|
 "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke |
|
|
| . |
. | . |
. | . |
On Target New Zealand |
|
'Myth' history is the product of men's minds, whereby
reality' is overlaid by fancies, imaginings and suppositions. . . True
history is rooted in two factors - the common man and finance. The orthodox
historian knows neither. . . History to be effective must be realistic'.
To be effective it must start with the individual. 'Myth' history never
does this, but deals with useless abstractions and accepts illusions
which obscure the truth. It leaves out of account the factors which
alone produce events, which are chiefly man operating through his mental
mechanism and that pressure which derives from financial domination."
- Thomas Robertson, in Human Ecology: The Science of Social Adjustment (1948) |
|
Vol. 24, No. 1. January-February 2002.
Our Future : Collectivised Dictatorship or a Society Where People
Matter?
. . . No matter how seemingly foolproof the theory behind a union (business
merger), it may come unstuck when confronted by everyday practicalities
such as differing companies cultures or a history of intense rivalry.
Normally, shareholders suffer the unfortunate consequences. But in the
case of a company such as Fonterra, a malfunctioning merger bodes ill
for the whole country. . .' (editorial, New Zealand Herald 22-1-02)
Fonterra is the new diary company now controlling about 99 percent
of New Zealand¹s milk marketing and distribution. It is the forth largest
milk company in the world, and with New Zealand now the second largest
diary producer after the United States, there are huge stakes for large
numbers of farmers and the rest of the country. The big is best ideal
has been preached ad infinitum for decades, but particularly since the
1960s. Then, farmers and businesses facing difficulties were told they
were too small. University trained economists and bankers, career politicians
and a variety of ladder climbers have encouraged and overseen in a period
of less than 40 years the loss of thousands of farmers and a host of
smaller businesses that used to manufacture a wide variety of things
now imported. Fifty years ago New Zealand¹s countryside was littered with little
diary factories. Some specialised in town milk supply, others in cheese
or butter. Many little towns were dependent on them, and the employees
and farmers were often friends. More modern transport systems may have
justified some amalgamations, perhaps. But that is not what has happened.
The process probably goes back to the methods adopted by the first
Labour government with its solution to the devastating situation during
the 1930s Great Depression. With its election in the mid-1930s the new
government sensibly made available huge amounts of credit, the process
being administered by the then new Reserve Bank. Commodity boards were
established or strengthened, including the Diary Board. Many farmers
benefited with guaranteed prices offered, the wiping off of some debt,
and a guaranteed market organised by the new boards which had access
to Reserve Bank credit at 1 percent rates of interest. Unknown by nearly
everyone today is that 1 percent loans were also available to assist
local bodies. The money never came from taxes. It was new credit made
available from the Reserve Bank. The private banks did not then have
the complete monopoly over money creation as they now do. No matter whether it is done in the name of socialism or capitalism,
centralisation results in collectivism; the individual is lost in the
maze of marketing, markets, turnovers, statistics, projections and profits.
The little diary factory of 1960 and the little dairy farmer had a certain
kind of relationship. No matter how pleasant the management of a massive
company may be the problems of one little diary farmer and whether he
survives can never be of much concern, if it is even noticed.
Following the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917, first Lenin,
then Stalin, adopted collectivised five year plans. The stated objectives
of increased production were never reached. Production always plummeted.
But the objective of disenfranchising the old sturdy peasant farming
communities was certainly achieved. Stalin knew that the Collectivist
State would always be under threat if a section of the population, particularly
those of the countryside and smaller towns, remained independent.
What was achieved in Soviet Russia at the point of a bayonet is being
gradually achieved in the developed world by a process of gradualism.
With the monopolisation of food distribution and processing in the United
States has come the corporate farmer, farming huge acreages with modern
machinery and itinerant labour. When he survives another year he is
encouraged to carry on, perhaps hoping his fortune lies in taking on
even more land. The huge increase in the number of farms converting to dairying is
being achieved with massive increases in debt. The cost of purchasing
a farm, building a modern milking shed and establishing a herd can cost
several million dollars. Presently this is sustainable, at least for
most. But what of a future decrease in returns, even a small decrease?
Large numbers of farmers could not sustain even a small decrease in
incomes. The low value of the NZ dollar is about all that sustains much
of the diary industry.
The process of monopolisation, the get big or get out disease, has
created the scenario for a big catastrophe. If there had been management
problems in a little diary factory in 1960 it may have potentially effected
a few dozen people. Now it potentially effects tens of thousands, if
not hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. The long term answer does
not lie in hoping or praying that Fonterra's management get along well;
that's akin to slaves hoping for a kind foreman. The long term answer
lies in a complete reappraisal of the function of a society and its
production system. If these don't exist for the sake of individuals
then we are clearly on the wrong road. New Zealand is one of the smallest countries of the developed world.
It has ample infrastructure and resources. We are a long way from the
major power centres of the world. We are in a unique position to take
a more independent approach, to re-examine the globalist agenda and
our role, and to re-establish some sovereignty. One thing is certain,
globalisation and monopolisation are not the answer. They will lead
with certainty to increasing disaster. There is an interesting development in the world. As globalisation
advances there is a small and yet barely recognised, but nevertheless,
well established movement to re-establish and rebuild at the local level.
There is an array of books and magazines, internet sites, groups and
alternative money schemes. Some are floundering and others doing well.
How much spirit and will and commonsense we have may be the real determining
factors in the future of New Zealand. Will we be a monopolised play-thing
for globalised elites or will we discover the ingredients that once
made England merrie?
* * *
Determining usury contracts
In a no interest contract there is always the risk for both partners.
If the risk factor is all on one side, the church determined whether
it was a usury or non-usury contract. The usury contract makes one side
risk-free and eventually ruins the borrower as it was designed to do.
The non-interest contract shares the risk. Both parties rise or fall
together. This is one of the oldest rules of Canon Law in determining
whether a contract was a usury contract "equal risk" "No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created
it." Albert Einstein.
* * *
What If?
TV One recently ran a several part BBC production designed to show
how a small group of modern Britons might survive when placed in a specially
prepared iron age village. As to be expected the transition from a world
of CDs, cars and cell phones wasn't easy, but eventually the seven week
stint provided enough challenge and interest for most of those involved
to settle into the changes. It was interesting to see the sort of technologies
available (or believed to be available) to our ancestors of that period.
Artifacts prove that people of Britain of those times had a good working
knowledge of iron, and many skills related to fishing, construction,
fencing, farming and the cooking and preserving of food. If the BBC producers had involved a modern economist as an adviser
in establishing how the villagers might organise themselves he is likely
to have suggested that they must produce more than they needed for their
own requirements. This surplus must then be exported to another village,
or to a village in France or Germany. The villagers should have very
little free time. They must be constantly busy developing more productive
farming, fishing, mining and smelting methods. Mothers must work at
making exportable products for at least eight hours of each day, besides
raising their children which is a much less important task, says the
economist. The amount of land commanded by the village must be continually
expanded, the economist would advice, least another village claim it,
and gain an 'economic advantage'.
Other economists would be advising the other villages to pursue the
same policy, which would be called 'sound economics'. If competition
became fierce, the economist would have advised that economy must be
practised. The more surplus food in existence, the more economy there
would be required. Each villager must consume less so there is more
for exporting.
Hopefully the real villagers of earlier Britain would have laughed
themselves silly at such proposals, and sensibly pointed out that not
only would there have been little fun in being constantly busy, but
it would have lead to villagers and countries going to war with each
other. The economist would have said that war, while sad because of
the loss of lives, would still have been better than having no war at
all. War would provide the opportunity for more exports, in the form
of rocks being catapulted at other villages, while providing the perfect
excuse for physically preventing other villages from trying to export
to them. War would also provide full employment for everyone making
lots of catapults. And full employment is good says the economist. Anyone
asking why would be screamed at and accused of being a Neanderthal troglodyte
reactionary incapable of facing up to 'modern realities'.
The health of the village economy would be measured in how many catapults
were manufactured in a given period. Time and motion studies could be
done to ensure everyone was engaged in maximum production. The most
successful village would be the one where no one was idle even for a
minute. Until the war crisis was over, and the problems of trade solved,
socialising and music playing would have to be limited to one evening
each month. The size of each house would have to be restricted so that
more land was available for export production. Patriotic villagers would
be encouraged to hang signs saying 'full employment' and 'produce for
export' above their front doors.
The village chief would have to be deposed, maybe even killed, because
he was a reminder of the bad old days. Political parties would be established
that competed as to who could maintain the highest quantity of exports,
maximise 'employment opportunities' and best plan the maximum destruction
of enemy villages. After the execution of a couple of the village's
reactionary religious leaders a new priest would preach that full employment
was essential for the salvation of souls. After all, the devil makes
work for idle hands, he would constantly remind his tired flock. But
fortunately the BBC producers didn't employ any establishment economic
advisors. To be fair we know that the modern professional economist
is the lacky of the banker. Without the debt money system few people
would be persuaded by the arguments of the economist.
* *
'You can prove anything with figures; and reason can lead you anywhere;
but if you've got a real strong feeling about something, deep-seated
and unshakable, it is bound to be right.' * *
Imagination, Money and You Sancho Panza once had a dream of a world so far away, that it appeared
no larger than a mustard seed, and this world had millions of people
inhabiting it which he observed going about their business, though they
were each but the size of a peppercorn. To all inquiries as to how,
as a peppercorn is larger than a mustard seed, millions the size of
the former could be observed as part of the latter, he could but humbly
reply that he had no idea of why this was, but could only say what he
saw. The difficulty is that nobody else has ever been able to imagine
what Sancho could so clearly describe.
But imagination is not only confined by Sancho's lonely ability to
transcend relativity. Fashion too, plays its part. In the 19th century
almost nobody could imagine a world without private property. During
the 20th century, for a time, hundreds of millions dreamed of little
else. Because men will insist upon having an explanation for everything
in terms of environmental pressures, we always have them ready to hand.
So why was it in the 1700's that Englishmen wore stovepipe hats? The
weather? A lack of storage space elsewhere? It beggars all imagination
now. Which brings us to the severe limitations of imagination.
Only the unimaginative can believe themselves capable of imagining
everything they so choose. The rise of objective observation in science
has inclined us to see imagination as an undisciplined process, in which
reality is open-ended and limitless. This is not the case.
Imagining New Things
For about eighty years now, a few people have been imagining a way
in which society might be both richer, and more stable and secure for
everyone. Bemused, they have made an enormous effort to understand everything
about what they're suggesting, they've tried to get the rest of us to
understand it too. And it hasn't worked. This is a pity, because we're
all interested. They've been a bit like motor mechanics, lawyers or
dentists, trying to give better service by getting us all to understand
their improved methods. It would be foolish of professionals to attempt
this, of course. But sometimes it's hard to avoid.
About one hundred and fifty years ago, the idea of old age pensions
came along. A handful of people in Government could have organised old
age pensions immediately, but because a large number of people, and
politics, were involved, it took about fifty years to have the idea
accepted. Some ideas only need one person to do them. An Imaginative Experiment
If you can imagine a non-violent experiment in which you are the guinea
pig, perhaps you can help us all. We are trying to discover whether
a particular desirable reform is possible. You will never be required
to fully understand it. After much work you may, if you wish, I suppose,
but it's not worth considering just now. This idea involves distributing
new money creations in a different way. If it has a name; perhaps it's
"a democratic money system', or "social credit", but the world
hasn't made up its mind what to call it yet. The hypothesis we're working
upon is as follows: So to the difficult part. Just imagine it. Imagine what? Here we must
ask for as little as is enough. This requires realism. We need to imagine
something, which is the lowest common imaginable denominator. But from
the conclusions of which there is no imaginable escape, if we are to
recruit inevitably. From here on it's easier. We are all merely the
handmaidens of history.
Imagination Number One
Imagine you lived in a country where every single year for a hundred
years, there was always more money at the end of each year than there
was at the beginning. Imagine that during this 100 years there were
severe depressions and wild booms, bitter wars and much peace, cruel
droughts and good seasons too. . . but always, absolutely always, at
the end of each year, we always had more money than we started it with.
Now open your eyes. You've found it. If you live in Australia, New Zealand,
or Canada, or Britain, or the USA, or France, or any first world country,
or in most of the others also, your country is it.
Take the following figures for an eight-year period in Australia as
an example: Money in Existence (in billions) At 30th June Existing -
Annual Increase Taking a sample, the 1996-1997 increase was $31 billion. This is approximately
$1,800 per Australian, and over $7,000 per family of four
. Imagination Number Two This time it's harder. Let's try to imagine where the $7,000 per family
came from in 1996-1997. Imagine you're looking under the bed at your
place - and there it is, all $7,000. Now imagine your friends, one by
one, and they're looking under their beds too and, Hey Presto! Their
households have each discovered $7,000 also. Imagine all the households
in Australia. . . . Before we go any further, unfortunately, we need
to remind ourselves that the objective is to imagine where the $7,000
came from. How did the $31 billion get under our beds? What we will
need to imagine here, is the miraculous conception of money. Now, I
find this very hard to do. And even when I do, somehow, envisage the
spontaneous materialisation of money in space and time, and then open
my eyes, it's never there. So I can't be sure that I really did imagine
it. It's like this when you imagine it growing on trees, too!
So let's "get real" about this imagining.
Imagine a vast building, full of printing presses, that are thundering
away, and imagine it's called a Mint, and imagine that trucks are being
loaded with printed and coined money and taking it to banks around the
country for distribution. Now open your eyes and scratch around in your
pockets. So where did I put that $7,000 - must have had a heavy night?
If you're lucky you'll probably find at least some evidence that it
was there once; a few scraps remaining. We're getting better at imagining,
aren't we?
Now look at some facts: Currency (Notes and Coins) in Existence (in
billions) The 1996-1997 increase was only $A1 billion. So we've still got to
imagine how the other $30 billion came into existence. Lest the imagination
boggle into overload, a little direction is helpful. Let's try imagining
that your neighbours to the north and south are having a conversation
in your presence. Mr. South mentions that he is putting his motor vehicle
up for sale. Mr. North responds that he is interested in purchasing
it, but that he will first need to speak to his banker for a loan. Later
he informs you that the loan has been granted and you adjust yourself
to the familiar vehicle going into the wrong driveway. Now just imagine
that the postman brings your monthly bank statement. You open it up
and immediately see a debit for $20,000. You know you haven't spent
any such amount. You ring your banker in outrage. Your banker says,
"Well, you know that a bank's business is lending its deposits
out at interest" "Well, yes," you say. "But what has this
got to do with $20,000 of my money disappearing?" "Well, this time,
we've decided to lend out your deposit," says the banker. "Your neighbour
wanted a loan." "No way! You put my money back immediately!" you bellow,
"or I'll take my money to another bank! " Your banker is patient. He
has this every day when he makes a loan. "Try to be reasonable," he
says. "We've considered your interests in this. We could have lent your
deposit to a perfect stranger, but we know you're friendly with Mr.
North, and our bank likes to personalise our service. Personal service
is our motto. Don't you trust your neighbour? You know he's a good chap.
So isn't this a perfectly good arrangement?" "I can't imagine anything
worse!" you roar. "And furthermore. I'm taking my deposit to another
bank". "That's impossible," says the banker, "Your deposit is already
in another bank. Mr. South received it for his car, and he banks elsewhere."
"I never imagined that the banking system worked like that!" you sob.
"Oh, come now!" says the banker, "we've been telling everybody for years,
that we banks take in money on deposit, and then lend these deposits
out at a higher interest. Don't you believe us? " For the first time
in your life, you imagine that perhaps you don't.
It gets harder. Where do you imagine that banks get the money they
lend out, if they don't take it from deposits, and they obviously don't?
No academic, no politician, and no financial journalist, university
economist or bishop has ever been able to imagine it. This one's up
to you and me. They create it!! To imagine this, we have to: It seems that imagination murders mysteries. But there's more.
Imagination Number Three To attempt this we suggest: Imagine you are married, and have two wonderful
children. Now imagine the postman comes again, bringing your monthly
bank statement. But this time it's different. This time you are mortified
to see that the bank has made a deposit of $7,000 into your account.
You know that you've made no such deposit. You ring your banker. He
explains. "Government authorities have decided to increase the supply
of money this year, by the same amount as in 1996-97. In the past, of
course, in return for creating additional money, we were allowed to
own it. We would then find clients who were prepared to go into debt,
and we would lend them this money we had created, at interest. "This
has now changed. The Reserve Bank has been directed by Government to
create the $30 billion, and distribute it democratically", i.e., we're
all getting an equal share at cost, which is nothing." Imagine how upset
you'd be. "There's no such thing as a free feed!" you scream down the
phone. "We agree this is very upsetting," says the banker. "So
it's been decided to assist those who feel this way. Government has
set up a special fund for conscientious objectors who don't believe
in something for nothing. If you register as one, they will send you
an account for everything you receive for nothing. "This will include
the $7, 000 of course. But there are other miscellaneous things too.
Our records show that you haven't paid anything for the invention of
the wheel, or the discovery of fire yet. Then there's sunlight, of course.
It's quite expensive actually, what with the capital cost of building
suns these days. "You don't seem to have invented any useful new words
lately, so as you use the English language every day, there's a charge
for that. "Your share of the capital cost of building the earth, and
creating the air you breathe, the moon, and space, and time, come to
quite a bit also. So, with one thing and another, we will be posting
you a bill tomorrow for $365 trillion. This is only the initial payment
of course, but don't worry, you've got thirty days to pay. "Personally,
I'd encourage you to pay it, because I know too well how getting something
for nothing makes one feel uncomfortable, even guilty, and we don't
want that."
So, as we couldn't imagine a way to pay this account, we had to accept
the fact of something for nothing, although we never lost the faith
that it didn't exist. Unfortunately, after this, whenever we were all
far too pessimistic to borrow any money and invest it, we got it in
the post anyhow, so we couldn't cause recessions or depressions any
more. Nor, when we were wildly optimistic, did we get any extra money
to speculate with excessively, so a mild type of boom became more or
less boringly permanent. With regular cheques for about $7,000 arriving
each year for nothing, and what with Australia not having to annually
go into debt for an additional $30 billion to get it, and failing prices
because business had little in debt charges to recover, which made inflation
a thing of the past, as you can imagine. . . . We All Lived happily
Ever After!
Postscript
Concepts A concept is a word that is used to denote something which is strictly
concerned with what the mind can grasp. There are many concepts that
occupy the minds of people, some intellectual and many that are not
intellectual but are on a plane that is found in the weekly or monthly
magazines that are produced incessantly to fill a vacuum that can be
only regarded as a mindless pursuit. It requires no effort on the part
of the recipient to engage in a serious thought process. Yet those who
don't have a vote and cancel out the votes of those who have endeavoured
to undertake a learning process to discover what is going on in the
world of politics and economics. Politics and economics are two important
aspects that affect the daily lives of every person on Earth. The above
article asks for the use of imagination. It is through imagination that
most of the progress in this world has occurred and yet it is so blatantly
discarded as something that relates to fantasy land. The truth is that
those people who do not use their imagination are the ones living in
fantasy land. It is not the REAL world but one in which it is promoted
as the real world because unnatural restraints and limitations are placed
upon them and this makes it an unreal world. A small amount of imagination
would reveal this to those who choose to do so.
To those who occupy their time in absorbing the endless drivel from
those magazines can be added those who are occupied in attempting to
justify their beliefs in some cause whatever it may be, without stopping
to reflect and use their imagination. To do so may endanger their beliefs
so they relentlessly continue in their pursuit to the detriment, not
only of themselves intellectually but others in society. The battle
for the mind is present in areas that confront each one of us every
day. The newspapers, television, radio, magazines, all present a challenge
to either succumb or reject the information that is thrust upon us.
It may be in advertising, news items, and documentaries or more subtly
in movies, in songs and literature that is purported to be simply a
novel. The daily pressures of earning a living, protecting employment,
and providing for a family leave little time for reflection and imagination.
Yet it is only by possessing that little bit of leisure time that it
possible to consider why time is so limited or why the treadmill continues
to revolve so tirelessly.
There are many who have and do devote their time and energy to draw
attention to the problems that challenge the manner in which people
spend their lives but again many of these have not indulged in proper
reflection or imagination.
"The fundamental currency in which the individual does in the last
analysis liquidate his debts is in effect the only inalienable property,
of one description, that the individual possesses; potential effort
over a definite period of time. If this be admitted, and it is inconceivable
that anyone would seriously deny it, it follows that the real unit of
the world's currency is effort into time < what we may call the time-energy
unit; and it is not necessary to specify the source of energy. ' Time may be limited to the individual because there is a distinct limitation
on the life span. Energy however is not limited to that of the individual
because it is provided by nature in various sources. It does not need
too much imagination to understand that the greater the limitations
that are placed upon the individual's time the greater the cost that
has to be borne to liquidate those debts, which are in the form of living.
Nature has provided all the elements for life on Earth and the cost
of obtaining those necessities is the time and energy expended. With
imagination and the use of the mind the individual has been able to
progress beyond the simple involvement in earning a subsistence living,
and has been able to provide for much more to ease the pressures that
accompany the need to spend most of his or her time and energy in providing
the absolute basic necessities of food clothing and shelter.
This being so, the question arises, 'why does the economic system not
reflect this fact?"
The article on imagination answers one part of that question, but the
answer does require not only imagination but also a positive response.
The other part of the answer lies elsewhere in the realm of politics.
The above two articles by Chas Pinwill were first published in the Australasian
Social Credit Journal, January-February, 2002)
* *
Afghanistan and Oil
How much might the bombing of Afghanistan (and Iraq) have to do with
oil? On some of their past records the multinationals would align themselves
with the Devil if there were profit and power to be gained from the
Caspian oil. A number of media reports have made mention of a planned
or hoped for oil pipeline through Afghanistan. CPC is a giant company
formed by a consortium of mostly US-based oil companies. CPC stands
for the Caspian Pipeline Consortium. According to a journal Drillbits
and Tailings 'less than a decade after the final skirmishes of the Cold
War, the men who led the battle on both sides have joined forces to
exploit the oil reserves of the Caspian Sea. . . Today British Petroleum
(now BP Amoco), Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Unocal are leading a multi-billion
dollar frenzy to extract these reserves from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
and Turkmenistan, the three countries that surround the Caspian together
with Russia and Iran. . .' (source: British On Target, 22-9-01)
A new $2.6 billion pipeline was officially opened on November 27, 2001.
Built by CPC, it runs from the Tengiz oilfield in western Kazakhstan
to Russia. (source: (The Times of Central Asia, 3-1-02) Proposed future
routes for piping this oil include through Iran to a port on the Arabian
Sea. The United States would have to court Iran for this plan. Iran's
current big enemy is neighbouring Iraq. President Bush has threatened
to take his 'war against terrorism' to Iraq, after finishing Afghanistan.
The Times of Central Asia (3-1-02) further stated: 'US oil and business
leaders who met with [Colin] Powell when he was in Kazakhstan, told
him they were prepared to invest up to $200 billion in the country over
the next five to ten years because of its energy-producing potential.'
According to Australia's Adelaide Advertiser (17-1-02) US President
Dwight Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell address to the American people,
warned against what he called the 'military-industrial complex'
Reports from the Drudge Report, an internet news service (www.drudgereport.com),
and America's CNN (18-1-02) President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan believes
Osama bin Laden is dead, the victim of kidney failure. If there is any
truth in this it would fit with earlier reports that bin Laden had been
in a hospital about the middle of last year for dialysis treatment.
* *
Terrorist Laws
Governments have long realised that during times of crisis, or when
their populations feel threatened, this can be an opportunity to further
centralise power or impose restrictions or surveillance upon populations.
When the Howard government in Australia wanted to impose much stricter
gun controls on the general population the policy was more easily carried
forward after a lone gunman killed a large number of people at Port
Arthur, Tasmania. With the backing of an anti-gun press the Howard government
got its way. Nobody with access to media coverage suggested that if
responsible members of society were permitted to carry pistols for defence
this may have minimised or prevented the Port Arthur murders. No such
debate is allowed outside of referenced predetermined by centralised
governments and a monopolised press.
The September 11th tragedy in the United States has been followed with
strict anti-terrorist laws imposed in that country and in Britain. The
laws were so quickly established that they may have been already written
and awaiting an opportune time for their adoption.
There is a proposed Terrorism (Bombing and Financing) Bill presently
before a panel of New Zealand MPs. It is proposed that anyone financially
supporting a designated 'terrorist' organisation will be outside the
law. It is stretching our imaginations if we are to believe that existing
laws cannot deal with such matters. They can. Britain's Tony Blair now
has powers that no former British Prime Minister in modern times has
had. President Bush possibly has more powers of restraint and incarceration
than any former President ever had, even in times of war. The definitions
of a terrorist leave the door open for almost anyone to be charged in
the future, depending on the circumstances.
A couple of years ago a Christchurch man had his house secretly searched
by our Security Intelligence Service. He was involved in a group opposed
to the globalisation of our economy and legal system. There has been
a recent report of a Wellington man being visited and questioned by
police after writing a simple letter to the newspaper against a government
policy. Perhaps President Bush and Tony Blair will use their new powers
responsibly. Perhaps? Or the cultural and moral norms that still exist
in the US and Britain will ensure that they do not go beyond what is
acceptable to the general public. But what of future presidents and
prime ministers. After all, it is the same process which led to the
highly centralised Germany of 1930 and the rise of Hitler and the highly
centralised Russia of 1920 and the rise of the brutal Stalin. The proposed New Zealand law carries severe penalties, including imprisonment
for anyone deemed to be a terrorist or supporting any organisation deemed
to be terrorist. On its own that is fair enough. But considering how
words like 'extremist' and 'racist' are used against anyone opposing
some destructive policies, is it stretching things too far to suggest
that anyone in the future opposing multiculturalism or globalism could
be called a 'terrorist'?
Existing laws are quite capable of dealing with people who want to
plant bombs or hijack aeroplanes. If more security is needed existing
laws provide for this. Even during the worst periods of IRA bombings
of British civilians it was not proposed that a Prime Minister should
be given dictatorial powers. ?
'. . . The FBI was warned a month before the September 11 terrorist
attacks that a fuel-laden aeroplane could be used as a bomb, the New
York Times reported at the weekend. A flight instructor at the Pan Am
International Flight Academy in Minnesota had repeatedly contacted his
local FBI bureau to alert them to the suspicious behaviour of Moroccan-born
Frenchman Zacarious Moussaoui, who wanted to learn to fly a Boeing 747
despite his visible lack of pilot training. . . Despite the instructor's
appeals and intelligence forwarded by France about Moussaoui¹s affiliation
with the al-Qa'ida network, the FBI did not pursue an in-depth investigation.
. .' (The Australian, 24-12-01)
* *
Book This new booklet is well documented with sections on Zionism & Communism,
Israeli's Marxist foundations, Zionists armed by the USSR, Zionists
inspired by the IRA, Israeli supplied arms to Red China, Israeli betrayals
of its own allies, the destruction of Christianity in Holy Lands and
how Zionism has smeared patriots like Senator Joseph McCathy, Pat Buchanan
and Pauline Hanson. Kerry Bolton is a talented New Zealand writer and
researcher. Israel Reconsidered is available for $10 from Renaissance
Press, PO Box 1627, Paraparaumu Beach.
* *
Terrorism and Nuclear Power Stations?
Under the heading, ³Nuclear: Nowhere to go² Zac Goldsmith, editor of
The Ecologist, provided this response (December 2001/January 2002) to
September 11 and the reaction of the Blair government in the UK. For
a regular update on the campaign for localisation instead of globalisation
The Ecologist is hard to go past. A subscription from New Zealand is
£40 (Unit 18, Chelsea Wharf, 15 Lots Rd, London SW10 0QJ, UK. www.theecologist.org)
With hindsight, it was as predictable as clockwork. The planes hit
America; America hit back; Blair put his fingers in the national till
and exploited the situation to his heart's content. And because the
media have been otherwise engaged, so far at least he appears to have
succeeded. The result is that unpopular laws which in normal conditions
would have been subjected to national scrutiny are flying by unnoticed.
To be fair, Mr Blair had a head start. A few weeks before 11 September
Secretary of State Stephen Byers announced new measures that will make
it easier for his government to push through controversial development
projects without subjecting them to normal levels of public scrutiny.
Presumably with Heathrow's proposed Terminal 5 and controversial US-style
road projects in mind, mega-projects will now be debated and agreed
in parliament before being subjected to dumbed-down public enquiries
that instead of addressing the generalities, will now focus on marginal
specifics of already-agreed projects.
Civil Servant Jo Moore famously suggested that the WTC attacks presented
ideal conditions for the burial of bad stories. She was given a lambasting.
But the truth is, that is exactly what Mr Blair's government has been
doing since 11 September. And the sesame seeds on New Labour's McDonald's-sponsored
burger are plans to revive Britain's nuclear industry with the construction
of up to 15 new reactors. In the light of what happened in New York,
this is like painting a large bullseye on a map of Britain and inviting
anyone with a grievance to engage in target practice.
Soon after the attacks, the International Atomic Energy Agency warned
that an attack on a nuclear power plant is 'far more likely' following
11 September. Director general Mohamed El Baradei warned that 'radiation
knows no frontiers', and that previous safety measures are now fruitless.
'If the terrorist is willing to die, that changes the security equation
drastically', he said. British Energy echoed those calls immediately
following the attacks, and pleaded with the government to take protective
measures. Their pleas, they said, were largely ignored, British Nuclear
Fuels Ltd (BNFL) meanwhile described the prospect of a fuel-laden commercial
jet colliding with a nuclear plant as 'unthinkable'; Our government,
though, appears to take the view of nuclear installation giant COGEMA
which claimed that its plant at La Hague was perfectly safe because
'it is forbidden to fly over it at low altitude'.
On the advice of a Cabinet panel that only a few weeks ago expressed
doubts about nuclear (before being ordered to reformulate its conclusions),
Mr Blair is to replace all our ageing reactors with new models. So what
does that mean for Britain? An attack on Sellafield in Cumbria would
be 100 times more disastrous than the Chernobyl accident and would,
according to experts, be likely to cause more than 2 million people
to die of cancer. At best, a significant chunk of this island would
become permanently uninhabitable. But with or without terrorists, the
lives of British people dangle from the hands of the technocrats each
and every day. And as we all know, technocrats make mistakes. Earlier
this year, for instance, Sellafield came close to disaster, when explosive
gases were allowed to build up in tanks that store highly radioactive
nuclear waste. Amazingly, the BNFL staff on duty ignored warning alarms
for nearly three hours, and had the situation been left for another
10 hours, the resulting explosion would have released more radioactivity
than at Chernobyl.
Nuclear power is frighteningly unstable. And even without such disasters,
routine radioactive emissions ensure cancer clusters around virtually
every installation. Sellafield, for instance, enjoys a cancer cluster
10 times the national average. Ugly stuff. So why would any government
endorse it? It's not cheap. On the contrary, BNFL has admitted it faces
a clean-up bill of £34 billion, and on top of the hundreds of billions
of pounds in taxpayer subsidies over the past two decades, the government
believes the only way nuclear power can remain viable is if the state
relieves the industry of its liabilities. Nuclear energy is the most
expensive form of energy by far. And it's not green. Even if we build
no further plants, nuclear waste is expected to increase by 500 per
cent over the next 10 years. What's more, Mr Blair's own energy advisers
have described nuclear as 'a red herring in [the climate] debate. You
can,' they told him, 'achieve a low-carbon economy without nuclear.'
With a fraction of the allocated money, Britain could replace nuclear
power entirely with renewable energy. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear,
and with energy-saving devices, we could save 12.5 per cent of the power
we use at no extra cost within eight years. What's more, renewables
pose no security risk.
To describe nuclear as a gamble is misleading. For in any gamble there
are potential wins and losses. With nuclear, we can only lose. There
are no benefits. Yet the government continues to support it, while routinely
disadvantaging renewables. An honest national debate followed by a referendum
would certainly result in the rejection of nuclear and its replacement
by alternatives. The only possible explanation for this government's
support for nuclear is that it has succumbed to the seedy pressures
of corporate lobby groups. For that reason alone, Mr Blair is a far
greater danger to the people of this country than any terrorist network.
(end of Goldsmith article) ?
Comment: No one knows what would be the effect of ramming a large aeroplane,
or for that matter, a small one loaded with fuel and explosives, into
a nuclear power station. One thing is for certain, the damage and deaths
would be much higher than a plane crashing into a wind farm. I once
bought the argument that nuclear power was preferably to oil or coal
because it would save the lungs of coal miners and eliminate the pollution
from oil and coal burning. But the late Dr Geoffrey Dobbs, a leading
scientist and Social Crediter, pointed out that 'we simply don't know
the long term consequences of nuclear and its waste' and that the very
concept of large nuclear plants stems from the collectivist desire for
centralisation. Wind, solar, wave, even hydro, can tend toward decentralisation
and localisation. They certainly pose fewer dangers from terrorism,
or as enemy targets in times of war. (Editor, On Target)
Bombers and Burqas The folloing is reprinted from the December2001/January 2002 edition
of The Ecologist. Mr Rankin is Comment Editor of The Ecologist. He was,
and may still be, associated with the London School of Economics.
'She was a Home Counties girl, now she's bombing Afghanistan,' crowed
a Sunday broadsheet, soon after the anti-Taliban campaign was unleashed.
Similar headlines extolled the 'exploits' of a young British born American
woman named Ashley, one of the handful of female Top Gun' pilots in
the US Navy. Hers, we are told, is a 'Girl's Own Story' and already
she is being lionised by publishers and filmmakers, ever on the lookout
for a politically correct theme. The only woman in the Black Lions squadron,
Ashley has been dropping bombs on Afghanistan every day and, if her
own words are credible, experiencing great personal fulfilment.
I was smiling: I dropped my bombs. They hit, she told Sunday Telegraph
reporters proudly.
Of the Taliban fighters, she observed: 'they didn't wake up until I
dropped one right on top of them. It was really exciting. . . We [female
pilots] are very few and far between but we just do our job like everything
else. I really love it.' (Sunday Telegraph, London, 21-10-01)
For such human insight, one prominent publishing house is offering
'a very healthy advance'. The lieutenant, its spokeswoman claims, is
a 'role model' who can 'take off where Andy McNab and the rest [i.e.
male warriors] left off'. The lieutenant's choice of words betrays more
than the callousness of youth. It reflects a contempt for human life
characteristic of Western - and particularly American - culture in its
present 'liberal' phase. All experiences, from shopping to bombing,
are interpreted in terms of short-term satisfaction, regardless of ethical
considerations and with a soulless indifference to human or ecological
consequences. Liberal fundamentalism reduces the bombing raid to a career
option to be 'open to women' and so the taking of life - including women's
and children's lives - is celebrated as an exercise in 'equal opportunities'.
Indeed, for ideological reasons, the US (and sections of the British)
Armed Forces place the provision of 'interesting careers' for women
above operational effectiveness and the welfare of the young, mainly
working class, men, who bear the brunt of the fighting without the sexy
photos or 'healthy advances'.
Ashley's 'love' for bombing Afghans is far from heroic. It is tragically
remote from the traditional ethos of fighting men, who grit their teeth
as they carry out hateful tasks and think of their comrades and countries,
not their careers. Contrast Ashley's self advertisement with the words
of Lt Colonel David Capewell of 40 Commando, Royal Marines, a force
as yet uninfected by the 'PC' virus: 'I have no personal animosity towards
the Afghan people. . . We never underestimate anybody, and we will take
considerable time working out the Taliban's strengths and weaknesses.'
Of the men serving under him, Capewell declares: 'There is no sense
of triumphalism or retribution. These are people who are simply here
to do a difficult job - and do it well.' However some readers might
view military ethics, they at least contain some core values, from which
the ecology movement might usefully learn and adapt to our own non-violent
aims, our 'truth struggle' to use Mahatma Gandhi's words. These include
loyalty, responsibility towards others and the sense of historical continuity
that gives a regiment, or any band of fighting men, its esprit de corps.
Such values are far removed from those of consumer society, or the rights
based culture of demand that modern 'liberalism' promotes.
The warrior does not 'love' war or regard it as a career. Instead,
he is likely to do his 'duty' with gritted teeth. The military ethic
calls upon men to show courage and integrity. Ashley's career bombing,
by contrast, is catwalk combat chic translated to the theatre of war,
with liberal lashings of callous nihilism. Were a terrorist to boast
of 'smiling', he or she would be viewed with revulsion and held up as
proof that terrorists are 'evil'. Ashley's words call to mind those
of Bernadine Dohrn, co-founder of the 'Weather Underground', a cell
of urban terrorists that splintered from the student New Left. When
she heard of the killing of Sharon Tate and her friends by the drug
crazed disciples of Charles Manson, Dohrn merely laughed and said: 'Wow!
I dig it. It blew my mind.'
The psychopathology of 1960s Marxism-Hedonism has penetrated everyday
American life from mall to mess room. It a system of organised amorality
that American liberals and, increasingly, their European counterparts,
regard as a model of human rights, to be imposed on the rest of the
world, by clusters of Starbucks where possible and cluster bombs where
necessary. I cite this example of equal opportunity bombing because
it has wider implications for the cultural conflict at the root of the
'war on terrorism'. For it is not a war on terrorism at all, or a conflict
of Christian and Islamic values, or 'civilisation' versus 'barbarism'.
After all, there were more executions in Texas last year than in the
Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan.
Nor are the partisans of the 'war' defending Western ideals. Rather,
the bombing of the Afghans should be seen as an episode in a struggle,
on behalf of liberal fundamentalism. This ideology is concentrated in
the US but has increasing influence in Europe, especially in the transnational
agencies of the EU and is spreading over the 'developing' world through
economic hegemony and a secular missionary impulse. Islamic terrorists,
including Osama Bin Laden, are the creatures of liberal fundamentalism.
This is true in the literal sense, because Bin Laden and his cohorts
were armed and trained by the CIA when the 'enemy' was Communist, instead
of Muslim.
It is true in a more profound sense, however, for it is the encounter
with modernist Western ideology that fuels support for fundamentalism
and a more generalised antipathy to the West, not just amongst Muslims,
but amongst Hindus and in traditional African societies that have embraced
'Western' Christianity and take it seriously. Many Muslims cite the
behaviour of American troops in Saudi Arabia during and after the Gulf
War as the start of their disillusionment with the West. A good number
of these young people - men and women - not only failed to observe local
customs, but also openly and proudly flouted them, in a manner unprecedented
on territory held to be sacred. Their indiscipline was a symptom of
the corrosive effects of political correctness, undermining any sense
of honour and making them less equipped for battle, let alone drawn-out
conflict.
The refusal to respect another culture was also motivated by ideology.
Liberal fundamentalists do not regard cultural differences as valid.
They have but one interpretation of 'rights'; based on dominance, which
they believe to be valid for all human societies - and which, in turn,
they claim a 'right' to impose. Western politicians, anxious to hold
the fragile 'coalition' together and reassure their Muslim minorities,
tell us endlessly that this is not a war against 'Islam'. Yet the attack
on Afghanistan and the so-called 'war against terrorism' are proxies
for a liberal fundamentalist Kulturkampf, conducted within the US and
other Western societies as well as the benighted 'Third World'.
For some years before the 11 September atrocities, the Taliban regime
has been a convenient liberal hate symbol - and hell hath no fury like
a liberal fundamentalist scorned. The Taliban, who (in ironic parallel
to the American 'New Left') emerged from the student movement, are fundamentalists
who impose a grotesquely distorted version of Shar'ia law, a form of
Islamic political correctness that eschews the scholarship of traditional
Islam and has arisen largely in response to misguided 'modernisation'
policies, of Soviet and then Western inspiration.
Liberal fundamentalists have singled out the Taliban's treatment of
women for ritual denunciation. This is because images of Taliban extremism
provide a useful foil for the denunciation of all of 'Islam' and beyond
that all religions, cultures and traditions that assign different roles
to the sexes, even those that give high status to women. Indeed any
person, male or female, who rejects the dominant liberal fundamentalist
interpretation of feminism can be accused of being 'like the Taliban',
or placed in the same box as 'religious extremists', the word 'religious'
pronounced with special hatred and scorn.
Like other bigots, liberal fundamentalists find it easier to attack
than discuss. The burqa is now notorious as the Dalek-like, all enveloping
robe that women under Taliban rule are forced to wear outdoors. Liberal
fundamentalists hate and love the burqa. They hate it because it appears
so antithetical to their ideology, which makes a virtue of coarse, loveless
forms of sexuality and seeks to abolish differences between women and
men. They love it because it provides a propagandist stick with which
to beat non-Western cultures. Only Western 'democracy' can give 'equality'
to women, the argument runs. The burqa dehumanises women, deprives them
of their dignity and symbolises their subjection to 'patriarchy'. Furthermore,
it is the logical conclusion of 'male dominance' or any attempt to distinguish
male from female roles.
For liberal fundamentalists, therefore, Bomber Ashley is a success
story, for she fulfils their imperative of 'challenging gender stereotypes'.
But this is where the logic of liberal fundamentalism breaks down and
their secular moral absolutism is laid bare. Western liberals accuse
traditionalists, in their own societies as much as anywhere else, of
limiting 'opportunities' for women. Their version of feminism, however,
extols the virtues only of women in 'men's' jobs or 'breaking down male
bastions'.
Liberal fundamentalists use political and economic means to force women
to have careers, placing 'equality' before freedom and ignoring many
women's needs and desires. Bomber Ashley is a hero (it is old-fashioned
to say heroine), but a mother who protests against cluster bombs is
a potential 'terrorist sympathiser'.
In Britain recently, the government-sponsored Equal Opportunities
Commission lamented the fact that girls still choose 'women's jobs',
including such trivial tasks as nursing, social care and teaching, or
frivolities like drama and hairdressing. Rather than raising the status
of these 'female' professions, the liberal fundamentalists of the EOC
enjoin women to take up 'male' occupations like engineering. They want
'more women' in the boardrooms of multinationals, not fewer multinationals
and stronger local economies. Indeed the rhetoric of modern liberalism
abolishes 'sex' as a descriptive term altogether, putting in its place
a vague, quasi-sociological concept of 'gender'.
Simone de Beauvoir expresses with refreshing Gallic honesty the true
liberal fundamentalist view of women: 'No woman should be authorised
to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different.
Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such
a choice, too many women will make that one.'
Liberal fundamentalists claim to be the exclusive champions of equality,
but really they value only traditionally 'male' spheres of influence,
whether political, military or crudely materialistic. Their philosophy
is quite different from the eco-feminism of Vandana Shiva, for example,
which aims for a creative balance between male and female principles
- a more equitable society and a more equitable relationship between
humanity and their nature.
Liberal fundamentalism exalts male stereotypes - for women - but attacks
masculinity with puritanical fervour. It is the aim of American feminists,
especially, to deprive boys of male mentors and if possible abolish
fatherhood altogether. New York polemicist Gloria Steinem summed up
succinctly their agenda when she said that 'We need to raise boys like
they were girls', in other words force them to deny their true natures
as boys. The sexual politics so central to bien pensant liberalism is,
in a subtle way, as oppressive as any clerical dogma.
Liberal fundamentalism is founded on moral confusion and double standards.
When loyalty and sense of community are undermined, when men and women
are pitted against each other in 'gender war' and when tradition or
custom count for nothing, then only commercial values can prevail. The
bomber and the burqa are not opposites, but two sides of the same dehumanising
coin - like globalisation and political correctness. Ecologists of the
world, beware!
Australia World Economic Forum Meets Again By the time this is read the Australian Prime Minister will be in
New York at the annual gathering of the World Economic Forum, which
has been shifted from the traditional meeting place at Davos, Switzerland
to Manhattan in New York. The meeting is scheduled for January 31st
to February 4th. As though the September llth disasters were not enough,
citizens of New York must suffer further. The Waldorf Astoria is booked
out, except for the glamorous Saturday night soiree, which will be held
at the New York Stock Exchange. The names of those attending are familiar
- America's Colin Powell. Israel's Shimon Peres, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder,
Jordan's King Hussein, South Africa's Thabo Mbeki, Microsoft's Bill
Gates, etc., etc. And, for the first time, Australia's John Howard.
We doubt that there will be any representatives for the war-ravaged
Balkans or the pulverized Afghanistan. Or for Ruanda and Burundi and
the earthquake-damaged Congo. But this does not mean that policy for
these areas will not be mapped out, as it will for the European Union
and the Pacific. The Euro is in Place It could not be expressed more clearly. As the founding Rothschild
said, "Permit me to issue a nation's money and I care not who makes
its laws." The English Channel has, for hundreds of years, kept British sovereignty
and independence intact against all European predations. But will it
be sufficient against the stealthy designs of the money-power? Is there
a leader in Britain still unrecognized who can rally the people at the
last moment? Who, in Newbolt's words about Francis Drake, Detention Centres: A Rod For Australia's Back
The upsurge in emotional comment about conditions in refugee detention
centres has reached farcical and damaging levels. It is absolutely true
that the Australian people will not continue to accept hunger-strikes,
lip-sewing, child abuse and the like. If there is an answer at this
late stage it lies in resolute action by Australia on the international
stage. We cannot continue logically to beat ourselves to death with
refugees from countries against which we are applying economic and military
sanctions. Australia should take a lead in halting sanctions against
Iraq, where some 5,000 deaths of women and children are still taking
place each month. If we are to offer financial aid to Afghanistan, such
aid should be tied directly to repatriating and providing for Afghani
refugees currently in Australia. Instead of paying large sums to keep
refugees in New Guinea and Christmas Island, the money should be applied
to providing reasonable housing and conditions for refugee families
in the countries from which they have fled.
So far the Australian Government has refused to provide detailed costings
on all the events since the Tampa drama. Some estimates go as high as
$500 million. Such a sum could have provided housing and sustenance
for the Afghanis back in their own country. If, as President Bush claims,
the Taliban has been defeated and the Afghanistan rebuilding process
has begun, there is no reason why such a policy could not be introduced
forthwith. But we fear for Afghanistan's financial future. The man who
will administer the financial system will be Abdul Qadir Fitrat (doesn't
that sound like an Ore from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings?) who has been
in America for some years. The Australian (15-1-02) said: The Enron Collapse
The fall-out from the collapse of the world's biggest energy trading
company, Enron, is only just beginning. Enron was one of the biggest
contributors to the Republican Party's election campaign, which installed
President Bush in office. It contributed a lesser amount to the Democrats.
Executives from the accounting firm Arthur Anderson have taken the Fifth
Amendment when avoiding questions in court as to who ordered the shredding
of documents relating to the collapse. The Australian (15-1-02) neatly
summarized the affair: The Queenland Constitution
Many forget that each State in Australia has its own constitution,
each of which preceded the Australian Constitution. The Crown is part
of each State constitution, exercised through State Governors. This
was severely compromised by the 1986 Australia Act, but still tentatively
exists. Queensland is in a particularly vulnerable position in that
it has no Upper House, which was lost in a grubby episode in the early
part of the 20th Century. During the Goss administration [Labour, 1990s]
the Premier started a process to bring all parts of the Queensland Constitution
into a single document, and a Commission was set up. The present Beatty
Government has now produced a final document which has been pushed through
the Queensland Parliament and comes into force in June. Under original
provisions in the Queensland constitution a State referendum was necessary
to effect any change. By this provision it is doubtful whether the Australia
Act was legal. No referendum was held. Now the new constitution-to-be
has large areas where the necessity for a referendum has been eliminated.
The politicians can make what changes they feel necessary at the time.
As a constitution is primarily to keep politicians in check, the new
provisions are akin to enabling prisoners to make the jailhouse rules.
Such things as the future of local government, land titles, etc., can
be changed without reference to the people. With no house of review,
no opposition in any sense of the word, and politicians in a position
to grab extra powers, Queensland is in a precarious situation. Queenslanders
should be contacting their State members, asking for a copy of the new
Constitution, and seeking as much information as possible about the
way it was enacted and the loss of safeguards.
Our Comment: It will be no consolation for Queenslanders to be told
that New Zealanders also have no upper house. Ours, known as the Legislative
Council, was abolished by a supposedly conservative government, led
by Sid Holland, in the 1950s. A more effective replacment was promised.
Fifty years later we are still waiting. The only sanctions New Zealanders
have left are an increasingly ineffective vote (ineffective because
the major parties have the same policy); the need for the Royal Assent
on Acts of Parliament; and whatever fear politicians and their advisers
occasionally have of public opinion. Not so many years ago an Australian
Prime Minister (Bob Hawke) told the then New Zealand Prime Minister
(David Lange) that he envied the latter ability to easily gets new legislation
through. It took longer in Australia because of the constitutional constraints
required to get the approval of their Federal Senate.
Were the Israelis Involved?
Although many of our subscribers also receive the monthly New Times
Survey, organ of the Australian League of Rights, we are reprinting
the following from the January 2002 issue. If not absolute proof of
Israeli involvement or foreknowledge of Sepember 11, it is certainly
worthy of much wider circulation:
'Cu Bono?' - 'Who Gains'?
In the September and October editions of The New Times Survey we analysed
the background to the disasters in New York and Washington and concluded
that the main beneficiary was the state of Israel and that there was
likelihood of Mossad foreknowledge of the bombings. Our views have been
confirmed much earlier than expected by the revelations from a major
US news source, Fox News, of a massive penetration of US administration
and intelligence by the Israeli Mossad organisation, and the certainty
that the bombings were anticipated before they happened. Sept. 11: What Was Israel's Role? Fox News revelations point to an
ominous conclusion. When is American foreign policy going to start putting
America first? The US had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by
vetoing a UN resolution condemning violence on all sides in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. The resolution condemned terrorism, no matter what the source,
called for the creation of a "monitoring mechanism" to prevent
violence, denounced executions without trial, and said the destruction
of property must cease. You gotta problem with that?
Negroponte's Veto : This administration does The Victimological Olympics The War Against the World Battleground America Ends and Means All Roads lead to Amdocs Spies in the Woodwork Monica Tells All Little Did They Know Out of The Murk The Comverse Connection Ashcroft¹s Complicity I hope You¹re Sitting Down Beyond the Beguine Investigate the Israeli Connection Where is the Media? Fan Mail From Some Cranky Flounder The Anti-Semitic Fallacy The Truth, At last * *
Briefly: Argentina is discovering belatedly that to sup with
the devil needs a long spoon. Not the least of its troubles is the unwarranted
advice and pressure of the IMF. It has irked the ire of Mr. Jorge Todesca,
vice economy minister. "We're working on a very coherent plan," he said.
"Frankly, we don't need the IMF to be telling us every two minutes what
course we should take when we've only been at this for seven days (The
Australian, 14-1-02). "They're doing it from 10,000km way, without much
knowledge of the situation. . " The first thing to recognize is
that the Argentinian government and the IMF both represent completely
different interests. The government is hopefully trying to restore the
lives of real people - the men, women and children of the country. But
the IMF is representing an international group of money-lenders whose
interests come before the well-being of people. The real questions now
facing Argentina are whether it has the resources to feed, clothe and
house its own people, rather than exporting into a glutted world market
to earn enough to pay the money-lenders. Exports can come later and
be limited to real surpluses in exchange for any goods and services
needed from abroad. The global export game has simply become an instrument
for extracting more tribute for lenders. This will be the test of sovereignty
for a once great nation.
|
| Published
by the Australian League of Rights, Box 1052. G.P.O. Melbourne 3001. |
