"What I want to know is: why do we keep borrowing from overseas-owned commercial banks at interest (for which we have to borrow more to pay) when we can legally create our own money supply, at nil interest, through the Reserve Bank of New Zealand? All it would take is a directive from the Minister of Finance, and we could create enough funds to do anything in this country that we want. Public assets could be paid for only once. Commercial banks could access credit at cost only, to on-lend to businesses. Health and education could be fully funded, and goodbye to surgery waiting lists and the student loan debt mountain. What are we waiting for, Armageddon?"
This has appeared on the opinion page of Stuff, as a comment on the self- and bank-serving opinion piece by Tony Alexander, chief honcho at the BNZ, who is quite comfortable with a 10% annual increase in consumer debt. Well of course he is - his bank and it's buddies make more money that way. Never mind the increasing poverty, the near fatal damage to the productive sector and the real economy, and the ongoing poisoning of Mother Earth. The banks won't stop milking us until we are dead and can't pay anymore. Then what will they do for slaves?
10 July 2009
08 July 2009
Vote Yes for a law that works
If it is wrong to hit an adult, how can it possibly be right to hit a child?
Is it okay for your boss to slap you if you are late for work? Would you remember new skills better if you were smacked every time you had to learn something? Or each time you made a mistake?
Children are entitled to the same protection from assault in law as adults. The police have the same discretion toward inconsequential assault between adults as they do towards parents, who are not criminalised for a simple smack on the bum.
Even so, good parenting should not include smacking. 'No smacking' does not mean 'no discipline'. There are plenty of ways to correct, protect and teach a child without using violence. Smacking is a dead giveaway for parental frustration, anger, fear or a lack of parenting skills.
Maybe you were smacked and think you came out okay, but lots of people don't. They pass on their anger, poor communication and lack of control to the next generation. Smacking teaches children that big people can hit little people and get away with it.
It's time to stop smacking. Vote YES to the referendum question.
Is it okay for your boss to slap you if you are late for work? Would you remember new skills better if you were smacked every time you had to learn something? Or each time you made a mistake?
Children are entitled to the same protection from assault in law as adults. The police have the same discretion toward inconsequential assault between adults as they do towards parents, who are not criminalised for a simple smack on the bum.
Even so, good parenting should not include smacking. 'No smacking' does not mean 'no discipline'. There are plenty of ways to correct, protect and teach a child without using violence. Smacking is a dead giveaway for parental frustration, anger, fear or a lack of parenting skills.
Maybe you were smacked and think you came out okay, but lots of people don't. They pass on their anger, poor communication and lack of control to the next generation. Smacking teaches children that big people can hit little people and get away with it.
It's time to stop smacking. Vote YES to the referendum question.
19 May 2009
Resource Management is out of our hands
The Resource Management Amendment Bill will dangerously reduce public participation.
In the name of cost−cutting and time−saving, the Government is willing to reduce our democratic rights and sell our precious and dwindling resources cheap to the highest bidder. The Bill makes it more expensive and allows less time for individuals and community groups to object to resource consent applications. Objections are dismissed as ‘vexatious and frivolous’ − without defining the terms, who they apply to or who makes those crucial decisions.
The Bill’s stated intention is to ‘simplify and streamline’ the process for resource consents. What this really means is that applicants may get a refund on their application fee if a local authority doesn’t push the consent through quickly enough. Applicants may even bypass local authorities and go straight to the Environment Court, which intends to charge a fee for any submissions. Too bad for cash−strapped groups or individuals who have genuine objections. Too bad for people who don’t live in towns where the Environment Court sits − they will have the added cost of travel.
And how about the Bill’s intention to prohibit local authorities from protecting trees? At a time when rising carbon emissions and climate change call for the planting of more trees, and certainly for saving and protecting our mature trees in urban areas, this is a backward step. To enhance the profits of a few developers, this Government is willing to denude our cities and towns of the few items of beauty which also act as carbon sinks.
Climate change, water pollution, air pollution, increasing traffic congestion − for these issues and more, resource applications should be more difficult and expensive to obtain, not cheaper and faster. There is well documented evidence of environmental damage caused by roads, buildings and intensive land uses, all presumably built with resource consents.
The drive for unchecked growth has an adverse effect on the standard of living of many in society, to the enrichment of a few. Reducing the public’s opportunity and ability to appeal against applications that are detrimental to local communities, society and the planet host, is a grave mistake that our grandchildren will fail to understand.
This amendment bill represents an opportunity lost. It is a fundamental re-weighting of the underlying philosophy, purpose and principles of the RMA, to privilege business and financial interests over public concerns, for short−term gain.
A foundering financial system should be re−examined itself, not made the excuse for further depleting our resources, despoiling our land and abrogating our democratic rights.
In the name of cost−cutting and time−saving, the Government is willing to reduce our democratic rights and sell our precious and dwindling resources cheap to the highest bidder. The Bill makes it more expensive and allows less time for individuals and community groups to object to resource consent applications. Objections are dismissed as ‘vexatious and frivolous’ − without defining the terms, who they apply to or who makes those crucial decisions.
The Bill’s stated intention is to ‘simplify and streamline’ the process for resource consents. What this really means is that applicants may get a refund on their application fee if a local authority doesn’t push the consent through quickly enough. Applicants may even bypass local authorities and go straight to the Environment Court, which intends to charge a fee for any submissions. Too bad for cash−strapped groups or individuals who have genuine objections. Too bad for people who don’t live in towns where the Environment Court sits − they will have the added cost of travel.
And how about the Bill’s intention to prohibit local authorities from protecting trees? At a time when rising carbon emissions and climate change call for the planting of more trees, and certainly for saving and protecting our mature trees in urban areas, this is a backward step. To enhance the profits of a few developers, this Government is willing to denude our cities and towns of the few items of beauty which also act as carbon sinks.
Climate change, water pollution, air pollution, increasing traffic congestion − for these issues and more, resource applications should be more difficult and expensive to obtain, not cheaper and faster. There is well documented evidence of environmental damage caused by roads, buildings and intensive land uses, all presumably built with resource consents.
The drive for unchecked growth has an adverse effect on the standard of living of many in society, to the enrichment of a few. Reducing the public’s opportunity and ability to appeal against applications that are detrimental to local communities, society and the planet host, is a grave mistake that our grandchildren will fail to understand.
This amendment bill represents an opportunity lost. It is a fundamental re-weighting of the underlying philosophy, purpose and principles of the RMA, to privilege business and financial interests over public concerns, for short−term gain.
A foundering financial system should be re−examined itself, not made the excuse for further depleting our resources, despoiling our land and abrogating our democratic rights.
17 May 2009
Open letter to Gareth Morgan
To Gareth Morgan - millionaire, globe trotter and rational being.
Dear Mr. Morgan,
Congratulations on your independent study of the science surrounding climate change. You have shown yourself to be a truly rational being − that is, one who can, in the face of overwhelming evidence, change his mind.
You are also considered to be an expert on the economy, no doubt because you have been successful at making money within the current system. As a rational man, you might like to apply the same sort of objective investigation to the economic crisis as you applied to the environmental one.
Here are a few points I urge you to consider:
• The economy and the ecology are inextricably linked. It is tempting to think of climate change and other environmental problems as annoying, expensive distractions, but in reality they are central to our survival as a nation and a species.
• Einstein said “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” This means that continuing with the present economic system is not rational.
• There is a direct correlation between “economic growth” and “carbon emissions” − the lines on a timeline graph are identical since the Industrial Revolution. The belief in unchecked “growth” as a valid method of economic recovery without considering the environmental cost is not rational.
• The effect of the current economic recession will be to put more and more wealth into fewer hands. The rest of us are increasingly relegated to debt slavery, unemployment and potential mass starvation, on a planet host that is rapidly being poisoned. This is not rational, even from the long−term point of view of the lucky few. Who will be left to buy their products and maintain their lifestyles? How will their obscene wealth help them when the seas engulf our coastal cities and arable land becomes desert?
• Are human beings doomed? As the most “successful” species the biosphere has had the misfortune to produce, will we self−destruct through an irrational belief in our right to consume no matter what the cost to our fellows and our planet host? Mother Earth, it should be noted, is not known for saving her dominant species. She will survive in spite of us.
• On a more positive note, it is well documented that human beings, having reached a level of comfort and prosperity that allows for happiness, do not increase their happiness quotient the richer they become beyond that level. In addition, humans who have reached that same economic level, are likely to produce fewer offspring, theoretically relieving the pressure on the planet’s resources. They are more likely to establish stable communities with high literacy, low crime rates and good health, all of which enhance economic performance. It is therefore rational to adopt an economic system that ensures the greatest number of people on the planet achieve this level of prosperity/happiness.
• Further to the last point, transferring wealth from the very rich to the poor through taxation has not been found effective in achieving the aforementioned prosperity/happiness. Widespread ownership, of homes, farms and small to medium businesses, has in the past delivered prosperity/happiness in many countries, yet we are increasingly going in the opposite direction: wage and debt slavery, disenfranchisement and misery for an increasing number globally, not to mention the destruction of our last remnants of virgin forest and other ecosystems.
Here are some books I urge you to read:
• How Many Lightbulbs Does It Take To Change A Planet? By Tony Juniper, 2007; published in Great Britain by Quercus.
• We Hold These Truths − The Hope of Monetary Reform by Richard C. Cook, 2008−09, published in the US by Tendril Press.
• Courage to Change, by Les Hunter, 2002, published in New Zealand by Harbourside Publications.
• Payback − Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth by Margaret Atwood, 2008, published in London by Bloomsbury Publishing.
You, who are not subject to undue political influence, or distracted by the need to scratch a living for your family, are in a unique position to address this problem. Please, Mr. Morgan, apply your rational mind and your considerable resources to a study of the economy in the way you did for climate change. Find a way, right here in New Zealand, that we can change economic direction for the sake of all mankind and for our planet.
Dear Mr. Morgan,
Congratulations on your independent study of the science surrounding climate change. You have shown yourself to be a truly rational being − that is, one who can, in the face of overwhelming evidence, change his mind.
You are also considered to be an expert on the economy, no doubt because you have been successful at making money within the current system. As a rational man, you might like to apply the same sort of objective investigation to the economic crisis as you applied to the environmental one.
Here are a few points I urge you to consider:
• The economy and the ecology are inextricably linked. It is tempting to think of climate change and other environmental problems as annoying, expensive distractions, but in reality they are central to our survival as a nation and a species.
• Einstein said “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” This means that continuing with the present economic system is not rational.
• There is a direct correlation between “economic growth” and “carbon emissions” − the lines on a timeline graph are identical since the Industrial Revolution. The belief in unchecked “growth” as a valid method of economic recovery without considering the environmental cost is not rational.
• The effect of the current economic recession will be to put more and more wealth into fewer hands. The rest of us are increasingly relegated to debt slavery, unemployment and potential mass starvation, on a planet host that is rapidly being poisoned. This is not rational, even from the long−term point of view of the lucky few. Who will be left to buy their products and maintain their lifestyles? How will their obscene wealth help them when the seas engulf our coastal cities and arable land becomes desert?
• Are human beings doomed? As the most “successful” species the biosphere has had the misfortune to produce, will we self−destruct through an irrational belief in our right to consume no matter what the cost to our fellows and our planet host? Mother Earth, it should be noted, is not known for saving her dominant species. She will survive in spite of us.
• On a more positive note, it is well documented that human beings, having reached a level of comfort and prosperity that allows for happiness, do not increase their happiness quotient the richer they become beyond that level. In addition, humans who have reached that same economic level, are likely to produce fewer offspring, theoretically relieving the pressure on the planet’s resources. They are more likely to establish stable communities with high literacy, low crime rates and good health, all of which enhance economic performance. It is therefore rational to adopt an economic system that ensures the greatest number of people on the planet achieve this level of prosperity/happiness.
• Further to the last point, transferring wealth from the very rich to the poor through taxation has not been found effective in achieving the aforementioned prosperity/happiness. Widespread ownership, of homes, farms and small to medium businesses, has in the past delivered prosperity/happiness in many countries, yet we are increasingly going in the opposite direction: wage and debt slavery, disenfranchisement and misery for an increasing number globally, not to mention the destruction of our last remnants of virgin forest and other ecosystems.
Here are some books I urge you to read:
• How Many Lightbulbs Does It Take To Change A Planet? By Tony Juniper, 2007; published in Great Britain by Quercus.
• We Hold These Truths − The Hope of Monetary Reform by Richard C. Cook, 2008−09, published in the US by Tendril Press.
• Courage to Change, by Les Hunter, 2002, published in New Zealand by Harbourside Publications.
• Payback − Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth by Margaret Atwood, 2008, published in London by Bloomsbury Publishing.
You, who are not subject to undue political influence, or distracted by the need to scratch a living for your family, are in a unique position to address this problem. Please, Mr. Morgan, apply your rational mind and your considerable resources to a study of the economy in the way you did for climate change. Find a way, right here in New Zealand, that we can change economic direction for the sake of all mankind and for our planet.
30 October 2008
Beware of Maxim bearing gifts
Maxim Institute, that high-minded "think tank" that claims to stand for democracy and justice, showed last night in Tauranga (and obviously other meetings around the country) that they are a narrow-focused, arrogant group of stupid white men who carefully do not claim to be Christians. Yeah, right, just as well, because they give real Christians a bad name. Their website is full of weasel words and patronising articles, but just wade through the schlock and you get nothing more than a power base aimed at advancing the cause of intolerance, bigotry and the economic status quo.
So last night at Baycourt, the Maxim moderator banged on about democracy, gave the audience a patronising lecture about MMP and then proceeded to run a "debate" that was a sham. There were eight of the eleven or twelve parties represented on the top table, seven of them already in Parliament. The eighth was Maxim darling Larry Baldock. Two other candidates present (I was one, representing Democrats for social credit) were graciously allowed to speak at the beginning for two minutes, but were not included in the "debate".
When I challenged this ruling and asked for their reasoning, I was told: "This is a meeting about the party vote." Well, I was certainly seeking the party vote, but that was too bad for me. I just had to try and satisfy myself with interjections.
I sat through the meeting, managing a heckle or two, and was appalled. The questions were loaded, the candidates had no more than a minute each to answer, and what was worse, we were treated to a little "entertainment". Questions like "McCain or Obama?" "Sarah Palin - hot or not?"
Excuse me? Am I the only one who thought that was a pathetic waste of time? Questions like that were sexist, irrelevant and distracting the audience away from some really serious issues facing this country and the world. I know the women candidates were not impressed.
In the audience were groups of people who had come to support their candidates, which is fair enough. However, many of them were rude and noisy to other candidates, booing and catcalling throughout an answer - and the moderator made no attempt to control them in order for candidates to be heard. I was close to walking out at several points, and I could have made it a distracting one, as I was seated down in front and would have had to walk up the aisle in view of the entire audience. I wouldn't have left quietly, either.
However, I didn't walk out, I stayed to the bitter end. When it was over, I went up on stage and spoke directly to the Maxim muppet. I asked him to explain again why I, and indeed other bona fide candidates from registered parties, were not included in this debate. He said, "With respect, your party is not likely to get into Parliament."
Is your jaw dropping? Mine did. I said, "That's not your call. You don't know for sure that Larry Baldock will get in either." He gave me the most disdainful grin, but I carried on.
"You have done a disservice to all the people who came tonight," I said, shaking my finger in his face and waving my arm towards the auditorium. "Don't they have a right hear from all the candidates?"
"But then," he whined, "we would have twelve people on the stage."
"So?" I snapped. "Isn't that the democracy you went on about tonight? Maybe you couldn't be bothered. Maybe you're too busy trying to get through the eye of a needle."
He murmured that we would have to agree to disagree (same thing the Nats guy said - funny how they retire into cliches when they don't have a reasonable answer).
But I was stomping off by then - smiling!
All the way up the aisle and out through the foyer, I was stopped by people who wanted to congratulate me and say "Good on ya!" I wasn't the only one who thought the whole thing was a jack-up, believe me. And if it was meant to push Larry Baldock, it didn't do him any favours.
If it was me, I would have been embarrassed.
So last night at Baycourt, the Maxim moderator banged on about democracy, gave the audience a patronising lecture about MMP and then proceeded to run a "debate" that was a sham. There were eight of the eleven or twelve parties represented on the top table, seven of them already in Parliament. The eighth was Maxim darling Larry Baldock. Two other candidates present (I was one, representing Democrats for social credit) were graciously allowed to speak at the beginning for two minutes, but were not included in the "debate".
When I challenged this ruling and asked for their reasoning, I was told: "This is a meeting about the party vote." Well, I was certainly seeking the party vote, but that was too bad for me. I just had to try and satisfy myself with interjections.
I sat through the meeting, managing a heckle or two, and was appalled. The questions were loaded, the candidates had no more than a minute each to answer, and what was worse, we were treated to a little "entertainment". Questions like "McCain or Obama?" "Sarah Palin - hot or not?"
Excuse me? Am I the only one who thought that was a pathetic waste of time? Questions like that were sexist, irrelevant and distracting the audience away from some really serious issues facing this country and the world. I know the women candidates were not impressed.
In the audience were groups of people who had come to support their candidates, which is fair enough. However, many of them were rude and noisy to other candidates, booing and catcalling throughout an answer - and the moderator made no attempt to control them in order for candidates to be heard. I was close to walking out at several points, and I could have made it a distracting one, as I was seated down in front and would have had to walk up the aisle in view of the entire audience. I wouldn't have left quietly, either.
However, I didn't walk out, I stayed to the bitter end. When it was over, I went up on stage and spoke directly to the Maxim muppet. I asked him to explain again why I, and indeed other bona fide candidates from registered parties, were not included in this debate. He said, "With respect, your party is not likely to get into Parliament."
Is your jaw dropping? Mine did. I said, "That's not your call. You don't know for sure that Larry Baldock will get in either." He gave me the most disdainful grin, but I carried on.
"You have done a disservice to all the people who came tonight," I said, shaking my finger in his face and waving my arm towards the auditorium. "Don't they have a right hear from all the candidates?"
"But then," he whined, "we would have twelve people on the stage."
"So?" I snapped. "Isn't that the democracy you went on about tonight? Maybe you couldn't be bothered. Maybe you're too busy trying to get through the eye of a needle."
He murmured that we would have to agree to disagree (same thing the Nats guy said - funny how they retire into cliches when they don't have a reasonable answer).
But I was stomping off by then - smiling!
All the way up the aisle and out through the foyer, I was stopped by people who wanted to congratulate me and say "Good on ya!" I wasn't the only one who thought the whole thing was a jack-up, believe me. And if it was meant to push Larry Baldock, it didn't do him any favours.
If it was me, I would have been embarrassed.
19 September 2008
I'll show you the money!
Candidates had no answers for the Priority One audience at Bay Court in Tauranga this week. Colour me surprised to find that all five just kept to the usual platitudes.
They promise growth and infrastructure for Tauranga of course, but without a whisper of how to pay for it. Well, why would they campaign for more debt? Unless they are standing for National...
Huge global financial companies are toppling one after another, the world economy is going down the gurgler, and none of the parties in or out of Parliament will face up to what is really wrong. None but Democrats for social credit (DSC), that is. And what is wrong? Debt, greed and more leveraged debt.
DSC has the mechanism to free New Zealand from the world's financial turmoil. And more specifically, we can provide cities like Tauranga with sustainable growth, fully funded public transport, education, health and a clean green environment. But not under the present, very dodgy economic system.
Currently, for Tauranga to have the infrastructure to cope with a huge projected growth in the next few decades, the usury attached to commercial finance will mean paying for each project two and three times over, a debt burden that will enslave generations to come. Rates will go up, prices will go up, businesses will go under and everyone loses.
DSC has an alternative - create the credit needed for public works, at cost (less than 1%), by using our own Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Unlike the privately-owned Federal Reserve (USA), The RBNZ is owned by you and me. Why pay billions of dollars a year in interest to overseas banks when we could be running our own money supply?
No currency exchange costs, no interest, no ties to rocky overseas banking interests - just the good old Kiwi dollar created and spent the way we want it! Rates will go down, prices will go down, business will thrive because people will have more money to spend, and everyone wins.
What's that whine in the corner? "We won't attract foreign investment" you say? We need foreign investors buying our houses, our farms and our companies like we need a hole in the head. Since when did those greed merchants ever put any money into actual production?
If I am elected to Parliament as the member for Tauranga, I'll show you the money: Community credit from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
Choose real domocracy. Choose real freedom. Choose Democrats for social credit.
BTW, this was authorised by Mark Atkin, 5 Tarras Grove, Lower Hutt.
They promise growth and infrastructure for Tauranga of course, but without a whisper of how to pay for it. Well, why would they campaign for more debt? Unless they are standing for National...
Huge global financial companies are toppling one after another, the world economy is going down the gurgler, and none of the parties in or out of Parliament will face up to what is really wrong. None but Democrats for social credit (DSC), that is. And what is wrong? Debt, greed and more leveraged debt.
DSC has the mechanism to free New Zealand from the world's financial turmoil. And more specifically, we can provide cities like Tauranga with sustainable growth, fully funded public transport, education, health and a clean green environment. But not under the present, very dodgy economic system.
Currently, for Tauranga to have the infrastructure to cope with a huge projected growth in the next few decades, the usury attached to commercial finance will mean paying for each project two and three times over, a debt burden that will enslave generations to come. Rates will go up, prices will go up, businesses will go under and everyone loses.
DSC has an alternative - create the credit needed for public works, at cost (less than 1%), by using our own Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Unlike the privately-owned Federal Reserve (USA), The RBNZ is owned by you and me. Why pay billions of dollars a year in interest to overseas banks when we could be running our own money supply?
No currency exchange costs, no interest, no ties to rocky overseas banking interests - just the good old Kiwi dollar created and spent the way we want it! Rates will go down, prices will go down, business will thrive because people will have more money to spend, and everyone wins.
What's that whine in the corner? "We won't attract foreign investment" you say? We need foreign investors buying our houses, our farms and our companies like we need a hole in the head. Since when did those greed merchants ever put any money into actual production?
If I am elected to Parliament as the member for Tauranga, I'll show you the money: Community credit from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
Choose real domocracy. Choose real freedom. Choose Democrats for social credit.
BTW, this was authorised by Mark Atkin, 5 Tarras Grove, Lower Hutt.
07 September 2008
New Zealand is a colony
As most of us know, New Zealand was once a colony.
A powerful force from the other side of the world claimed ownership of these islands, and sent soldiers, settlers and fortune hunters to take possession. The indigenous people were robbed of their lands and livelihoods by overwhelming numbers of foreigners. They became impoverished second-class citizens in their own country. Their populations were decimated by war and disease, and at one time it was assumed that they would die out - conveniently for some.
You might think this is just history. But it has happened all over again. New Zealand has been colonised by powerful forces - big overseas banks and their cohorts, the multinational corporations.
Think about it. Kiwis work harder, longer and smarter than just about anyone, but we are only running to stay in place - if we're lucky. Too many of us are slipping further into poverty, along with a quarter of our nation's children.
Land ownership has passed more and more into foreign hands. Mortgages on family homes are mostly held by overseas banks. Every day, small business are forced into bankruptcy by larger, overseas-owned chains, and more successful Kiwi companies get sold off to become merely branch offices of huge multinationals. Those companies not sold are forced off shore, looking for cheaper labour and cheaper finance. Even our largest daily newspaper is the flagship of a media fleet owned and controlled by overseas interests.
And what do these overseas interests care about? They care about milking the cash cow that is New Zealand.
We, the multi-coloured peoples of New Zealand, are being milked of everything we have. We are slipping into debt slavery. We are being conquered, robbed and enslaved - without a shot being fired.
It doesn't have to be this way.
We, the electors of New Zealand, still have the power to decide who will run our government. We can turn away from Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, the two major parties who are the political lackeys of the economic powers that be. Neither one has any intention of changing our economic system and releasing the people from slavery.
In fact, no party in Parliament has such an intention. The smaller parties campaign on narrow agendas, refusing to accept that what they want to achieve is impossible without a major change to the monetary system.
ACT's call for individual responsibility would leave most individuals even more vulnerable to the rapacious economic colonists, allowing only a few to strike it rich through speculation. The Greens will never save Hector's Dolphin or the native snail while we have to borrow from commercial banks at compounding interest to fund those projects.
United Future bangs on about families, with no financial policy to help more than the middle class. The worthy Maori Party will continue to see it's constituency struggling in the current economic system. Too many Maori still endure the double whammy of colonisation - then and now.
Most reprehensible are NZ First and Progressive. Both leaders understand the need for monetary reform, and both have skirted close to advocating aspects of that reform. However, neither have found it politically expedient to adopt the needful measures that will not only pull this country out of the world recession (as was done in the 1930s) but will benefit Kiwis for generations to come. Both leaders take the specious attitude that staying in power (with weak, timid policies) is better than campaigning for what is right. Shame.
Outside of Parliament, again the focus is so narrow as to ignore the glaringly obvious. Certainly Direct Democracy's BCIR policy is a good one - Democrats for social credit had it first! But without public control of the nation's money supply, we can vote on any number of binding referenda and it will make very little difference.
The Libertarianz and their ilk advocate a dog-eat-dog principle, but the big dogs are already feasting. "You own your own life!" they cry. Sorry guys, right now the banks own your life. And so it goes on.
Only one political party, Democrats for social credit, has the intention, the policies and the financial mechanism to establish a new economic paradigm in this country. To secure our independence from colonising powers, we will take public control of the money supply.
DSC says: stop borrowing from commercial banks - step away from the evil that is usury. Instead make use of a cheap, efficient source of money from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Only then will this country return to a free and just society, an equitable distribution of wealth that all work for, and a land that is really clean and green.
New Zealand has a history of leading the world. Here's another chance: to show other countries a viable way out of that debt trap that grips us all.
Vote Democrats for social credit this election.
BTW, this was authorised by Mark Atkin, 5 Tarras Grove, Lower Hutt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
