THE IMPRISONED WORLD OF THE FABULOUSLY RICH

by Jeremy Lee
As the earth is divided into the two rigidly-separated worlds of the rich and the destitute our concentration has been focused – rightly – on those dying of malnutrition, lack of water or the ravages of war. But the small, exclusive, guarded world of the wealthy seems just as miserable. James Wolfenson, president of the World Bank, told a $2,000-a-plate dinner in New York last year that those attending would be threatened by the world's poor unless something was done to rectify the yawning gulf between them. But those who have reached their status as a result of the existing credit monopoly seem incapable of taking the necessary steps to lift their fellows, even though it would make them immeasurably safer and happier.

The industrial West, and now many Third World countries, have become the scene of guarded citadels of privilege surrounded by oceans of destitution. That destitution exists in large measure in Australia, but does not appear in the GDP figures, which preoccupy the attention of economists and treasurers. George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian (UK), August 27th, 2002, commented:
".... Over the past 20 years ... wealthy people have laid claim to human genes, public archives, town squares and village greens, playing fields, beaches, even clouds and landing spaces on the Moon. Having enhanced their wealth, they retreat to gated communities, hire guards and install CCTV and movement sensors.
The rich lock themselves in and everyone else out. So many fences rise to exclude us that after a while we are no longer shut out but shut in. And if we try to cross those barriers we pay dearly, for the increasing freedom of capital has been accompanied by unprecedented rates of imprisonment."

For both the secluded and the excluded, the fruits of economic growth become a substitute for human interaction: we prefer watching TV than talking to our neighbours. Plenty of evidence suggests that as we become richer, we become less content with ourselves. It is incorrect to say that necessity is the mother of invention. In the rich world, invention is the mother of necessity. When people already possess all the goods and services they need, growth can be stimulated only by discovering new needs. Advertising creates gaps in our lives in order to fill them. We buy the products, but the gap remains.

Already, in the rich nations, the beneficiaries of development spend much of their money on escaping from it: it costs a fortune to live in a place that does not assault your eyes and ears with ugliness. To absorb our increasing wealth we must keep building. Our new cars need new roads, our new goods and services must come from new shops and warehouses and offices. One day there may be nowhere left in which we can shut the noise out of our heads. Wealth also appears to reduce our capacity to act. Our reliance on technology supplants our reliance upon ourselves and other people ..... In other words, as Simon Fairlie argues, the rich world is approaching the point at which 'satiation turns into deprivation'.

Even if we were to forget the damage our growing economies inflict upon the environment, even if we were to ignore the conflict between our greed and the fulfilment of other peoples' needs, we should be able to see that economic growth in nations that are rich enough already is a disaster ....

Whether Monbiot understands how this whole lop-sided system is itself the prisoner of the global debt system and those who own it is not clear. But he is correct in his assessment that the rich are on a treadmill of fear like everyone else. One result is the attempt to insure against any possible disaster, spawning a world of regulation and litigation that is now collapsing. Remote country people can't even have their annual show or a pony-club for the kids because they can't afford the insurance and are legally banned from proceeding without it! How far does that go? The annual Christmas party? Or even the Christmas carol service?

Are we to coin a new axiom, "Wherever two or three are gathered together, they shall take out insurance as required by Big Brother?" And, of course, our fully-insured politicians, as they churn out more and more laws, are only doing it for our own good. In the process they are crushing the initiative and personal responsibility that built Australia in the first place. If the imminent GATS Treaty designed by the World Trade Organisation is forced through, privatising the whole of life into the hands of multinationals owned by the wealthy, will they be any happier? Or more fearful still.

Lionel Fifield, who runs Brisbane's Relaxation Centre, made these recent striking comments (Peoples' Monthly, November, 2002):
"Recently I came across a sign on a cliff edge which stated the very obvious 'Danger of Falling' and I began to reflect on how we are becoming surrounded by signs everywhere warning of this and telling us to be cautious of that.
I wonder if in 20 years time all swimming pools will have notices indicating it is possible to drown in water, car salesmen will need to tell purchasers that people have crashes in cars, restaurants will need to warn us all of the potential dangers in eating food and when we buy a puppy we are given a warning that all puppies like to bite and chew?
Wherever are we going? What sort of society are we creating? Politicians come up with slogans such as 'Ours is the Smart State' yet we can go to the courts and hear intelligent lawyers pleading our stupidity. 'I did not know that if I dived into a metre of water I would hurt myself – nobody put a sign there.' 'I didn't know that falling off a cliff could be dangerous.' 'That person should not have sold me a drink' and 'I certainly did not realize that the 2 metre fence with barbed wire on the top was designed to stop me going into that area.'
We live in times when masses of people are reading books, attending courses and listening to tapes bringing ideas of personal power, individual healing and developing the potential for a more co-operative and compassionate society – however at the same time there seems to be an ever-swelling river in flood, watering the fields of fear, greed, blame, dishonesty and alienation from one another.
I have often heard people say 'Well, everybody else seems to be doing it so I thought I might as well' or 'I wasn't going to sue but several of my friends said I'd be a mug not to get some money out of it – they can afford it!'
The whole thrust of genuine personal and spiritual growth is taking responsibility for our lives. Embracing personal responsibility is the essence of personal empowerment.
Each and every one of us has the potential to make our mark in creating the sort of society we want to live in, often the little steps we need to take will go unnoticed and almost certainly nobody will ever acknowledge them, yet it is the way that we can take a personal stand against greed and against dishonesty. If we can stand others can stand with us – BUT, even if they don't we are richer because we have acknowledged our integrity and our personal values and, most importantly, we've stood by them. The future is what we individually live and put in place today." (end of article)

The whole edifice of regulation and its enforcement is in danger of collapsing. The courts are clogged and the whole system of enforcement out of control. Older, more conventional people try to obey the law, but often are unable to cope because of its sheer size and complexity. The less conscientious, seeing its absurdity, are beginning to ignore "Big Brother" – and often get away with it. We are rapidly developing a class in Australia who evade, ignore or submit grudgingly to the law when they have to – but never willingly obey it. An example is the boast made when the GST was introduced that it would destroy the cash economy. We waited with baited breath for a while. But now we see it for the absurdity it was.

They'll have to abolish cash altogether, and risk waking all Australians to what is happening. This has happened in previous civilizations. The number of laws and the size of the necessary bureaucracy to administer it, has become so heavy that societies have collapsed. Just as the Society of Chartered Accountants is taking on the Tax Department, we need a movement to repeal unnecessary laws. The first political party that announced a policy of repealing laws would gain a lot of support. Why do we have over 8,000 pages in the Taxation Act? Wasn't Costello going to make it simpler?

The irony is that the original depository of freedom and responsibility, the Church, conforms more to the world of "Big Brother" than most other organizations. The idea of challenging Caesar in his predations into those realms reserved for God is viewed with horror, as though it was blasphemy. The few exceptions, such as the Anglican Primate, Archbishop Carnley, who has strongly condemned the probable war against Iraq, or the Catholic Archbishop George Pell, who insists that moral laws are not to be decided by majority head-counting but by God's authority, are to be cut down at any cost. If ever such men really came to grips with the world of banking, debt and money we'd begin to get somewhere.

As we've said before, "the plight of the world is the hope of the world". Paradoxical though this might seem, every action breeds an equal and opposite reaction. We can ignore evil just so long. But finally, when it has attempted to block every avenue towards freedom, happiness and personal responsibility, it unleashes the means of its own destruction. Just how much damage is done before that moment comes is a matter of conjecture. But come it will, probably at that moment when we imagine all is lost.

THE GREAT HARLOT, THE WHORE OF BABYLON

WHY CHECHNYA?

by Matthew Reimer, YellowTimes.org:
Why the abusive Russian operations in Chechnya? Why the violations, the tearing asunder of the sovereignty and rights of the Chechnyan people by the Russian Bear? Why would a group of young Chechnyans choose a path of certain death in an effort to get the Russian Bear to listen to their demands for freedom? The following snippets go some way to answering the questions.
"The Chechen conflict is essentially one of sovereignty and began long ago. The Chechen people, indigenous to the Northern Caucasus for millennia, have been actively engaged in bitter conflict with the various Russian regimes for centuries. In the 19th century, Tsarist Russia desired control of the region to solidify its boundary with their then enemy, the Ottoman Empire, to the southwest. Today, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union – the event that spearheaded the Chechens' most recent proclamation of independence – the new Russian Federation has sought control over Chechnya for similar, if not more complex, reasons.

IT'S THE OIL FOR 'BIG BROTHER'!
The tiny isthmus of land is still strategically key to regional influence, bordering both the Caspian and Black seas. The territory is also home to a myriad of proposed and existing oil pipelines streaming westward from Central Asia. The more Russia maintains its grasp over Chechnya and the six other semi-autonomous republics, the more say Moscow will have regarding the routes of future pipelines. Additionally, Russia has strong interest in maintaining maximum influence over three of her former satellites: Georgia (most importantly [lots of oil...ed] ), Armenia, and Azerbaijan, as the Middle East and Central Asia are gradually reshaped. US military presence in Georgia has not gone unnoticed. Significantly, Chechen resistance has proved more than enough to balance Moscow's fierce desire to bring the region under its control. For the past decade, highlighted by two major wars, Russian troops have been held at bay by rebels who are second only to Afghanistan's Mujihadeen for their tenacity. Indeed, Chechnya has seemingly become another Afghanistan for the fiercely proud former superpower. Once again, Moscow is being thwarted by what many consider a rag-tag band of guerrillas... Until a geostrategic shift occurs or until Washington finds Russian troops undesirable in the North Caucasus, Moscow will continue to have carte blanche in Chechnya and human rights will continue to take a backseat as the major players jockey for position in the new global order now focused in the Middle East and Central Asia."

LIKE CLOCKWORK

by Graham Strachan: From Neil Baird's e-mail:
"...In the second edition of my book '22 Steps to Global Tyranny' (released May 2001) I wrote (p.87) that in order to confiscate the remaining privately-owned firearms in the Australian community, "....another mass shooting will occur, this time possibly in a school." Well, almost right – Monash University, but right on cue. A 36-year-old Asian, Huan Yun Xiang, who had licences for seven handguns, allegedly killed two students and wounded five others [The Australian, October 25th. 2002].
Immediately Australia's programmed politicians sprang into action, prodded from behind by the appropriate bureaucrats, to perform their function – tightening the totalitarian vice on the law-abiding citizens of Australia. The Big Lie is that they are doing it to 'protect the Australian people'. The truth is Australian governments are doing it because they have committed themselves to do it under international agreements originally signed at the United Nations.
The ultimate goal of those agreements was expressed in the report of the UN Commission on Global Governance entitled 'Our Global Neighborhood': to control the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms worldwide.

IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms)
Shortly after the report was released in 1995, the United Nations helped to organize a coalition of NGOs (non-government organisations) called IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms) to promote the UN's goals around the world. A conference entitled 'The United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects' was held in New York during July 2001, with the purpose of advancing the development of an international treaty to control the availability of small arms including handguns [WorldNetDaily, July 5th, 2001].

Australian bureaucrats have been boastful of their role in advancing the programme from the very beginning. The usual lies are already being trotted out by the usual suspects. Victoria's spokesman for the civilian disarmament crowd, Tim Costello, reportedly stated on the ABC that it was only by a quirk that handguns were left off the 1996 agenda after Port Arthur. In fact, handguns were not considered a problem then as they were well regulated by police. It is only since then that the international drive against handguns began. Costello also stated that most of the handguns used in unlawful acts started off as legal firearms. My information is that most firearms used by criminals are smuggled into Australia with illicit drugs [Andrew MacGregor, by e-mail].

Canberra a subsidiary branch office of 'world government'
But this has nothing to do with protecting the public. As I also wrote in '22 Steps' (p.87), "Patriots, and nationalists opposed to the globalisation of their country, not gun-toting criminals, are the real target of civilian disarmament." Nobody is to be in a position to challenge the authority of the world government or its subsidiary branch office in Canberra as the reality of the global gulag starts to dawn on the world's population. It is well to keep in mind that during the twentieth century over 56-million people (some estimates put the figure at around 100 million) were murdered by governments. In all cases the victims were first disarmed.

For example
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed. The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Then from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-million dissidents – again, deprived of the means to defend themselves – were rounded up and killed. In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed. In 1935 China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million dissidents, again deprived of the tools for self defense, were rounded up and killed. Cambodia introduced gun control in 1956. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million 'educated' people were rounded up and killed. Guatemala introduced gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves. Uganda got gun control in 1970. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed. In Rwanda, despite reports that the Hutus were planning to exterminate the Tutsis, a UN 'peacekeeping' force in the country disarmed the Tutsis. More than half a million died in the subsequent slaughter. But that would never happen in Australia?

It is significant that within four years of the last gun 'buyback' scheme, the Howard government through its infamous 'Shoot To Kill Bill' made it legal for the military to shoot and kill now legally-disarmed Australian citizens. No government is to be trusted, least of all a government that does that. Australians will again be told the lie that this 'gun buyback' will 'reduce crime': It will not, for the simple reason that law-abiding citizens don't use guns to commit crime, and people intending to do so will not surrender their guns. The lie will be told that guns are the worst killers of both children and adults. In fact guns, kill far fewer Americans annually than other unrelated causes.

Research reveals facts opposite to what we are 'fed'
One fact Australians will not be told is that when law-abiding citizens have easy access to firearms for self-protection, crime goes down significantly, and vice versa. Even people who do not own a gun benefit, through the perception by potential criminals that they might be armed and ready to defend themselves. Firearm confiscation programmes (buy-back schemes), by disarming law abiding gun owners, remove one of the most effective deterrents to crime, which always increases. Independent crime researcher John R. Lott of Yale University has proven year after year that concealed carry laws – the right to carry concealed handguns – are the second most important factor – behind more police – that has helped reduce America's violent crime rate. The literature confirming this is massive and detailed, and the evidence overwhelming. I may give some of it in a subsequent article.

Australia's Howard government is a dangerous government, with a decidedly totalitarian bent. What's that? It's the Hegelian mindset that the state is mummy and daddy, and all the citizens are little children craving guidance, protection and control. Of course mummy and daddy have lots of willing helpers who make profitable careers bullying the kids around. It's only a matter of time before Australian police and military start kicking down doors at 4am 'looking for terrorists'. I fully expect to be targeted for writing this article. And to think Australia used to be called the 'Lucky Country'".

Graham Strachan's books are available from all League book services.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

by Antonia Feitz
"The federal police/ASIO raids on suburban homes in Sydney and Perth should be a wake-up call to the Australian people. The raids have rightly been called a stunt. The authorities are testing just how far they can go, and if they get away with this level of intimidation you can bet your bottom dollar the raids will escalate. They raided Muslims this time but who'll be next? Christian fundamentalists? Neil Baird? The League of Rights' Jeremy Lee? Anybody who's ever addressed or even attended the Inverell Forum? It's not an unreasonable question considering that one of the men targeted is 'guilty' of publishing a newsletter and that they all had attended lectures by an Islamic cleric. As yet, publishing newsletters and attending lectures aren't criminal acts in Australia. In fact, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are supposed to be protected rights. But rights only have currency as long as they're exercised and vigorously defended.
Surely Australians will not meekly accept that men in "black helmets, balaclavas covering their face, [in] flakjackets [and] carrying submachine guns" can literally smash their way into people's homes with sledgehammers? (ABC, 31/10/02)

That the police/ASIO officers didn't even arrest anybody proves the raids were stunts; terrifying ones for the families concerned. Why smash down the door? Why not just knock? On what evidence did the police believe that the targeted men would refuse to open their doors? On what evidence did they believe the targeted men were armed and dangerous? One of the men had his wife, a seven-month-old baby and a 4-year-old daughter present. Imagine their trauma. Another man's 17-year-old daughter expressed her bewilderment saying, "They put ... him on the floor, they handcuffed him and they, they actually knocked his, like whacked his ear with one of the guns. And, um, yeah, so, and he was like on the floor with guns pointing at, um, him and also my brother and sisters as well. And I was also pushed to the ground and one of the policemen with the gun like was like, in my face." (AM, 31/10/02)

At issue is not the raids themselves but the violence and over-the-top use of force. Why were the officers in balaclavas? As Australia isn't cold in late October the balaclavas were obviously intended to frighten people. Is this Australia or the Soviet Union? Fighting 'terror' by resorting to it makes little sense. John McFarlane, a former head of intelligence for the Australian Federal Police, stupidly described the public concern about the raids as "emotionalism". In all seriousness he said, "Waving guns sounds a fairly emotive way of describing it. Bashing down doors is probably an emotional way of describing it." (AM, 31/10/02). But the heavily armed raiders hiding their faces behind balaclavas DID smash down doors and DID wave guns in people's – including children's – faces! They intended to terrify men, women and children. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable.

Simon Crean's utter uselessness
Predictably the Attorney-General Daryl Williams defended the raids. And showing his utter uselessness, Australia's so-called opposition leader Simon Crean said he had no concerns: "If the authorities have the evidence, they should act." Indeed they should but as everybody's asking, why did they act with such violence? Who signed the warrants and on what evidence? What did the raids uncover? Caches of arms? Explosive devices? Anthrax bombs? Plans of Parliament House's air-conditioning?

The most dangerous 'weapons' of all are words and ideas.
Most likely the raids uncovered the most dangerous weapons of all – words and ideas. Brute force has never yet defeated them though periodically it gives an impression of having done so. The only weapons against words and ideas are other words and other ideas. Australians of all political persuasions must express their revulsion at the nature of these raids to their political representatives. Failure to do so will embolden the authorities. They're testing the water and it's our duty to make it uncomfortably hot for them. People who can't be bothered to protest must wear personal responsibility for legitimising a police state in Australia.

PS: E-mails are virtually useless as a form of protest. Telephone or write to your local representative. Be polite but very clear: Australians don't want to live in a police state. We expect our political representatives to uphold the rule of law."

AUDIO TAPES OF NATIONAL WEEKEND NOW AVAILABLE

The speakers were brilliant, informative, challenging! The 56th New Times Dinner – "Celebrating the Year of Jubilee":
• Toast to the New Times by Bill Daly, New Zealand National Director of the League
• Toast Seconded by Michael Lane of America
• The Loyal Toast to the Queen by Edward Rock
• Dinner Address by Phillip Benwell MBE.

Seminar: • Opening address – Betty Luks, National Director, Australian League of Rights
• Speaker Nigel Jackson, writer, schoolteacher and author; "The Queen's Justice and the International Criminal Court"
• Speaker – Michael Lane, writer, author and editor of Triumph of the Past; "One Successful Experiment would do more than $Millions in Advertising"
• Speaker – Phillip Benwell MBE, National Chairman, Australian Monarchist League; "Our Developing Democracy"
• Speaker – Jeremy Lee, political commentator, author and editor of the New Times Survey; "The Crunch and the Critical Moment"

Six tapes posted for $30. Single tape $6 posted. Order from:- MEA Tapes, Box 248, East Caulfield, Vic., 3145. Phone/Fax: (03) 9576 0105