When wars or revolutions cut us off from cows, the industrialists discovered that milk does not come originally from cans."
G.K. Chesterton, in The Outline of Sanity (1926)

* * *

Local Money Potential

Mr Tim Leitch of Auckland's North Shore is engaged in an excellent project. He is attempting to interest and educate his North Shore City Council in how they and their city would benefit from a council-supported local money scheme. Some similar initiatives have been going on in a number of other localities, both here and overseas, especially in Scotland, where there does appear to be the beginnings of some success. As a former councillor he has some understanding of the inner workings of the modern large council. We are sure he would appreciate any support and encouragement others can offer. He is also very willing to help with advice and encouragement to similar-minded people in other parts of the country. Contact details are: 78 Glenmorgan Dve, Torbay, North Shore City. Tel. 09-473 0754, Fax. 473 0757. Email:

* * *

Which Is Worse?

Which is worse, capitalism which reduces a man to an economic unit but permits just enough freedom so he can feed himself, or communism which reduces a man to an economic unit but ensures he is feed, though inadequately, by the state? Perhaps C.S. Lewis, one of the greatest Christian thinkers of last century, answers this best in the following quote from his book Mere Christianity. We are indebted to the contemporary American writer Mr Daniel Neyer for the reference. Mr Neyer publishes a quarterly journal, One Sword At Least, which we highly recommend (417 Moltke Ave, Scranton, PA 18505, USA. Overseas Subscription US$17).
It is dedicated to the European tradition. A Catholic convert Mr Neyer once went down the "traditionalist" path in the hope of escaping the liberal modernism that has invaded the Church, as well as everything else, only to find himself ensnared in the same puritanism he thought he had originally left. He attributes his conversion, and his appreciation of the heart of Christianity (Christ) predominantly to the insights provided by Shakespeare.
A reading of Portia's Mercy speech in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, no doubt explains why. The purely legalistic mind cannot comprehend Shakespeare, nor can it comprehend Christianity. Anyhow, here is C.S. Lewis' advice:

"Christianity thinks of human individuals not as mere members of a group or items in a list, but as organs in a body - different from one another and each contributing what no other could. When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbours, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. You and they are different organs, intended to do different things. On the other hand, when you are tempted not to bother about someone else's troubles because they are 'no business of yours', remember that though he is different from you he is part of the same organism as you. If you forget that he belongs to the same organism as yourself you will become an Individualist. If you forget that he is a different organ from you, if you want to suppress differences and make people all alike, you will become a Totalitarian. But a Christian must not be either a Totalitarian or an Individualist.

"I feel a strong desire to tell you - and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me - which of these two errors is the worse. That is the Devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs - pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors."


Just Two Opposing Philosophies

Following the lead of C.H. Douglas, Social Creditors have argued for the past 80 years that there are really only two fundamental philosophies prevalent in the world. One is the Will to Power, the other is Individual Freedom. "Either you are with Me or Against Me. . ."

The first leads to centralised power, uniformity, mass production, the debt-financial system, the loss of private property and the horrible idea that people are primarily economic units designed to spend most of their lives engaged in production of one sort or another, even if what is being produced is next to useless or even harmful to people and their environment.

The second is that each individual not only wants, but has an innate need to determine this own destiny. This does not deny the natural need within a society for a moral and social framework. Even a golf club must have a few rules and a particular code of behaviour and outlook shared by its members. But if the written laws of a society do not reflect the Natural Law and those basic instincts that inwardly tell us the difference between right and wrong, then they will only be obeyed from fear and not respect. There can be no truly free society, and thus no free individual, unless the individual member believes he derives a benefit from the association with other members of society.

The Collectivist believes that progress entails a continual move toward greater centralised power. Thus, small local councils are evil. Likewise the smaller farmer, small businessman and homeowner who believes he is the best qualified to decided how he will use his property. In fact the Collectivist doesn't believe the farmer or businessman should even own any property. If the Collectivist is of the Socialist bent he derides such people by calling them names like petty biousware. If the Collectivist belongs to or supports the Monopoly Capitalist club then he uses different words to smear the little property owner. He accuses him of being inefficient and antiquated. Very often those who claim to be anti-communist refuse to support any proposal that would enable a greater number of people to obtain some private property.

The Social Credit proposal of a national dividend, reflecting the machine age in which we live, and easily demonstrated to be both practical and possible, is also rejected by many who claim to be anti-communist. Yet, as G.K. Chesterton, among others, pointed out on a number of occasions, if a minimum of private property is available to all who desire it, then nobody need ever fear that there will be widespread interest in communism or, for that matter, any other "ism".

* * *

Shakespeare on Mercy

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath.
It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above the sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings; It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's When mercy seasons justice.
Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us Should see salvation, We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy."

Portia's immortal speach from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, when she confronts the unrepentant Shylock.

Technically Shylock is right according to the letter of the law. But he is like those who want to set up global legal systems to control every action of our lives. Shakespeare's God, and the God of those who bequeathed us the ancient English common law is the opposite of the savage, revengeful, legalistic false god of the Shylocks.

* * *

Briefly: The Swiss people voted overwhelmingly against joining the European Union in a referendum on March 4. Out of 26 cantons, 22 voted against, approximately 78 percent of voters. Commenting on the result the UK magazine, Right Now! (April-June 2001, PO Box 2085, London, W1A 5SX) said the Swiss had been influenced in their decision by the situation in nearby Austria, where the free election of Jorg Haidar's Freedom Party had been stigmatized by the EU bureaucrats. This had resulted in a massive shift in sentiment in Switzerland, where three years ago opinions for and against Europe were running close to 50:50. Today the figures show about 80 percent against. The magazine added: ". . . The Swiss are aware that under EU law anyone 'that seriously prejudices the Community's interests and damages the institution's image can have their freedom of expression limited'. . ."

The same issue of Right Now! also carried this: "What has gone wrong with British farming? The problem is that our agricultural policy is made in Brussels through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and in the supermarket boardrooms (the big five supermarket groups control 80 percent of all grocery sales), so farming has become more and more industrial and imports have soared. There are now 25 percent fewer farms than 10 years ago. Farmers receive less than half what you pay the supermarkets for milk - less even than it costs to produce it! We import over 500,000 tonnes of pork and bacon, and over 200,000 tonnes of beef - including from parts of the world (such as Africa) where foot-and-mouth is rife. We've lost over half our apple orchards in recent years and now import over 400,000 tones of apples and four out of every five pears we eat. Even our lettuces come from as far afield as Mexico and Zimbabwe. . . "

In spite of all the brainwashing and media hype young people in Britain are declaring their national identity! Three-quarters of young people see themselves as British rather than European, and are far prouder of their national identity than those in European countries. Seventy percent want power transferred back to the UK Parliament from Brussels. A survey of 1000 adults ages 21 to 35 was conducted by Mori from Time magazine. Forty percent of Italians saw themselves as more European than Italian. In Germany the figure was 36 percent, in France 33 percent. But only one in five Britons said they were European. Mori said: "The British are the least comfortable and enthusiastic about political union." (UK Mail, April 2001)

The Irish also have voted against the EU. According to its constitution, the Irish Government had to put the question of signing the Nice Treaty to a national referendum. The answer was a resounding NO. The Eurocrats have replied that the Irish government will have to keep presenting the question until their people vote yes. The press and bureaucrats have been calling it a constitutional impasse. But the no vote should simply have been the end of the matter. There is no impasse. Showing their contempt for their own people some leaders of other European countries have admitted that given a choice their people would also vote no. This proves there is no popular support for the European Super State. It is all being pushed from the top. The Irish Attorney-General has come out in support of his country's national sovereignty. He is the fourth cabinet minister to do so.

At the Gothenburg meeting the Irish Finance Minister, Charlie McCreevy, described the referendum result as a "healthy development". Can anyone imagine one of our cabinet ministers doing that? We could certainly do with a bit of Irish luck. Perhaps the best argument in favour of Jim Anderton's People's Bank is that the handful of existing monopolised banking giants aren't happy with the new institution. Only time will really tell if it proves to weaken their stranglehold. It depends not only on the will of our erstwhile politicians (not much hope there) but also on what public pressure may develop.

Back in February the Australian Financial Review (20-2-01) reported some apt comments from Deputy Prime Minister Anderton: " 'We've become a colonial outpost', the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Jim Anderton, told the Australian Financial Review. 'If a bank is in New Zealand hands, you can talk to people who have their allegiance in this country and who live here and are susceptible to the normal accountability mechanisms of New Zealanders. If the people are actually in Melbourne or Sydney or London, how do you get hold of them'. . . The four main Australian Banks now dominate the industry, and the only New Zealand-owned bank among 18 banks registered is the Taranaki Savings Bank, owned by a community trust. As in Australia branches have closed and fees have risen. Since 1993, the number of branches has fallen from 1,510 to 866, while commercial and business bank charges have risen nearly 30 percent over a similar period. . ."

The report added that the four Australian banks were "not happy with the situation."

The former Italian dictator Mussolini was more honest than our contemporary New Zealand political party lackeys. Mussolini's Fascist Party were open in contending that the best way, in their view, to administer a country was to have a close relationship between Big Government, Big Business and Big Unions. It's how Hitler's National Socialist Party saw things too. Likewise, despite Socialist lies, Communist governments have been happy to do business with Monopoly Capitalists. Ford built the giant Gorky Car plant in Russia in the 1930s and the Rockefeller's Chase Manhatten Bank long ago established it's second largest branch in Moscow, with the third largest in Peking. Dozens of other examples are supplied by Professor Anthony Sutton in his book National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union.

It is arguable that without certain government policies (and the existence of Big Government) Monopoly Capitalism could not exist. Witness the close relationship between the giant Monsanto Corporation and the US Government. The World Trade Organisation constantly operates in favour of Big Business, even against smaller governments. The philosophy of Socialism and Big Business is the same; centralisation of economic and political power and the creation of a mass man. Both regard the independent individual as enemy number one. The actions of the 1984 Labour government demonstrated how quickly socialist politicians like Lange, Moore, Douglas and Prebble (also Helen Clarke) could discover how much they had in common with Monopoly Capitalism. Their sudden support for "free enterprise" did not extend to farmers and family businesses. It is thus not surprising to find that Big Business, not the rank and file members, are now the main contributors to the big political parties.

A plethora of methods have been found to disguise Business donations. In Australia it is now common to hear of $1000-a-plate meals and business sponsorship of party conferences, etc. It's unlikely to be very different here, except perhaps in scale.


"The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold, and his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold." -
Lord Byron in The Destruction of Sennacherib".

UN Peacekeepers or Mercenaries for the Multinationals?
by Denis McKenna

New Zealand has sent its fighting men to every major conflict in the world for 100 years. Our war dead lie in South Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the islands of the Pacific. Today we have troops serving in many places wearing the insignia of and under the command of the United Nations. Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA), an organisation to which at least half our present parliament are members, has been promoting the creation of a world army since 1981. None other than former Cabinet Minister Richard Prebble (the man who led the sale of our Railways and Telecom to global corporates) was one of the leaders of this treacherous body. He distributed amongst its supporters a brochure which called for "binding world laws" to cover a wide range of issues, and a "world police force" to "enforce" world peace!
PGA boasted in its Annual Report for 1990 that it "encourages and assists its members to transcend the interests of their own countries". The organisation is totally committed to the implementation of the New World Order - an order which will make the world safe for multinational corporation to have total control of all resources. These corporations seek total ownership and control of all food and its transportation around the globe, of energy, minerals, timber, fibres, seeds, and even of water supplies to towns and cities.

The mad idea envisages that every person, everywhere will be subject to the "binding world laws" that are to make all this possible. An international income tax is advocated.

Any nation that dares to oppose will be declared a "threat to world peace" and after the "peaceful" bombs have stopped falling its leaders, whether good or bad, will be hauled before an international court for "crimes against humanity".

Are New Zealand's soldiers, who once served with honour against real tyrants, to now help enforce this mad tyranny, surely the worst possible tyranny that has ever befallen the world. The New World Order programme has gathered momentum over several decades, emerging after World War One in the form of the League of Nations and then after World War Two in the more deadly UN with its accompanying World Bank, International Monetary Fund and a host or other nefarious sister bodies. Until the 1960s New Zealand stood almost alone among developed nations against membership of the IMF and World Bank but since then we have been successively betrayed by those who were supposed to represent our interests.
It is not without significance that since 1984, when the really big push by Prebble, Lange, Moore, Douglas and their cohorts to globalise our former national assets began, we have seen the parallel development of our participation in world peace keeping actions. Even Socialist politicians who once wanted our military abolished became advocates of a strengthened army, but not one that was directed towards national defence.
Millions of dollars are spent on active operations and "peacekeeping" forays, most of which have resulted in soldiers being killed or wounded, while at home an ever-diminishing military budget results in absurd cost-cutting. But are our overseas forces unknowingly merely making the world safe for multinationals to economically rape nations which have resources these corporations want?

Personal Experience

In 1964, the New Zealand Infantry were on operations against Indonesian paratroopers in Labis, Malaya. Our men were based around the administration block and factory of the biggest palm oil plantation in the world. There first task had been to secure that area. In action were also troops from the UK and Australia. Aircraft from a British carrier on patrol in the Strait of Malacca carried out bomb and rocket attacks. It was a huge military operation. One young soldier in from patrol one day asked an officer, "who owns the outfit sir?". His reply: "Lever brothers, a Jewish firm from England". "Doesn't it belong to the Malayans?", said the soldier. "Nothing does", replied the officer. "All the rubber plantations belong to Dunlop, Goodyear and Goodrich, and the tin mines are owned by foreigners as well".
The soldiers next question: "Are you saying the taxpayers for New Zealand, Australia and Britain are paying to protect all this and it does not even belong to the Malayan people, but to some private outfits overseas?". "Yes, that is what the war has always been about, and if we are not careful back home in New Zealand we will end up owning nothing either." This writer was that young soldier, and the officer's answers stirred a memory.

I recalled a conversion I had with my father, a Second World War veteran, not so many years after that great conflict. I had read a book on the war and was astonished to learn that we declared war on Germany because Hitler invaded Poland, yet a week later German's then Ally, Russia, did the same and not one nation declared war on the Russians. When asked why my father said he did not know, but guessed that money, profit, control and power for a select few were probably the reasons behind all wars.

The conflict between Malaysia and Indonesia in the 1960s was officially called a "confrontation", while the war between the British Commonwealth and the Communists in Malaya, which lasted from 1948-1960 was called an "emergency". The reason, of course, was money.

Noel Barber, in his author's note in The War of the Running Dogs, states: "War or an emergency? It was a war, but there was a curious reason why it was never called one. As the author John Gullick, an authority on Malaya and one-time member of the Malayan civil service, points out, 'it was a war - though out of regard for the London insurance market, on which the Malayan economy relied for cover, no one ever used the word'. This misnomer continued for over twelve years, for the simple reason that insurance rates covered losses of stocks and equipment through riot and civil commotion in an emergency, but not in a civil war". Cunning, eh!
Forty years on, multinationals are more powerful than ever as a direct result of the tidal wave of "deregulation", "reconstruction" and "privatisation" which has swept the world, delivering the assets and resources of many nations up to them. Any resistance and, depending on the circumstances, either IMF advisers will pour their mesmerizing tripe on weak or egotistical local politicians or bombs will be dropped followed by "peacekeeping" forces.

Who are the big beneficiaries of the never-ending Persian Gulf "conflict", the one that former President George Bush said would be followed by a New World Order? It is the oil companies.
Iraq is forbidden under threat of military attack to increase oil production. Thus, prices go up and so do the profits.

In 1998 United nations "peacekeepers" and NATO forces belted the living daylights out of Kosovo under the pretext of protecting Albanians living in Kosovo who were demanding their own separate nation within a nation; never mind that the Albanians were originally immigrant guests there. The same story is now being repeated in Macedonia and threatens to engulf the Balkans in further bloody conflicts. The real reason for the world army's intervention in Kosovo was revealed in an article in the New York Times (8-7-98) by Chris Hedges. He investigated the Kosovo State-owned Trepca Mining Complex which he described as the most "valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans . . . worth at least US$5 billion". According to the mine's director "the war in Kosovo is about the mines, nothing else. This is Serbia's Kuwait - the heart of Kosovo. . . in addition to all this, Kosovo has 17 billion tons of coal reserves". Hedge describes the mining complex: "The Stari Trg Mine, with its warehouses, is ringed with smelting plants, 17 mineral treatment sites, freight yards, railroad lines, a power plant and the country's largest battery plant".
The most important words in Hedges' article are the description of the complex as "state owned".
Throughout the Eighties Yugoslavia had attempted to resist privatisation of its industry and natural resources as all around them the assets of the former Soviet bloc were being transferred to the new global elites. Not long after the Hedges article NATO troops seized the entire mining complex which, we can be certain, will be put into the hands of the multinationals.

East Timor

East Timor is a site closer to home and our troops are there under the UN banner, supposedly to protect the people of Timor from the Indonesians. Well, that is what we have been led to believe by the media, but consider the Timor Gap Treaty which was signed between Indonesia and Australia in 1988. This permitted Australia and international oil companies to exploit the vast oil field, estimated to hold 7 billion barrels, which lies beneath the sea between Australia and East Timor. Before the Indonesian invasion of Timor this vast resource rightly belonged to the East Timorese. Now the multinationals will exploit it for their own benefit. So, is it just a coincidence that the UN "peacekeepers" are operating in East Timor - the site of a vast fortune? Is it also just a coincidence that Shell Oil has recently been allowed to take over the gas and oil fields which once belonged to the people of New Zealand and is also making a grab for control of the Australian natural gas reserves, including what is contained in the Timor Gap. Our soldiers will help secure it for them.

It is not only the labour party presently in power which has committed itself to the UN Army. The party with a name that invokes a feeling of nationhood and patriotism - National - officially changed its policy relating to the role of our armed forces from being for the defence and security of New Zealand to cooperation with the UN. A total sellout. But then, when the Nationals were in office from 1991-1999 they outdid the asset sales and treachery of even the previous Labour government. Their former leader Bolger even jumped ship to announce he was really a republican. Would he now be our US Ambassador if he were a Monarchist?

The multinationals are on a roll to take control of the world's resources and our so-called representatives in Wellington are helping to set it up for them.

We Have Our Own Witch Doctors and Black Magic

Nothing seems to so bedazzle people at times, sometimes for the whole of their lives, as that accounting system we call money. Within the mind the system of numbers becomes the reality while the material, physical universe and its enormous abundance, is seen only through a blurred haze of figures. Considering that Jesus described the love of money as the root of all evil it is fair to think that at least the Christian clergy would regard the matter as of some importance, at least worthy of study and discussion. But alas, no! The only times they usually mention the matter it is to berate their flocks for "chasing the mighty dollar", and at the same time implore them to contribute to the "building fund".

The subject of money is surrounded by fables, myths, misconceptions and outright lies, but they are believed with at least the same intensity as simple native people believe their traditional witchdoctors. The economist is our equivalent of the witch doctor, and his language is black magic.

When Captain Cook sailed to New Zealand and Australia, and Columbus to the Americas, they did not discover that these new lands had systems of money called pounds or dollars. None existed. Not one dollar, not even one cent. Now there are trillions of dollars. The US dollar is the most widely used currency in the world but visit nearly any New Zealand shop and try passing a US$5 note, or a British Pound, or some Japanese Yen and you'll likely be asked to exchange it at a bank before being able to make a purchase. This tells us something about the nature of money; that it is in every essential a system of belief.

The word credit is related to creed and credo, the first meaning a set of principles or beliefs and that latter meaning "I believe". There are numerous examples of money systems collapsing and people losing faith in them. There are countries today where the local currency is so mal-administered (usually in the form of inflation) that another country's money, such as British pounds or American dollars are more acceptable. A shopkeeper or manufacturer in Timbuktu may have more belief in dollars or pounds than in Timbuktu money.

What are some of the myths commonly accepted concerning money.
1. Money comes from the production system.
C.H. Douglas, the Scottish engineer who coined the brilliant term Social Credit and who was by far the Twentieth Century's clearest thinker and writer on the subject used a simple example to illustrate how false this is. While acknowledging that most people believe that the farmer who grows a ton of potatoes also somehow causes the money equivalent of that ton to be created, the truth was that neither that farmer, or any other farmer, or any manufacturer produces any money. The entire production system for the entire world does not produce any money, not even one cent. We can exclude the very small number of printing and minting companies who contract to governments to manufacturer notes and coins, and a petty number of usually impoverished counterfeiters. We sometimes read of a very large trading or manufacturing company that has an annual turnover of many billions of dollars. Despite this, even such a company did not create as much as one cent.

2. Money is wealth.
Everyone who believes this should have an opportunity to take as much money as they want, but nothing else except a transmitter, and be deposited on a desert island. The condition is that they must give up the money when they ask for help. Let them have the money in whatever form they want; a bank cheque, cash, a piece of paper recording the ownership of stocks and bonds, gold, silver, jewellery, whatever. Probably long before the midday sun, though economists would take a little longer, it would be realised that a straw hat and bottle of water are real wealth while money is only a symbol representing wealth. If money was the real wealth then page numbers of a novel would be more important than the paper and story.

3. Countries must export to survive.
For any group of people to survive no matter how large or small, they must produce sufficient food, clothing and shelter and whatever other things they require or desire. In some cases, though not many, trading with the people of another country may be necessary or desirable to meet all these physical requirements but usually only for certain luxuries. Modern trading between countries is not undertaken for this reason, but is a desperate attempt to pilfer money from another economy in a hopeless attempt to make up the money shortfall at home. This is why all countries attempt to export more than they import and which the silly expert economists absurdly call a "favourable balance of trade". How every country may achieve this impossible "favourable balance" is never discussed.

4. Banks only loan deposits.
Even bankers don't claim this any more. When an individual or business requests a bank loan the bank manager investigates the amount of security the borrower can offer; a house, business, land, etc. Unless it is a mortgage the loan is normally in the form of an overdraft. The bank will allow an account to be overdrawn up to the amount of the agreed loan. When the overdraft facility is drawn upon the total amount of money in a society is increased. Whenever repayments are made the total amount of money in existence is reduced. This is a continual process with billions of dollars, pounds, Yen, Franks being advanced and withdrawn every day. It is incorrect to think of a static money supply , or one that is only added to by the actions of governments. The source of loans is not bank deposits, it is the other way around. When Mr Businessman writes a $200 cheque for wages using his overdraft he gives this to Mr Employee. Mr Employee puts it into his bank account. The bank manager sees that total deposits with his bank have increased by $200. He also notes that the banks loans have increased by $200. Things are in balance, his ulcer is reduced, and he can enjoy his lunch.
But all money in existence (except for the one to two percent represented by notes and coins) including that represented by deposits has been borrowed into existence from the banking system, and that system demands its repayment with continual interest.

5. Growth is necessary.
It isn't, unless the material requirements of people have increased or there are more people. The illusion of requiring ever-increasing industrial growth comes from the continual need under the present debt money system for new injections of money, obtainable only from bank loans, in order to maintain existing economies.

6. Trading benefits all and increases wealth.
It doesn't. Teddy Goldsmith, founding editor of The Ecologist and well-known campaigner against globalisation, points out that international trading has increased 40 fold since the end of WWII, but poverty has increased over this time.

7. It is good for Governments to balance their books.
Our debt financial system forces economies to have continual new injections of money or they will collapse. When governments run a deficit which these days they borrow from the private banks this helps to provide some temporary relief, similar though only to the temporary relief a drug addict gets from another shot.
Modern deficit budgeting began on the advice of the economist Maynard Keynes and enabled governments, by building large public works schemes, to emerge from the 1930s Great Depression. In the United States the Roosevelt Administration called it the New Deal because Socialism was rightly regarded as a dirty word. In New Zealand we built dams, new roads and bridges and thousands of State-owned houses. In Germany Hitler used the technique to built up his military.
Deficit budgeting simply means a government spending more than it collects in taxes. While Governments fund this from the private banks these days they used to normally use their own Central Bank facilities.
Australia used its Commonwealth Bank facility to create, debt-free (no interest-no repayment), the £350 million required to finance its World War One expenditure, and to construct a brilliant railway system. When done correctly there is no inflation. The primary cause of modern inflation is the pressure on businesses to meet the costs of loan repayments and high interest.

8. Industry distributes sufficient money for society to purchase all that is manufactured.
It doesn't. Hence the need for huge amounts of consumer credit. Manufacturing would come to an instant halt without this. C.H. Douglas' suggestion of a national dividend, to make up the continual shortfall in purchasing power within society, distributed equally to all, whether employed or not, would solve a number of problems. It would immediately end the need for welfare systems. It would enable greater genuine individual leisure and security. It would solve the problem of unemployment caused by technology. It would enable everyone to benefit from the mechanical/technological age. It would begin to remove some of the present pressures resulting in overproduction and the production of useless or poor quality goods, because it would mean there was a source of purchasing power other than directly from employment.
Those who argue that a dividend would result in widespread laziness should observe how much is often achieved by people during their weekends and in retirement years. It is the opposite of the Socialist solution.
Socialism seeks to have central control imposed. It rejects anything that will provide greater freedom to individuals. It is noteworthy that the Socialists have never attacked the debt-financial system. They blame only the production system and its owners for all of mans ills. Socialists claim they want to help the poor, which is true; they want to help them with endless schemes but always reject any suggestion that the poor be permitted to be unpoor.
Most of the faults of the production system result from the attempt to make that system do things it is not designed to do. The purpose of the production system is to produce goods and services and make them available whenever and wherever required. Problems will always arise when it is expected to also provide "full employment" or to distribute all the money needed by a society.
Those who claim to be anti-Socialist yet support full industrial employment should ask themselves why they support a Socialist objective. The late American Archbishop Fulton Sheen ( a very rare man in the modern church) observed that both Communism and Capitalism regarded man as being primarily economic. A souless and heartless creature designed to work. Yet history repeatedly shows us that real culture and civilisation always grew from at least a number of people in a society having some leisure

9. Economists learn about money.
They don't learn anything about money. They learn a lot about minor and obscure technical aspects of the present system then they learn about mumbo-jumbo and how to repeat it. And since they get quite well paid and are quoted in newspapers they become convinced they are making an important, perhaps even a vital, contribution. That's sad, but saddest of all is that quite a large number of people who believe what they say, even though nobody can say what they mean. They are the Western man's witch doctors.

* *

Oh For the Swords of Former Times!

Oh For the Swords of Former Time!
Oh for the men who bore them.
When arm'd for Right, they stood sublime,
And tyrants crouch'd before them:
When free yet, ere courts began
With honours to enslave him,
The best honours worn by Man
Were those which Virtue gave him.

Oh for the swords of former time!
Oh for the men who bore them.
When arm'd for Right, they stood sublime,
And tyrants crouch'd before them.
Oh for the Kings who flourish'd then!
Oh for the pomp that crown'd them,
When hearts and hands of freeborn men
Were all the ramparts round them.

When, safe built on bosoms true,
The throne was but the centre,
Round which Love a circle drew,
The Treason durst not enter.
Oh for the Kings who flourish'd then!
Oh for the pomp that crown'd them,
When hearts and hands of freeborn men
Were all the ramparts round them!
- Thomas Moore (reprinted from One Sword At Least)

Where Do Anti-police Attitudes Come From?
by Barbara Faithfull of the Credo Organisation
(, or PO Box 105-105, Auckland)

Brutal murders of police and thuggery towards them of recent times are causing many to ask this question. Although, obviously, no one factor could be isolated and blamed for such a worrying trend, still I think we can learn a lot about this from a particular (Labour) Government action back in 1988. On March 9th of that year Associate Minister of Justice Philip Woolaston (by 1990 Mayor of Nelson) launched a "Streetwize" youth comic which portrayed police as pigs, dogs, elephants and rats.

Funded by the Department of Social Welfare, the Lotteries Commission and the J.R. McKenzie Trust, it was aimed at 10 - 20 year olds. According to the Christchurch Community Law Centre, which produced it, it was to supply such youngsters "with information about their legal rights in a form to which they could relate". This, and much more, was reported under the heading "Comic Portrayal Sickens Police" in the N.Z.Herald of March 11th. . . Mr Bob Hillier of the Christchurch Community Law Centre said he made no apology. . . "We wanted to make sure that the image was realistic, and it is our experience that young people taken in to help with enquiries are often placed under great pressure to make a statement."

. . . Hillier also explained that the comic was produced under licence from Redfern Legal Publishing Centre in Sydney. The next issues would deal with legal rights in respect to sexual abuse, domestic violence and discrimination. On March 12th the Herald reported Minister of Police Sir Peter Tapsell indignant about such portrayals of police. He said he had been asked the previous year to launch the comic but refused, asking organisers to "go back and tidy it up", but that they did not do so.

In the March 12th N.Z.Herald item Woolaston was quoted as regarding the angry reaction to the comic as nothing but "a storm in a teacup". It was some storm, however, with even Sir Robert Muldoon weighing in for good measure by observing on Radio Pacific on March 20th : "This is a specific example of the extent to which these people of the left. . . have infiltrated these various departments of state and welfare agencies, and they are anti-police"

. . . On March 27th, on Radio N.Z's Sunday Supplement, Dunedin lawyer Peter Gibson slammed the comic as "a scurrilous document" and a squandering of public money. "The police are NOT the enemy, as the comic conveys. As an educational tool it is destructive." etc.

In conclusion, among the plethora of angry letters to editors at the time was this sarcastic one headed "Sequel, please" from H.M. Nicholson of Northcote in the Auckland Star of April 18th: "Will the caring young lawyers in Christchurch who made up a comic book showing young street people how to deal with the police, who were shown as fanged beasts, make up another comic book to assist the victims of assault and robbery to come to terms with their pain? It might help to show that the assailants are pussycats at heart."

Propaganda Versus Reality

During the last 100 years propaganda reached heights never seen before in history. Decades later we still believe in some of the war propaganda used during the First and Second World Wars. How many even now know that Britain declared War on Germany in 1939 when the latter invaded Poland. Yet Germany had a pact with Stalin's brutal Communist regime in Russia and a few days after the German invasion from the West, Poland was invaded by Russia from the East. Until the election of Churchill the first few months of WWII were known as "the phoney war". Yet the war was fought against Germany with Russia as an ally. The pro-Russia policies of Britain's Foreign Office and American State Department during the War allowed Russia to overrun all of Eastern Europe in 1945.
In Yugoslavia, which was German occupied, the British switched their initial support for the anti-Communist partisans to the future dictator Tito and his brutal Communist partisans. Since the Second World War Liberalism and its hatred of everything white, European and Christian has come to reign almost supreme.

The puss of Liberalism's sick doctrines have oozed from the media, classrooms, universities and seminaries. It has gloated over the destruction of the civilising European influence in Africa, and the damage done to Western nations by incompatible immigration. But even the most intense and prolonged campaign of propaganda and lies eventually has its limits and effects.

After so much effort it ought to have been a foregone conclusion that every young Westerner would hate everything white, European and Christian. Some do, but certainly not all, even if their parents do. But policies of Liberalism are rooted in Idealism, not Reality, and their results will always be increasingly disastrous. Reality has a way of catching up eventually.
"The mills of God grind slowly, but finely".
Perhaps this helps explain why thousands of young New Zealanders travelled to Turkey to honour our young men who died there during WWI. Even our muddle-headed Prime Minister (Is she an International Socialist traitor lusting after power, a sick minded liberal or an empty-headed academic, or a mixture of all three?) went there for roughly the right reasons. How does the liberal academic who has controlled our education system explain to himself why an increasing number of younger people want to attend the annual ANZAC Parades to honour our forebears who died or were maimed on the battle fields.

On January 15 the BBC Radio broadcast carried an interview with the acclaimed British novelist Fredrick Forsyth. Forsyth said his teenage sons do not think of Britain as being part of Europe, and while they have black school friends they do not act or live with any belief in multiculturalism. The hard face of Reality and the commonsense gained from coming up against Reality offers great hope for the future

* *

Desert Storm was your father's war.

Tomorrow, low-intensity conflicts will be the rule as the anointed battle against the infidels, plant police take on drug barons, and taxmen shoot it out with money launderers. Uncle Sam has decided to step into the fray as the policeman of this new world disorder. . ." - Popular Mechanics, September, 2000

Why is the Middle East Blowing up Again?
by Bill Daly

For ten years through the 1980s the two Middle Eastern countries, Iran and Iraq fought an intense and bloody war. Some lesser informed foreigners seem to suppose that this is proof of a type of insane kink in Arabs or Moslems. But many Iranians or Iraqis would resent being simply described as Arab - it's at least akin to only describing a Frenchman as a European. Iran, formerly called Persia has an ancient and rich history. Likewise the neighbouring Iraqis can trace their roots back to very ancient times. Up to the First World War that part of the world had long been under the control of the Moslem Empire of the Ottoman-Turks. That Empire collapsed after being allied to Imperial Germany.
The British occupied the territory and afterwards had the area mandated to them by the League of Nations. Largely through the amazing exploits of the famous T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") and the particular approach taken by the British during the earlier years of their Mandate there was little local resistance; in fact the British came to be held in high regard. It became common for wealthier Sheikhs to send their sons to England for their schooling.

The British had promised they would not sanction the creation of a Jewish state in the country of Palestine. But Zionist pressure on the British government eventually resulted in the betrayal of the promise. There was a smallish but steady influx of Jewish immigrants to Palestine before WWII, but it increased considerably during the war. While no doubt most of these only wanted a better life that was not the case with all, and Zionist leaders clearly had a long term agenda they were determined to impose.

While the British were busy trying to evict Hitler's armies from the Western Desert several well-armed and well-financed Jewish terrorist groups were fighting a bloody and undeclared war against the Palestinians. And they were not backwards in shooting at British officials and police now and then either, killing a number. Later the UN representative Count Bernadotte, who opposed the ruthless Zionist desire of expelling the Palestinians, was murdered by a Jewish gunman outside his hotel.
One Zionist terrorist group, the Stern Gang, was led by Menehin Begin, later to be an Israeli Prime Minister. The Stern Gang was responsible for the cold blooded murder of hundreds of Palestinian women, children and elderly, and ruthlessly drove thousands from their ancient villages.

Since 1945, when the new Israeli state was sanctioned by the UN and imposed by the Western Powers, the Palestinians have had to live as refugees, either in refugee camps, or scattered throughout other Arab states. Israel is regarded by some military observers as the forth most powerful military state in the world after the US, Russia and China. She is largely maintained by enormous financial injections from the US each year and supplies of the latest Western military equipment and technology. She is a modern nuclear power.

Obviously the attitude of the whole Arab world was affected by the imposition of the new Zionist state, and the methods used to achieve that end. In Iran a new and young Western-thinking Shah was brought to power. The Shah ruled until he was overthrown in the late 1970s by the Allahtola Kohemini. Disillusioned at the sudden unexpected criticism from the Western media and lack of help from his powerful American friends (particularly Kissinger and David Rockefeller) the deposed Shah was said to have died a broken man. But it was not long before the ten year war between Iran and Iraq began.
With oil money the Shar had built a powerful military.

The late Ivor Benson in his privately-published monthly, Behind the News, provided at the time a brilliant analysis of the causes of the conflict and the political forces at work. (see also The Zionist Factor by Ivor Benson. $15 posted)

The Western powers were probably not too concerned which individuals ruled in the Middle East so long as they continued to control its economic destiny. For them the usefulness of the Shar had come to an end. However, they did fear that the Allahtola's success had the potential, as it clearly has done, to spark a worldwide Islamic revival. This helps to explain the massive military assistance through the 80s from the US, Britain, France and Germany for Saddam Hussein in neighbouring Iraq. We don't ever hear of it from the mainstream press but Hussein's military might, though now obviously mostly superseded or destroyed, was a creation of the big Western powers, predominantly that of the US.

So then why the US antagonism since 1991 against Hussein's and Iraq?
Was it because at the end of the of the Iran-Iraqi war Iraqi was left in a uniquely powerful and confident position?

It's neighbour, Iran, was no longer any threat and oil money was still flowing in to enable further military expansion. Did Iraq pose a threat to the Israelis, or at least to Israeli dominance in the Middle East? In any event Saddam Hussein chose to invade his little oil rich neighbour Kuwait, a territory the Iraqi's claim as anciently having belonged to them. The borders were drawn on a map by British officials who had no local knowledge and no other interest other than solving temporary administrative problems. April Gadsby was the US Ambassador in Iraq when Hussein invaded Kuwait. She later reported to the US Senate that when asked what the American reaction to a Kuwaiti invasion would be she said she was told by her government that it would not intervene so long as oil supplies were not disrupted. She reported her Government's reply to the Iraqi's. This information was reported to the world by writer Alistair Cooke in his famous Letter from America radio programme. But the US Administration under George Bush the elder immediately went to war against Hussein.

President Bush went so far at the time to say that "we are fighting for a new world order". Presumably that "new order" allows the American Government to see itself as some sort of world policeman with the right to drop bombs from time to time and here and there on whoever the big media is currently calling "a threat to world peace". The Bush Administration said it would advance to Baghdad and continue fighting until Hussein had been destroyed. But when Hussein was virtually destroyed the US Government had its forces withdraw to the border, thereafter strict sanctions and regular bombing raids on Baghdad and various Iraqi installations have prevented the country from having any sort of stability and security.

Ivor Benson, and since then a number of other analysts have suggested that the Western powers chose not to destroy Saddam Hussein. He is a secular dictator and left in power will ensure there is no similar Islamic uprising as happened in Iran. But don't let him achieve any sort of independence or power. Leave him just enough rope to keep his internal enemies at bay. Aid agencies have been reporting now for several years that the strict sanctions against Iraq are resulting in untold misery and numerous deaths. At least one million, and possibly as many as double that, unnecessary deaths are said to have occurred. Documented evidence from aid agencies has been reported in some sections of the British for at least two years but in the US there has been no such coverage outside a few small privately owned papers.

The conservative US paper The Spotlight is one of those few and did report on protests outside the US Treasury and White House last August. About 100 protesters were arrested for refusing to leave from in front of the White House. When some of them had earlier asked to be arrested for having participated in sanctions breaking they were ignored by authorities and police. Even some UN and American officials involved in imposing the sanctions have criticised the severity imposed on the Iraqi people. The Spotlight goes so far as to suggest there may be a policy of deliberate genocide.

"Sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as (Saddam Hussein) lasts"
The Spotlight reports former President Clinton telling the New York Times in 1997.

Even a close Clinton ally and Democratic Party Whip David Bonoir (Representative from Michigan) called the sanctions "infanticide masquerading as policy". (The Spotlight, August 21, 2001)

The sanction are supported by Israel and the US has never so far done anything other than support every Israeli demand, all complements of the uninformed American taxpayer. Even Jewish critics of the Zionist policies in the Middle East risk much, probably much more so than non-Jewish critics. Our contemporary The New Times Survey, in its March, 2001 issue, carried an article by an American Jewish women Judith Stone documenting some of the terrible treatment meted out to the Palestinians by the Israeli Government. A Jewish journalist Debbie Ducro published the article in the Kansas Jewish Chronicle and was fired the next day. But a little investigation shows there are no shortage of such brave critics even within Israel.

The Stone article quotes University professor Moshe Zimmerman who wrote in the Jerusalem Post (30-4-95) that "the (Jewish) children of hebron are just like Hitler's youth". Those who describe the street battles between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians as a type of tit for tat only demonstrate their complete ignorance. While some Palestinians have access to guns and home made bombs most are left to toss rocks. On the other hand he Israelis are a nuclear power and make regular use of helicopter gunships.

For hundreds of years Moslems and Jews lived in relative harmony in the Middle East clearly demonstrating that if left to do so ordinary Jews and Palestinians could probably learn to do so again. Moderates on both sides have long said this. But the Zionist Government in Israel and the powerful Zionist Lobby in the US are determined that this course will not be followed. For as long as the Zionist policy in the Middle East goes unchallenged and is able to be sustained the refuge Palestinians will continued to be goaded and shot and children will be denied basic medical needs in Iraq.

Tally Sticks and Cash

We are indebted to the Scottish journal Prosperity for the following quote from Christopher Hollis' book The Two Nations

"Charles II (1649-1685) was in debt, and it had been his habit, just as it had been that of his predecessors, to issue to his creditors [those to whom he owed money] tallies, or notched pieces of wood, which the creditors re-presented when the taxes came in and, in return for which, they then received the cash due to them. Charles conceived the plan of making these tallies negotiable and later, since pieces of wood were not convenient for this purpose, he paid his debts in negotiable paper orders instead. "That is to say, these paper orders - which, of course, cost him nothing were to count as money up to such and such a date. They were to be accepted in the shops, to be legal tender for the discharge of a debt and so on.
When the given date came, then whoever found himself in possession of them could bring them to the Treasury and exchange them for cash."

'Why was this of such importance,' it may be asked, 'if the King was going to pay cash in the end? He was merely postponing the payment of his debt - just like anyone who gives an IOU for his debt instead of paying cash down.' "That was, of course, what he wished people to say.

The experiment was important for this reason. According to Charles's system each particular holder of a paper order would, it is true, at some future date be able to exchange it for cash and thus have a feeling of security, which, in the temper of the times, a purely paper currency could not perhaps have given him. But at any given moment there would be a considerable amount of paper money in circulation. Thus a creditor, to whom Charles owed money on 1st January 1667, was given a paper order, which could be turned into cash by whoever chanced to be in possession of it on 1st January 1668. But on 1st January 1668 the King would issue a new set of paper orders which would run current until 1st January 1669, and so on. It was not intended that there should ever come a day on which all the outstanding paper orders should be redeemed

. . . "Doubtless, had the experiment succeeded, Charles would gradually have lengthened the period to elapse before redemption . . . Eventually, no doubt, he would have issued the orders, frankly as paper money, accepting a vague obligation to convert into gold and silver on demand which he had discovered from experience to be very rarely made.

"In fact as Dr. Shaw, the greatest authority on the subject, points out, the orders would have performed all the functions that were in the next century to be performed by the privately issued bank notes. They would have played in history a part much more important than that of temporarily relieving the financial embarrassments of a harassed monarch. For the vastly increased productivity of the next two hundred years were to necessitate a vastly increased monetary supply.

By a strange anomaly private persons were permitted to invent that money and put it into circulation in the form of loans. "Nor is it any paradox to say that that anomaly is the cause of the greater part of the evils that have since afflicted mankind. Had Charles's experiment succeeded, had it become recognized that, when new money was required, it was the business of the King to issue it, the whole history not only of England but of the world must necessarily have been changed."

* *

"The essential thing to grasp about the presidential election is that whoever wins, Bush or Gore, a capitalist wins.
Which means America will remain pro-abortion, anti-white and anti-Christian, "Abortion will remain legal because markets must be free. Great capitalists such as Robert Nisbet and Michael Novak have told us so. And Third World immigration will continue unabated so that the capitalists have enough minimum wage workers for their Wal-Marts and their chemical plants. "It is all so incredibly phony. All the forces of the media, each battalion owned by a capitalist mogul, combine to get the citizens interested in what is merely a staged election of no consequence. One yearns to hear a child in the crowd screaming that the emperors have no clothes." - Daniel Neyer in One Sword At Least (a privately-published quarterly, 417 Moltke Ave, Scranton, PA 18505, USA. Sub. US$20)

Fluoridation and Dictatorship
Auckland has long had fluoridation added to its water, even despite the ardent opposition to it of former Mayor the late Dove-Myer Robinson. The compulsory amalgamations of the former suburban councils into one giant Auckland Council by the Lange Labour Government, overseen by that arrogant academic and than Minister of Local Government Michael Bassett, has resulted in an unnecessary and dangerous concentration of political power. One community that lost its local council was Onehunga. In earlier times Onehunga was a separate town built around its then busy port. The suburb has long had its own source of clean underground water while Auckland's water comes from the dams in the Waitakere and Hunua ranges. Now fluoridation is to be added to the spring water in Onehunga.

The Auckland City Council, not normally known to leave final decisions up to the largely powerless community boards, said it would allow Onehunga's community board to make a decision. That board includes former Labour MP Richard Northy. In typical socialist dictatorial fashion Northy and several of his pals managed to get a majority decision. A poll run at Christmas showed that most Onehunga people opposed fluoridation of their water. One of Northy's cohorts said the poll could not be relied upon because Christmas is a busy time when people don't have time to property study and make an informed decision. Several board members voted no and a small and dedicated local group had campaigned against it. It is to be hoped that the campaign will gather strength and see that Northy and Co. are ousted at the coming elections.

Any of our readers in the area might like to offer their assistance.

Experience has demonstrated that the best argument, and it is really the only legitimate one, against compulsory fluoridation, is that it is compulsory. It is compulsory mass medication. It is far easier to fight a battle with this argument that with technical medical facts. That way the so-called experts with their PHDs (poor horrid delinquents) will win nearly every time. While we do believe it is a highly toxic poison, with the alleged benefits completely unproven, and its promotion surrounded by lies, in a free society the decision whether or not to consume it must be an individual one. No one, especially a politician who is supposed to be only a representative, has the right to impose a medication an another.

Hospital Breakdown
Who is responsible for the breakdown of the hospital system. Our nomination is Prime Minister Helen Clark. It was she, as Minister of Health in the Lange Government, who started the "reforms". We have all heard some of the horror stories. What is so appalling is that people come face to face with the problem when they or their families are already facing a major crisis. The former system had many faults, but it did guarantee some comfort and help for an ill person. That is still obtainable sometimes but an awful gauntlet has usually to be run first. Recent stories include specialists giving completely opposing opinions to a patient on a serious diagnosis, staff who can't speak English, patients being transferred to another hospital then back again with families and patient in despair.
Although they won't admit it Clark and her advisors sought to prepare the hospital system for auctioning off to the highest bidder. The problem is not so much that insufficient money is being allocated. That is only a part of it. In fact considerable more money is being spent than ten years ago. The problem is one of policy. Government is not interested in providing what it once promised, and which we all pay for. If it was policy to provide an efficient health system we would get one. What we have now is a hopeless experiment in "reform" that has gone badly wrong. To be fair there is significant help provided by the system for many people. And some services are better than before. But these changes had begun before Clark and her cohorts were let loose in 1984.

More On Vogel

We mentioned that early NZ Prime Minister Julius Vogel in our last issue and the role he played in entrapping this nation with our unrepayable debt financial system. Was he an agent of the Rothschilds? A most interesting article on him has been published by Mr Kerry Bolten. This can be ordered at a small charge from Renaissance Press, Box 1627, Paraparaumu.

Orthodoxy Versus Social Credit
Reprinted from A New Society by George Bryant, 1972

If we assume unquestionably what the late Michael Joseph Savage was once reported as saying-despite his election talk of the "intelligent use of the public credit" - that "there is only a certain amount of money, not nearly enough to go around", then we end up as practising Socialists, imagining that we can solve the world's problems by making everybody alike poor. If, with the orthodox economist, we take for granted money and the conventions associated with it as the determining factor in the economy of the nation, then we must go with the economist along his bumpy road of boom and slump, vainly deploring that war brings prosperity and prosperity inevitably means inflation. You can add a pinch or two of economic puritanism, which holds that prosperity is not good for people, and that leisure is bound to lead to licence, and you will arrive at the conclusion that credit squeezes and a modicum of unemployment are for the good of our souls. Let us contrast the assumptions of orthodox finance and politicians with those of Social Credit. It is of immense importance to realise the different starting points.
Orthodoxy Assumes
1. Money is a thing in itself. It exists of itself and you don't know how or how much . . "The Government can have no money but what it takes from the people."- K. J. Holyoake (former New Zealand Prime Minister)
2. Money arises out of work.
3. Work, i.e. paid employment, is therefore the only basic title to money.
4. The purpose of industry is first and foremost to provide employment.
5. Financial booms and slumps just occur like changes in the weather, and we can't do anything to prevent them: 'Prices fall', 'we weather the economic blizzard' and we 'fight inflation'.
6. The known disastrous effects of the system must therefore be borne with heroic fortitude. 'Austerity is good for you' - and so are taxes.
7. The end and aim of life is to make money and get rich quick (capitalist) or to be all poor together (socialist).

Social Credit Affirms
1. Money is a mere device to set industry going and to distribute the product.
2. Money is manufactured by the banks by making loans or buying gold, securities, property or services.
3. The cultural inheritance i.e. the knowledge and organisation handed down from the past, constitutes a title to some share of goods and services for all. This is important in relation to the displacement of men by machines.
4. The purpose of industry is to provide goods and services, and the purpose of money is to provide a means for their distribution.
5. Booms and slumps are caused by a fundamental defect or fault in the system which the present order has no proper means of correcting.
6. The 'good life' includes, not only a high standard of living, but also leisure to enjoy it and to pursue higher aims.
7. The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever - in the widest sense of the words.

"Do you remember our daily expressions often used without thought, but they did shape our thinking and our actions? We were brought up on them and were proud to live them. 'Never give in; 'never say die'; 'no such word as can't'; ' nothing's impossible'." - From "A Man Called Peters" by Adrian Hayter, soldier, solo yachtsman and author

Courage and Leadership
By Denis Mckenna

We are constantly being told by our servants in parliament to be careful in case we hurt ourselves. We must not smoke. We must not try to lift anything that looks a bit heavy. We must wear a helmet when riding a bike. We must not do this or that, or Mummy Government will punish us like naughty little children. There is an aura of softness, a sissy attitude, which is permeating through society as a direct result of what National and Labour governments have instituted over the past 20 years. A good example of this wimp attitude was aired last year by the then ACC Minister, Ruth Dyson, who criticised Norm Hewitt, the captain of the Hurricanes rugby team for leading his men to victory while playing with a broken arm. Most people expressed admiration for Hewitt, because he displayed qualities of genuine leadership which are not apparent in the inhabitants of the Beehive - self sacrifice, courage, toughness, daring and manliness.

Norm emulated great All Blacks of the past. The mighty Colin Meads played with a broken arm in South Africa in 1970, Ron Elvidge, All Black Captain in 1950, was led from the field with a dreadful injury during a test match against the British Lions but returned and scored the winning try for New Zealand. Throughout history it has been the brave, the daring and the tough who have inspired others to follow. The explorers, the fighting men, the pioneers and settlers in new lands, all have been heroes for their actions and achievements. They faced daunting challenges. Many lost their lives. But they did not shrink from the tasks they set themselves.

I think they would laugh at the likes of Ruth Dyson whose philosophy appears to be "if you get hurt, give up". If it was not for the determination and the defiance in the face of danger displayed by the Maori and European settlers who risked life and limb in taming a new land, developing it and defending it, Ms. Dyson would not be safely ensconced in her plush Wellington office talking such nonsense today.

Despite the politically correct namby-pamby doctrine there are many individuals like Norm Hewitt who will ignore pain, grit their teeth and battle on. Sarah Ullmer the Olympic cyclist came within a fraction of a second of winning a gold medal in Sydney only days after an operation. One of our paralympians, a man with Cerebral Palsy, competed with a stress fracture in one of his feet and just missed a bronze medal. Now, that is guts.

The hero of the Aussie field athletes was a Maori long jumper who won a silver medal and horrified the PC brigade because he smoked, enjoyed a beer and ate takeaways. David Tua took on Lennox Lewis for the world title, and although outclassed, never gave up. Tua got to the top by his own efforts, taking risks, toughing it out and putting everything on the line to achieve his ambition. He did it without cadging money from the public either, not like some of the high profile, highly paid failures at the Sydney Olympics and other non-Olympic sports.

On the other side of the coin many Ruth Dyson types were seen in their thousands as some Aucklanders gathered to "mourn" a tree. There they were, crying, laying flowers in memory of it and singing hymns to the stump. A high school in Taranaki has a "Recovery" room, all painted in nice soft pastel colours, where pupils are sent if they get upset.

A recent report stated that the Outward Bound school has had to lower its physical fitness targets because many of the young people could not pass them. An instructor commented that many of the youngsters were "soft", which is not surprising given the "don't push yourself" environment the youngsters of today are being brainwashed with. Let's put an end to this soft, weak indoctrination of New Zealand society and start instilling the virtues displayed by the brave and the tough. "Fight on, my men, says Sir Andrew Barton, I am hurt, but I am not slain; I'll lie me down and bleed awhile, And then I'll rise and fight again. - Courage by J.M. Barrie

Or We Could Stay and Fight!

Retired New Zealand businessman Doug Myers is leaving the country to live in London. The pilot, golfer, millionaire and former chairman of Sky TV, Craig Heatley is also opting out to travel with his family and then probably to settle elsewhere. Several hundred thousand New Zealanders are living overseas, mostly Australia, Britain and the US. That is a huge number out of a total population of less than 4 million. Doug Myers and Craig Heatley might give slightly different reasons for leaving than most others, but the basic story is much the same. Like everyone else they feel government policies are destroying opportunities here.

The wealthy businessmen complain there isn't enough incentive for large financial investment here but fall into the error of believing the country can only be saved by "inviting foreign investment". The false belief is that countries have to compete with each other in order to survive. Nearly everyone else just feels that government policies no longer treat them as being worth anything. Since 1984 Labour and National governments have tried to outdo each other in selling national assets and in encouraging foreign multinational interests to take over the manufacturing of the things we need. These were formerly manufactured mostly by large, small and family-owned business. Since the global corporations don't care which country they do their manufacturing in the result has been that what we used to make at home is now imported from poor countries that offer the lowest labour costs.

In the minds of politicians (and unfortunately too many others), The Market and God are one and the same thing. If this results in half our population moving away, to be replaced by 10 million from Asia or Africa, then that is simply the price that has to be paid if we are to survive in the Global Market. The fact that the so-called Market Forces are agenda driven for political objectives of centralised power is beyond the comprehension of most politicians and their highly-paid advisors.

Those few businessmen who have managed to climb to the top in this mad scramble to asset-strip the earth may think they have the ultimate recipe for the future of man's survival. But willingly, or unwillingly, they are promoting a policy of disaster. One of the many astute observations of C.H. Douglas was to note that trade wars always lead eventually to military war. The second half of the twentieth century may not have seen repeats of the First and Second World wars but there was a massive escalation in the trade wars between nations.

From time to time the heat was taken out of these trade wars by global trade agreements, but these only proved a temporary restraint. Soon afterwards each nation still finds it is hopelessly in debt, or threatened with indebtedness if it doesn't engage in aggressive competition. There are on-going tensions between Japan and the US, between the US and Europe, between Europe and the old Soviet bloc, etc., etc,. The latest shot, in our own case, is Helen Clark's criticism of Australia for doing a secret trade deal with the US.

Global Debt Vs National Credit

It was C.H. Douglas who discovered a crippling fault in the modern financial system. No matter whether the problem is viewed nationally or internationally, the modern industrial system distributes less purchasing power than is required to cancel all prices. If a cheese factory sells a block of cheese for $2.50 it has distributed less than $2.50 into the community by way of wages, salaries and dividends (profits). Only a business that is going bankrupt can distribute at least as much purchasing power into the community as the total prices of all its goods or services.

But the fault lies with the money system, not the industrial system, as organised socialism would have us believe. One of the biggest factors in the salvation of the industrial countries since the end of World War II has been the willingness of the private international bankers to make massive credits available to the Third World and the old Communist world, both before and following the collapse of the Iron Curtain. These financed massive exports from the West. While this enabled the West to fool itself for a period, over the past 10 to 20 years the whole system has begun seriously to break down.

New Zealand politicians, with no practical business experience and no understanding of the financial system, and sometimes driven by ideology or the hope of a place at the globalists' table, have been like putty in the hands of the propagandists. They embraced globalism with fanfare and charismatic joy. But the chickens are coming home to roost. And the politicians, our unfaithful political representatives, are still pulling a now long dead and skinned rabbit out of the hat. They haven't yet caught on that globalisation is not only not the answer, it is in fact at the very heart of the problem.

Globalised finance has led us into a globalised economy and the big push is now for a globalised political set up. But the answer, if human beings are to find life worth living, is a complete rejection of bigness. It means a return to nationhood and local communities being able to make use of their own local resources and skills to meet their basic needs. If it is possible for small communities around the world to operate local money systems, then it is certainly possible for nations to operate and control their own money systems. We do not have to kneel any longer before the international debt merchants and listen to their wizardry mumbo-jumbo.

Those New Zealanders who have fled the country in the hope of finding something better are discovering the struggle is just the same elsewhere - the benefits, if real, are only temporary. Australia, Britain, the U.S. and every other country is in the same usurious grip of the international debt merchants. Alarmed at the influx from New Zealand, including Asians who have found New Zealand an easy stepping stone into Australia, the Howard Government has announced it is tightening up on benefits to our migrants. British authorities are taking a tougher stand on New Zealanders going there to pay off New Zealand student loans. These are all features of a trade war between nations and people, each desperately attempting to pillage an insufficient supply of money for somebody else.

Is there an alternative? Yes.

Per head of population New Zealand is one of the wealthiest nations. We may be lacking in a few natural resources compared to Australia. But with the right incentives we could easily produce everything we needed, if we ever had to. At the very least we could begin to trade on friendly terms with other nations instead of the present cut throat approach forced on us by our acceptance of the seductive lies of the bankers. It was demonstrated back in the 1970s that our farmers, if called upon, could easily produce all the transport fuel we required. There is little we could not do if called upon.
The time is fast approaching when there may not be another country for us to run away to, or at least not one that is worth running to.

Despite the enormous damage done by forced multiculturalism and debt financial policies a change in policies would quickly see us gaining enormous benefits. But the battle for New Zealand's future must be fought on all fronts. We need to gain control of our political process. We need to establish a proper national financial system. We need to acknowledge the realities of the modern world in which we live.

Mere technological progress does not mean social progress.

Technology can be used to enforce a bloody dictatorship. But there can be no such thing as a free society unless useful technology is used to help us instead of enslaving us.

Full Employment Now Outdated

Full employment has been a feature of the West since the development of the debt financial system and the industrial revolution. As a policy it is now completely inconsistent with modern labour-saving technology. The introduction of citizens initiated referenda with such issues as immigration, the legality of international treaties, foreign "investment", the creation of our own national credit, etc., being able to be discussed and dealt with openly would help to foster a new spirit of inventiveness and hope.

If New Zealanders can gain control of their politicians we would be able to begin to turn away from the cliff over which the Gadarene swine are leaping. Only a healthy New Zealand, one that has its own financial and political independence, can be of any lasting benefit to ourselves and others. Our great-grand parents immigrated to this land and bequeathed to us one of the loveliest and richest pieces of dirt to be found anywhere on the Earth. Our duty to them and our own offspring is surely to sort out our problems, the answers to which are not difficult if they are approached honestly. The alternative is to be cursed by our offspring for our delinquent and pathological behaviour which led to us betraying them.

Book Catalogues:

Those wishing to receive one of our 2001 book catalogues should write to Conservative Books, PO Box 12-752, Penrose, Auckland. There is no charge, although we are always grateful for any help in covering printing and posting charges.

Our Untaught or Forgotten History

R.P. Hargreaves, in his book From Beads to Banknotes: The Story of Money in New Zealand (1772), writes: "In the Early Settlers Museum in Dunedin is displayed an unissued Southland Treasury Note for Five Pounds. The note symbolises the financial history of this small southern province for almost every year of its short independent existence from 1861 to 1870, namely its unfulfilled promise of development because of the chronic shortage of money. Feeling that its wants were being ignored by the Otago Provincial Council centred in Dunedin, Southland broke away in the first heady days of the Otago gold rushes. In order to tap part of the golden wealth of Central Otago for itself, Southland embarked upon an optimistic scheme of public works, including the construction of a railway from the port of Bluff northward into the interior. "But the growing expenses proved too great for the existing revenue.

In 1864 an issue of Southland Provincial debentures proved unsaleable in London, and local New Zealand banks refused to lend any more money until previous loans were settled or guaranteed. A member of the Southland Executive, Samuel Beaven, after failing to obtain further money from a bank in Dunedin, had large numbers of Treasury Notes for One and Five Pounds, printed by Fergusson and Mitchell, now located in Dunedin. This action was undertaken with the full knowledge of the Southland Provincial Executive, but was kept secret from the Southland public.

"On 13 May, 1864, an Otago Daily Times editorial broke the news that the Southland Provincial Council planned to issue Treasury Notes in order to pay for public works already completed. A copy of the wording on the Five Pound note was given, the paper admitting that it possessed one of the unissued notes. How they had obtained the specimen note was not revealed, but it could only have been through the connivance of a worker in the printing plant where they had been produced. The notes, decorated with the Royal arms in the centre, were redeemable in coin at face value plus an unspecified rate of interest at an unstated number of days after date of issue. The Dunedin newspaper claimed that the notes were originally to be issued at three days sight (similar to the Otago traders' notes of this time), but realising that this made the notes almost payable on demand and thus not solving the problem of the Council's lack of finance, the Southland Executive had decided to make the notes payable 90 days after issue.
On the face of the notes it was stated they were 'Payable at the Treasury, Invercargill'.

Most serious was the paper's accusation that the Southland Provincial Council was planning to embark on a deliberate attempt to mislead the public with its Treasury Notes. 'The bills, or what ever else they may be called', it said, 'are a fraud-a palpable fraud. By making them assume the appearance of bank notes, they are likely to be taken by the unwary as such; but as far as what they purport to be is concerned they are utterly useless.'
The Southland Treasury had no legal liability for the payment of the notes if issued as they had never been sanctioned by law, and would circulate merely as the personal promissory note of whoever signed them. It is no wonder, then, that the Otago Daily Times called them the 'Southland Shinplasters'.

The paper urged Southland not to issue the notes, for such an action would 'be regarded with the utmost hostility not only in Otago but throughout New Zealand' and would destroy completely any credit-worthiness New Zealand provinces might enjoy in London.

The Dunedin paper's revelations shocked Southlanders whose first reactions were of disbelief, for they had had no previous knowledge of the Treasury Notes. The Southland Treasurer, W. F. Tarlton, denied all allegations of potential fraud, and defended the printing of the notes in large quantities as a statesman-like precaution against a possible financial problem. The Southland Council he stated thought the notes 'possibly might be useful, but they never entertained the question of actually issuing them'.

But the public were not convinced. It appears fairly probable that the Southland Treasury Notes would have been issued except for the Otago Daily Times' premature announcement and criticism, and particularly because of its warning that no Bank would accept the Treasury notes for any reason whatsoever. With the notes suspect as to their worth even before issue, any attempt at circulation by the Council would have proved useless.

The member of the Southland Executive who had ordered the notes in Dunedin became the scapegoat for the whole sorry affair, and Beaven resigned from the Executive after only a few months in office. Thus ended the plans for a Provincial paper currency in Southland. But the problems remained, and threatened bankruptcy forced the reunion of Southland with Otago in 1870.

Thus, the action of the Otago Daily Times brought to an end the possibility of establishing an economically independent and prosperous Province within the country. The story of that newspaper's origin and its infamous owner is told by A.N. Field in The Truth About New Zealand (1939)

. . . A rising star in the political firmament at this time was Mr Julius Vogel, a journalist who had formed one of the numerous company of Jews which flocked into New Zealand following on the discovery of gold in 1861. Establishing in Dunedin the colony's first daily newspaper, Mr Vogel presently entered politics, and by 1869 was Colonial Treasurer, succeeding to the Premiership in 1873 and holding office for three years. Friendly relations existed between Mr Russell [Auckland lawyer, moneylender, founder of the Bank of NZ and Minister of Defence 1863-64] and Mr Vogel, warm discussion taking place in Parliament in consequence of the Premier's unannounced departure for England in company with Mr Russell in 1874.

Mr Vogel was on the opposite side from Mr Whitaker [Russell's business partner], and from 1869 to 1890 when one was out of Cabinet the other was commonly in. "Mr Bridges, in his evidence in 1875 just referred to, said that for a period of years up to 1873 when he resigned the Wellington managership of the Bank of New Zealand, Mr Vogel had had a private account with the bank there, with an overdraft limit of £200, and that "frequently", "much more than five or six times a year" as far as he could remember, the limit would be reached, and the indebtedness thereupon wiped out by transfer to the head office of the bank at Auckland.
The bank sent a letter to the Parliamentary Committee saying there was nothing improper in this as Mr Vogel had another account at Auckland; but it presented no evidence, nor did the Committee re-examine Mr Bridges, whose charges it affirmed to be "absolutely unwarranted and without foundation" - the usual termination of Parliamentary inquiries touching the Bank of New Zealand .

The law with respect to the sale of the confiscated Maori lands after the war laid it down that they must be offered at public auction at an upset price of 5s. per acre. In 1876 the Vogel Government in face of this law obligingly permitted Mr Russell and some of his banking friends to purchase the Piako block of over 80,000 acres, privately and without competition, for 2s. 6d. per acre, the transaction taking place after the Government had decided to build a railway through the middle of the block.

"The Patatere block of about 250,000 acres, south of the Piako, was presently acquired by Messrs. Whitaker and Russell on similarly inexpensive terms, and in 1882 floated off into the Auckland Agricultural Company, nominal capital £800,000. A South Island provincial newspaper proprietor who had the audacity to refer to this transaction in his journal as "another swindle", was summoned to the bar of Parliament and also sued for libel by Mr Whitaker, the jury unkindly returning a verdict for the defendant newspaper.

"Either Mr Jones ought to be placed in gaol or I should be turned out of Parliament," said Mr Whitaker. Neither event transpired.

"Mr Russell also floated another large block of 150,000 acres, east of the Piako, into the Thames Valley Land Company, nominal capital £500,000. "These ventures by no means exhausted the interests of the partners. Mr Russell at the time of founding the bank had also played a leading part in the important New Zealand Insurance Company. He and Mr Whitaker were interested in some 13,000 acres of coal bearing land later floated off into the Waikato Coal Company. Extensive Whitaker interests in gold-bearing land at the Thames, and in timber properties, became the subject of acrid debate in Parliament.

"Second only to the bank itself in importance was the great New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company formed by Mr Russell in 1864 with a share capital of half a million, and with about two million more raised by selling 4% debentures to widows, spinsters, clergymen, etc., in England, the money so obtained being loaned to farmers in New Zealand at from 8 to 10%, according to statements in Parliament. The company was formed to take over the accounts of farmers who had got so deeply into the books of the bank as to have small chance of ever getting off again. These loan companies held security over their farmer-debtors' possessions, sold their produce, and supplied their farm and household needs, paying over such cash balances as might remain from time to time after deduction of charges levied at their discretion and interest compounded as often as the law allowed. Farmers who got into the hands of such concerns were apt to find themselves there for life.

"Within a few years of its establishment about half the banking in New Zealand was done by the Bank of New Zealand, and its offspring the loan company had farmers and sheep-station owners in its debt from end to end of the colony. Criticism of the doings of the bank was heard from time to time in Parliament in the first thirty years of its existence, numerous inquiries were held, but invariably the result was the same - complete exoneration of the bank and the Government of the day. Now and then even the docile Government majority on a Parliamentary inquiry would timorously add a rider that although everything under inquiry was perfectly proper, it was highly desirable that the same thing should never be done again. Evidence was tendered at times showing the charges levied by the bank for operating the Government account as of an exorbitant character, and alleging that the other banks were never given opportunity to tender for the account on level terms.

"When the Bank of New Zealand, potent dispenser to industry of the means of payment, desired a particular course of action to be followed, Parliament was seldom prepared to say it nay. An early instance of its power was in the consolidation of the provincial loans in 1867. Floated at heavy discounts and almost unmarketable, it was felt that these loans were an injury to the credit of the colony. The Government had no responsibility for the loans, but decided to get them out of the way by buying up the scrip at market price, finding the money for the purpose by sale of Government stock.

"Mr Russell appeared before the Parliamentary Committee considering the Bill, and presented it with another Bill, which new Bill was duly reported back to the House and passed into law. The new Bill gave all holders of provincial stock new Government stock to the face value of their provincial stock, the Government stock being marketable at £106, and the provincial down to £80 and less. Mr Russell admitted that he represented bondholders of upwards of £400,000, and the profit made by the bank out of this transaction was estimated at from £50,000 to £100,000. Although hotly denounced by a minority in Parliament as a fraud on the colony and robbery of the taxpayers, the Bill went through as desired by the bank.

"Mr Saunders in his history quotes Mr Fox, who was several times Premier, as saying of this enactment of the Stafford Government: "How it was done under the influence of a certain bank deeply interested in the result, and by threatened expulsion from office of certain members of the Legislature, is a matter of history, and little credit to the Government which forced the Act through the Assembly by such illegitimate means."

"A book might be filled with details from the Public records of the numerous specific allegations of misuse by the bank of its financial power to the public prejudice. Sir George Grey, living in retirement in the colony after his second Governorship, entered politics in 1874 at the request of the people of Auckland to resist the Vogel policies, and spiritedly denounced bank control of politics. In Parliament the next year he said, with reference to a certain incident: "I believe, for reasons which I shall presently show, that it would be actually in the power of one wealthy establishment in New Zealand to have any person they chose sent out here as Governor who would be likely to support their interests."
Sir George Grey had been five times Governor in various parts of the Empire, and knew what he was talking about.

"Speaking in Parliament in 1883 during Mr Whitaker's second Premiership, Sir George Grey said: 'I conscientiously believe that two or three great establishments, all really under one directorate, do exercise in the Legislature of this country an undoubted and dangerous influence. I sincerely believe that the existing Government is maintained in its place by these bodies. . . I say that even among the voters it will be a long time before that independence can come about which ought to prevail, because I fear many of them are in some manner entangled with engagements which will place them at the mercy of those persons who rule those different great bodies of which I speak. I go further and say - and in saying this I know, of course, that I create, and must create, a great many enemies - I firmly believe that the same persons by monetary influence control a great portion of the press.

'One great central power in New Zealand oppresses it from end to end. That central power is moved by the Premier, and the Premier is the solicitor of these great moneyed corporations. Is it just? Does it give the people of New Zealand a fair chance? Is it not hard for a man to know that if he cried for justice some debt upon his estate may be made the cause of his ruin instantly? Is it right for us to feel degraded by knowing that such is the case here?. . . As long as this continues I see no hope for ourselves or our country.' ". . .

In 1870 New Zealand, at the insistence of Mr Vogel, embarked on its policy of systematic annual borrowing in London for public works purposes, which policy sixty years later enabled international finance to dictate to its Parliament the establishment of a Reserve Bank and a Mortgage Corporation as parts of a twin network of world control.

"Mr Vogel dazzled the colony with a proposal to borrow ten million over a period of ten years. Three-quarters of this sum was to be spent on building 1500 miles of trunk railways, a million on miscellaneous works, and a million and a half on immigration. In addition it was proposed that two and a half million acres of undeveloped Crown lands to be opened up by the proposed railways should be set aside as an endowment to help largely to defray the cost by ultimate enhancement in value.

"At the time these proposals were made New Zealand had a population of a quarter of a million, already laden with eight million of Government debt absorbing a third of the public revenues in interest charges; and the individual colonists were also largely conducting their affairs on borrowed money.

"Although a few far-seeing men protested against the entire scheme as a snare and delusion, parliament swallowed it - hook, bait, line and sinker - by 45 votes to 7 against. To quiet criticism, Mr Vogel announced his readiness to modify his proposals in detail provided their "broad features" were retained. The event showed that the chief broad features to which importance was attached were: (1) borrowing money, and (2) spending the proceeds. The schedule of trunk railways to be built was detailed in expounding the scheme, but was completely absent from the legislation enacted, and the land endowment (a great talking point) was left an optional matter of which nothing more was ever heard in a practical way.

"At the end of the ten years twenty million had been borrowed, instead of the projected ten, and about a thousand miles of railways had been built, part of it unprofitable branch lines constructed for political vote-catching purposes. Today [1939] some of the listed trunk railways still remain incomplete, but this has not prevented the public debt from climbing up to £200 million.

"Having got his loan authority, Mr Vogel packed his bag and departed for London next year to supervise flotation operations. Although New Zealand stock was quoted at par at this time, colonists were somewhat surprised to find the Treasurer had been obliged to float his loan at a discount of four per cent. Another surprise was a bill by the Colonial Treasurer for £3163 for travelling expenses in addition to salary: it was noted that Mr Vogel had done himself extremely well while abroad, sporting a carriage and pair with footmen in livery carrying wands, and living in "regal grandeur," as a country member put it.

"In 1873 Mr Vogel became Premier, and a few days after the close of the session of 1874, without any announcement to Parliament of his intention, he suddenly departed for England again, this time in company with his friend Mr Russell of the Bank of New Zealand. Arriving in London, Mr Vogel took the business of loan flotation right out of the hands of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, and despite their emphatic protests at the unwisdom of the course, traded away to his co-religionists, the Messrs. Rothschild, £4,000,000 of New Zealand 4 and a half per cent stock at a discount of £352,000.

Immediately following on this financial feat Mr Vogel was rewarded with a knighthood in recognition of his public services. He did not return to the colony for sixteen months, recuperating from his exertions at the Continental casinos of Hamburg and Wiesbaden. The bill presented to Parliament for this unauthorised excursion was £8390 for travelling expenses, on top of salary. After a considerable amount of very plain speaking, Parliament slashed off £2750 from the total, to the intense disgust of the honourable gentleman.

"Half the proceeds from the four million loan (after Messrs. Rothschild had finished with it) as placed on deposit in Mr Russell's Bank of New Zealand, not being wanted for some considerable time to come, the interest payable on the deposit being 2 and a half per cent., a rate equal to little more than half what the colony was paying on the money was actually received. The Crown Agents again irritated the Premier by telling him that they considered it grossly improper to place nearly two million of public money on unsecured deposit in a bank with a capital of no more than £600,000.

"By 1876 Vogelism had resulted in the annual charges on the public debt swallowing up about two-thirds of the revenue, and bankruptcy was imminent. Sir Julius Vogel saved the situation by abolishing the provincial system of local government, and seizing the provincial revenue from the sale and rental of Crown lands to balance his budget. Thus the soil itself was being sold to keep the public creditor quiet.

"In place of the nine provinces a multitude of small counties was created, the number gradually increasing to over a hundred. These counties were too small to stand on their own feet financially and had to be spoonfed with annual Government grants. This immensely increased the Government power of patronage, and members of Parliament thereafter became largely canvassers for annual grants from loan moneys for works in their districts. It became a recognised thing that constituencies returning Government members had first claim to the plums in the annual free-for-all in scattering around the latest London loan. A member's value to a district was rated by what he brought home from the scramble.

"From an early date the annual interest bill began to climb up towards a level with the annual new loan, and inspection of the two sides of the account shows that by about 1885 - fifteen years after its inception - all benefits from the Vogel public works borrowing policy had expired. As much thereafter was paid away on an average in interest as was gained by new borrowings. During the past half century the country has simply been borrowing money to pay the interest on what it was owing before. In other words, the public debt had been compounding, and in this way rose from about £30 million in 1885 to £290 million today. If we had owed nothing in 1885 we could have paid cash for everything the Government has borrowed money for from that day to this, and we would have required less taxation - for we would have cut out all the waste of money in loan flotation costs, conversions and renewals, and the other charges which come thick and fast around moneylending transactions. As it is we have hung £290 million of debt around our necks for very much less than £30 million of benefit, for even while we were borrowing that £30 million about half that sum or more had flowed away in debt charges prior to 1885.

"New Zealand's Parliament did its very worst day's work in its history when it listened to the blandishments of Sir Julius Vogel.

"While these operations were proceeding in far-away New Zealand, international finance was busy in its larger field. With the inflow of gold from California and Australia after 1850, world prices from commodities were given a great lift upwards. The financiers held a conference in Paris in 1867 to consider the position. They decided to mop up the extra gold by putting all countries on gold standard money. As this work proceeded prices went on another great downward slant, ultimately reaching their lowest point in the whole nineteenth century in 1896.

"By 1880 the fall in produce prices had pricked the bubble of the borrowed money boom in New Zealand. A most fortunate thing for the colony was that at about this date refrigeration enabled it to begin to export frozen meat and later dairy produce to London to help raise more money to pay its swollen interest bills. However, even a staunch Conservative like Mr Rolleston was telling Parliament as early as 1882 that the only alternative he saw before the farmers was to be either the tenants of the moneylenders or the tenants of the Crown. By 1885 another South Island member was asking in Parliament, "Sir, when I go through the country and see farm after farm with not a soul on it except an agent of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company, am I to say settlement is progressing in Canterbury and Otago?
In the same year one finds statements that not one businessman in fifty was making money and most losing their capital. Land became unsalable, the towns full of unemployed, and there was an exodus from the colony. . ."

The Truth About New Zealand by Arthur N. Field is essential reading.
Within just a few pages the reader begins to realise how deplorably incomplete is the normal appreciation of New Zealand's history. Field himself ought to be regarded as one of our foremost historians. In 1931, during the height of the Great Depression, he published The Truth About the Slump which quickly ran to seven editions and was the country's best-seller. It was quoted around the world for its brilliant exposure of the men behind high finance and their interconnections with Bolshevism. The Truth About the Slump is presently unavailable except for occasional secondhand copies becoming available. However, we are able to supply copies of the 1987, third edition of The Truth About New Zealand which originally appeared in serial form in 1939 in Field's magazine, The Examiner.
The Truth About New Zealand runs to 171 pages and is well indexed. In consideration of the benefits of the wide circulation of this book we are able to offer the following discounted prices: 1 copy $15; 2 copies $25; 3 copies $30; 6 copies $50. Prices include postage.

* * *

Books Against the New World "Dis"-Order

Following the campaign against the atrocious Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the protests against the World Bank at Seattle and the growing realisation that Globalism equals social destruction and chaos a number of excellent books have emerged. Amongst the titles we have are: Australia 2000: What Will we Tell Our Children by Jeremy Lee. $25 posted. The Global Trap by Martin and Schumann $35. The Trap by Sir James Goldsmith $20.

We have received a catalogue of books on "environmental politics" from Zed Books, 7 Cynthia St, London N1 9JF. It lists some excellent new titles including Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply by Vandana Shiva. £11.50 Naming the Enemy: Anti-Corporate Social Movements Confront Globalisation by Amory Starr, £15.00 Redesigning Life: The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering, edited by Brian Tokar, £14.00 Brave new Seeds: The Threat of GM Crops to Farmers by Robert Perriere and Frank Seuret, £9.00
From the Ground Up: Rethinking Industrial Agriculture by Helena Hodge, Peter Georing and John page, £10.00 A catalogue can be ordered from the above address or; Ph. 0044- 20 7837 4014, Fax 0044- 20 7833 3960. Email:

These books are priced to include postage within the UK so a little extra may be required for overseas. They are all discounted from the regular retail price. A particularly interesting title from Zed Books is Selling the Work Ethic: From Puritan Pulpit to Corporate PR by Sharon Beder from the University of Wollongong, for £14.00. Social Crediters can relate to this theme.

The blurb reads: "Work and production have become ends in themselves. Material affluence is accompanied by increasing levels of stress, insecurity, depression, crime and drug taking. Escalating production and consumption are destroying the environment. . . Yet people are so concerned to keep their jobs that they are willing to do what their employers require of them even if they believe it is wrong or environmentally destructive. . . the social benefit of having the majority of able-bodied people in a society working hard all week goes unquestioned, particularly by those who work hardest. Few people today can imagine a society that does not revolve around work. How did paid work come to be so central to our lives? Why is it that so many people wouldn't know what to do with themselves or who they were if they did not have their jobs? ". . . Prompted by her conviction that humanity needs to unlearn and change these powerfully held but now pathological values if we are to reverse the declining quality of life in industrial society, Dr Beder illustrates the impasse we are now in."

* * *

Ian Wishart"s New Book Beating Big Brother: How People Power Turned Off the TV Tax!, is Ian Wishart's new book. Wishart is the TV presenter turned investigative reporter and best-selling author. His monthly Investigate magazine is widely read. Beating Big Brother tells of the long but successful campaign to have the TV license tax removed. It is the encouraging story of what a handful of brave individuals, once they get the backing of the wider community, can achieve. The book sells for $24.95 and is available from most book shops. We do not stock it.

* * *

Briefly: Properly directed and well organised public pressure does count. A handful of New Zealnders being threatened with substantial court fines won their case against the old TV licensing fee. They had simply refused to pay. They primarily won because several hundred thousand other New Zealander were also not paying the fee, which ended up making prosecution a farce.

Most British supermarkets now refuse to stock genetically modified food as a result of pressure from their customers. Nestle, the global food Nestle, has promised not to use GE products. Nestle's New Zealand subsidiary initially said it was not affected by the mother company's decision and would not go along with the ban. After protests outside its headquarters in Newmarket, Auckland, it quickly relented. Even the giant McDonald's chain announced late last year it would be seeking non-GE food for its stores. Perhaps what is so significant is how quickly the monopolists back down when their profits or public image may get damaged.

In the last 24 hours of his Presidency Bill Clinton pardoned 140 people for various illegal offences. Prosecutors are investigating financial connections Clinton and his wife had with some of those pardoned. The US government acts as the world's policeman, imposing the policies of the new world "dis"-order (which means the policies wanted by the global financiers and conglomerates). Any system that allows its political leader to provide such pardons is hardly in a position to impose good on other nations.

The renewed violence in Israel late last year is mostly described by major media commentators as a type of tit-for-tat between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The lie in this is that on one side is a modern government with one of the best equipped armies in the world, including nuclear bombs; one the other an impoverished and disinherited ethnic group. Even in the Palestinian areas of the West Bank the Israelis have a heavy police presence. When a Jewish bus is blown up sadly injuring and killing young children, it is assumed that a Palestinian group must be guilty, which may be the case. But the bus was parked and operated in the Jewish Israeli area of the West Bank - an area which it must be most difficult for any Palestinians to get into. Anyone suggesting that independent investigators be employed to seek the truth would be dismissed as "anti-Semitic".

A prankster made idiots out of modern art "experts" by painting a piece of scrap wood white, labelling it Millennium Dawn and snatching first prize in a prestigious contest! - Keith Armstrong, 64, says he organized the practical joke after visiting the new Tate Gallery of Modern Art in London. He looked at the priceless pieces and thought they were "rubbish." So he set out to prove his point. The teacher found a 4 by 3 foot plywood board in a door factory's garbage can and took it home. "It took me two minutes to paint it," he laughs. But when he entered his creation in the University of Nottingham's Djanogly Art Gallery contest, the esteemed judges didn't find it funny. In fact, they took it very seriously. They chose Armstrong's "masterpiece" over 600 other entries and even called it "an abstract sculptural piece of work." The "artist" won US$240. Point made. "I am appalled at what is being passed off as "art", steams the jokester. "Dead sheep floating in formaldehyde, unmade beds, and 'artistically arranged' house bricks are blatant gimmicks, aimed at the media and misguided art experts." (source: National Examiner, US, 5-9-2000)

Fifteen years ago a lad was strapped in an Australian Catholic school for being overheard describing his teacher as a "black bastard". Now a court has ruled that the "victim", today aged 30, should get some financial compensation for the trauma and alleged physical impediment (this not backed up with medical evidence but still accepted by the court). The court says the punishment of five hits was fair but excessive. The damages - nearly Aust$3million. We first thought this was a joke penned by a bored journalist, but no it's for real. We have no further comment as words fail us.

Government housing authorities are wanting to build "new style" high rise housing. Except where these are luxury units with owners able to escape frequently, they are a significant cause of madness and social breakdown. Will the experts never learn?

* * *

The Social Credit School of Studies

Mr Henry Raynel announces that enrolments are still being accepted for this year's course. The course runs over 12 months - March to February. While this is essentially a correspondence course, students in the upper North Island are encouraged to attend the monthly course meetings. As well as allowing students to meet each other, this allows questions and the course subjects to be dealt with more adequately. This is an invaluable training course, covering the philosophy of freedom and the nature of a correct relationship between government and the individual (i.e. the individual and the group). It also covers the basics of a correct money system in this age of labour-replacing technology and automation and how the proposed national dividend would work. Considering the enormous input from the tutors the course costs are minimal, mostly to cover the cost of the text books. We seriously recommend that those genuinely interested in freedom consider the course. While dedication is required the amount of time needed, spread over a year, is not considerable. Enquiries and requests for application forms need to be directed to Mr H Raynel, 120 Litten Rd, Howick, Auckland. Tel. 09-537 0094. Email henryraynel@actrix.gen

Who are we? On Target is printed and published bi-monthly by the New Zealand League of Rights, in association with it's division, Conservative Books. Editor is Bill Daly. Yearly subscription $20.00. All enquiries, book orders and subscriptions to: P.O. Box 12-752, Penrose, Auckland. Phone 09- 236 3285. Fax 09- 236 3297

Our policies . To promote loyalty to the Christian revelation of God, to New Zealand's Constitutional Monarchy, and maximum co-operation between subjects of the Crown Commonwealth of nations.
. To defend the free society and its institutions - private property, consumer control of production through genuine competitive enterprise, and limited, decentralised government.
. To promote financial policies which will reduce taxation, eliminate debt, and make possible material security for all with greater leisure time for cultural activities.
. To oppose all forms of monopoly, whether described as public or private.
. To encourage the election of genuine political representatives and the responsible use of the vote.
. To support all policies genuinely concerned with conserving and protecting natural resources, including the soil, and an environment reflecting the natural (God's) laws, against policies of rape and waste.
. To oppose all policies eroding national sovereignty, and to promote a closer relationship among the peoples of the Crown Commonwealth and the United States of America, who share a common heritage.