Sunday, 26 May 2013

Money From Thin Air - Rap song by Consensus

Maybe this is a better way to get the pyramid aspects of the current international supply side of money across to our younger generation? Sure is a catchy ditty!

                                        Click play

Sunday, 19 May 2013

If New Zealand Green Party is thinking economic sovereignty revolution it might want to take some inspiration from Martin Luther King!

New Zealand Green Party Co-leader Russel Norman by his action of mentioning 'publicly created money' in his budget debate reply has taken the first steps down a path of economic sovereignty revolution against the Anglo-Saxon private central banking network who's entirely interest bearing private loan based money supply pyramid scam we suffer may like to set aside some time to listen to Martin Luther Kings 1967 speech - Beyond Vietnam - about the money driven motives of the Vietnam war.
I am not a spiritual person, as I believe our problems are man made and can be solved by man, but this speech rings true today as it did back then for the very same reasons;

Video - Martin Luther King Jr.'s Speech - "Beyond Vietnam" 

Text -  Martin Luther King Jr.'s Speech - "Beyond Vietnam"
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, some of the most distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it’s always good to come back to Riverside Church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it’s always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit.
I come to this great magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization that brought us together, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.
Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement, and pray that our inner being may be sensitive to its guidance. For we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: “Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?” “Peace and civil rights don’t mix,” they say. “Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people?” they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment, or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church—the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate—leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.
Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.
Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years, especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, “What about Vietnam?” They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
For those who ask the question, “Aren’t you a civil rights leader?” and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957, when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: “To save the soul of America.” We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard from Harlem, who had written earlier:
O, yes, I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!
Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read “Vietnam.” It can never be saved so long as it destroys the hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that “America will be” are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954.* And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances.
But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men—for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
Finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place, I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. Because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them. This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, for those it calls “enemy,” for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.
They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954—in 1945 rather—after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China—for whom the Vietnamese have no great love—but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.
For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.
After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed and Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.
So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation’s only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.
Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call “fortified hamlets.” The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.
Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation front, that strangely anonymous group we call “VC” or “communists”? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of “aggression from the North” as if there was nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only real party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of a new violence?
Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western worlds, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led this nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a unified Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be considered.
Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.
Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called “enemy,” I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.
Surely this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroy, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor in America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:
Each day the war goes on the hatred increased in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.
I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.
Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.
Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.
Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.
Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement. [sustained applause]
Part of our ongoing [applause continues], part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary. Meanwhile [applause], meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.
As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation’s role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. [sustained applause] I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. [applause] Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. [applause] These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.
The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [applause], and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing “clergy and laymen concerned” committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. [sustained applause] So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.
It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” [applause] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on to the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [applause], we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see than an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [applause]
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [sustained applause]
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.
This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. [applause] War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy [applause], realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.
It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when “every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low [Audience:] (Yes); the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.”
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I’m not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: “Let us love one another (Yes), for love is God. (Yes) And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us.” Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: “Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word.” Unquote.
We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood—it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, “Too late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.”
We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message—of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.
As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:
Once to every man and nation comes a moment do decide,
In the strife of truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever ‘twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet ‘tis truth alone is strong
Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. [sustained applause]
*. King says “1954,” but most likely means 1964, the year he received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Friday, 17 May 2013

Rob Muldoon New Zealand Prime Minister 1975 – 1984 Made A Scapegoat For Private Central Banking Network Predatory Lending.

Rob Muldoon risked life and limb fighting for New Zealand in World War 2. His patriotism was unquestionable. He was one of very few outside of the backroom club of monied men who understood how the international supply side of money worked and the predatory lending nature of it. Muldoon thought he could outsmart private money as debt wholesalers but I dont believe he realised just how much global monopolist influence they had.

Rob Muldoons' 'Think Big' policies unlocked more of the natural resources of New Zealand for use than any other time in our history but just like many other nations before and since any increased standard of living gained under an entirely interest bearing private loan based money system such as the Anglo-Saxon private central banking network ends up being nothing but bait in a predatory trap!

The Rise and Fall of a Young Turk, by Rob Muldoon 1974
page 53-54;
My first bit of "Young Turkism" was a solo effort. Shortly after the change of government the Prime Minister told Caucus that Cabinet proposed that we should join the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This was not in our 1960s policy and I had never been particularly keen for New Zealand to join.
The fact that New Zealand had not joined after Bretton Woods was due to an adverse vote in the Labour Caucus and there is no doubt that the then Minister of Finance Walter Nash, who had been at Bretton Woods, was disappointed, as he was on record as congratulating the chairman of the Bretton Woods conference on his achievements The Holland Government. did not join because Sid Holland was not happy about it. He had been a monetary reformer in the 1930s and had committed himself firmly, as had Sid Smith from Hobson, who had also been close to Social Credit in those days. Most of the others favoured joining but there were a group that remained unconvinced.
page 54;
There was no doubt that members of the fund incurred obligations, and my argument was that as long as we could do our official borrowing from in Britain without tags we did not need these institutions. While Caucus generally approved the introduction several of us remained unconvinced and we knew that Labour would vote heavily against us even though some of them favoured joining.
Harry Lake finally got his two experts. Noel Lough, from Treasury, now deputy secretary, and Bob Familton from the Reserve Bank, now in Washington on the staff of the World Bank, to come up and discuss detail with the dissenters. One by one they were satisfied, Percy Allan and Bert Walker being the last, but I was left unconvinced. In the process we all, the departmental officers included, learned a lot about the working of the two institutions. Finally the bill was passed by Caucus to go into the house and I had said I would vote against it. On the night of the Caucus I had one last long session with the officials and we agreed on the obligations of membership and finally agreed that in the long run, that international lending would more and more be channelled through these organisations and that we could probably not rely on Britain to supply our needs. A year or two later that proved to be so and we could generally only refinance maturities in Britain, not raise new loans.
page 55;
Fate later made me a Governor of the fund and I became closely interested in its work and a great friend and admirer of its managing director, Pierre- Paul Schweitzer. Even the Labour Party, after ten years of opposition to the fund, finally reversed there stand in 1972............. over ten years later I find that my speeches on the bill set out my reservations clearly and my reasons for supporting it. In the main however they were devoted to destroying the fallacious arguments dredged up by the opposition, who were prepared to use the most preposterous material in what was really a play for the monetary reformers who had moved to Social Credit........As Keith had no doubt planned, we joined the Fund and Bank and by the 1963 election the issue was dead.
page 68-69;
I studied the United States taxation system as one of my subjects on a three month visit to the USA in 1965 as recipient of a US State Department foreign leader grant. I regard these agents as some of the best money the United States spends. Each year they bring up and coming politicians and potential leaders from other fields to the USA for a visit of two or three months. They are not restricted but must nominate the subjects they wish to study, and arrangements are made for them to meet top people and organisations in those fields. As one of my fields of study was finance and taxation I spent several weeks in Washington DC and met leading figures in the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Bureau of the Budget(the US equivalent of the Audit Department, and the US Mint.....
The political system formulated two hundred years ago is totally unsuited to the modern world. A system of checks and balances devised when the fastest means of communication was the horse and sail, is an anachronism in a world of instant crisis. The American political system today is based on favours given and received, and is hopelessly corrupt. Some parts are more corrupt than others, but it is almost impossible to be a successful politician in the USA and remain an honourable man. The USA is not alone in this of course, and parts of Asia and Africa are very much worse. The political darlings of our so-called "Liberals" are in many cases unscrupulous thugs who could give lessons in brutality and corruption to the Mafia.
page 70;
Where do they go from here? I do not know, but unless America throws up a number of men of courage and genius in the next twenty-five years I believe that the classical symptoms of the decline of a civilisation will turn into a reality.

The New Zealand Economy, A Personal view, by Rob Muldoon 1985
page 17-18;
It was during the 1930s that major changes occurred in the financial sector. The first trading banks in New Zealand were branches of Australian banks. Late in the 19th century the Bank of New Zealand was formed by local interests, but in 1894 the Government had to step in and save it from collapse and from that time the Government played a major role as shareholder until finally taking over compulsorily the whole shareholding immediately after World War 11.
The Reserve Bank was established by the Coalition Government in 1933 with a considerable degree of independence and some private shareholding. In 1936 however it was taken over by the Labour Government and required to give effect to the monetary policy of the Government as communicated to it by the Minister of Finance. This remains the position today, and although the degree of independence that the bank enjoys is less than is the case in some other countries, two factors at least make that lesser degree of independence desirable. The first is the limited number and range of experience of the policy making personnel of the bank, even though supplemented by a Board of Directors of a high calibre, drawn mainly from the private sector, and the second is the sensitivity of the New Zealand economy to changes in the world economy because of the importance in our economy of our external trade. These factors make it desirable that the whole range of advise and experience available to the Government is concentrated, even on day to day issues, and that the final responsibility for decisions rests with the elected Government.
page 25;
A curious feature of the Holland Government was its failure to join the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
During World War 11 the allied nations had discussed the prospects for the world economy after the war. They were determined that that there should not be another great depression of the 1930'swith massive unemployment, poverty and competitive devaluations of various currencies. The idea of an international currency was discussed. All this came together at a meeting of nations called Bretton Woods in New Hampshire 1944. The discussion was dominated by the United States and Britain and it was the American view that prevailed. There was no consensus on an international currency, but it was agreed to set up two institutions.
The first, the International Monetary Fund, would have certain powers of supervision over the relationship between the various international currencies and also the ability to make short term advances at low rates of interest to countries that were in temporary difficulties.
The second institution, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, or World Bank, was to operate in terms of its title and was essentially a means of mobilising funds, first for lending for post war construction, and subsequently for development generally.
Some years later it formed the International Development Association for soft loan lending to very poor countries, and the International Finance Association for lending to the private sector in the less developed countries. Membership to these bodies was by way of quota which determined the obligations to subscribe, partly in gold and partly in national currencies, as well as the amounts that could be drawn in times of difficulty from the fund. Borrowing from the bank was essentially project borrowing and limited to countries who were not classified among the wealthiest.
Membership of the fund clearly involved some loss of sovereignty although as voting in all of these bodies was related to quota, the wealthy countries were dominant and the United States in particular had a quota big enough to give it veto on matters of importance. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade resulted from the subsequent Havana Conference which was set up initially to do for trade what the Bretton Woods Conference had done for international finance.
Although Walter Nash had attended the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 the Labour Party Caucus back in New Zealand was still a hot bed of old time socialist suspicion of international money power, indeed some Labour members were adherents of the Douglas Social Credit theories which had gained considerable support during the 1930s. 
The result was that Nash, then Finance Minister, was unable to persuade his colleagues that New Zealand should become a member of the Fund and the Bank, although we did become, curiously, a contracting party of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
At the very outset, in 1947, GATT was not supplemented by an international trade organisation, as perhaps by the time the Havana Conference met the fears for the post war economy that were apparent at Bretton Woods had subsided somewhat. a more enlightened attitude to international financial cooperation might have been expected from the Holland National Government, but the fact is that Sid Holland himself had been a monetary reformer in the 1930s when he first came into Parliament and felt, as so many politicians have done over the years on all kinds of issues, that a change in attitude would be politically damaging. There were others in his Government who were uneasy about the implications of joining the Fund and Bank, not the least Sid Smith, the member for the far north seat which has variously been called Bay of Islands and Hobson, and which for decades has been the principal home of the Social Credit theorists, Sid Smith himself being an adherent during the 1930s.
Keith Holyoake, however, was of a different view and in spite of the fact that it was not in our 1960 election policy we joined these organisations in 1961.
Page 33-34;
I well remember Keith Holyoake coming into Caucus in February or March of 1961 and the shock that it gave a brand new backbencher when he told us that the honeymoon was over and that we were faced with a serious situation, in respect of both Government accounts and our overseas transactions..............
In May 1961 we raised a sterling loan of 20 million pounds, a substantial sum for those days.
In February we had gone on the domestic market for 10 million pounds and taken 13.7 million. We were on the market again in June for 15 million pounds. In March the Reserve Bank moved to reduce the level of bank overdrafts. We brought in hire purchase regulations and restrained public expenditure to the greatest possible extent. We put a restriction on the allowances for overseas travel and we tightened up import licensing. If the figures sound small today then the March deficit, which continued to increase for sometime, was a record at that particular time.

We announced that we would be joining the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and a principal reason was that it would give us access to drawing rights. Although this had not been in our election policy, we carried out our policy by appointing various advisory bodies in the economic field, the principal one being the Monetary and Economic Council, a three member council with supporting staff which had the task of advising the Government on matters of economic policy, but most importantly, the right to publish its advice, in various forms, with various amendments to its composition and order of reference, the Monetary and Economic Council and its successors have continued up until the present time.

page 35;
In recent years the deliberate move to a more broadly based economy has provided part of the longterm answer. One attempt by the Holyoake Government to help alleviate the problem was as I have mentioned to join the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. If Keith Holyoake had any idea of doing this prior to the 1960s election, and I believe that he probably did, then he gave no hint of it. It would have been highly controversial, politically, even within his own party.
Harry Lakes analysis of the move in his 1961 budget involved freeing up our gold reserves of 12.3 million pounds, most of which was pledged for a loan of $US34.5 million which it was proposed to repay in August 1961 two months early.
The use of gold as part of our subscription to the fund would give us a fund quota of $US125 million, and potential drawing rights of 55.8 million pounds at low rates of interest. A number of National Party members, of whom I was one, had not been convinced that we should join the fund with the consequent loss of sovereignty, so long as we could continue to borrow from time to time for temporary balance of payment reasons from Britain. Perhaps the writing was on the wall when Arnold Nordmeyer went to the United States for the US dollar loan in the time of the Nash Government and after earnest and detailed study the dissenting members became convinced that we could no longer look to Britain for our needs in all circumstances.
page 48;
The 1960s were a time of expansion for savings banks. In 1964 the Government introduced a bill to authorise trading banks, to establish savings banks. This was in response to representations from the trading banks that the proliferation of trustee savings banks which had commenced some years earlier, was likely to effect their business, and that if they were given the opportunity to operate savings banks, the total of small savings would be increased as had been the case in Australia, and in earlier years under similar circumstances.
page 49;
The history of trustee savings banks in New Zealand, although long, has been a chequered one.
Generally it has been a story of success, in spite of the fact that their pattern over the years has very largely been in that dangerous area of borrowing short and lending long. Treasury has always taken the view that trustee savings banks are an inefficient method of mobilising savings and in the time of the Kirk/Rowling Government, the overseeing of trustee banks was moved from
Treasury to the Reserve Bank by the Reserve Bank Amendment Act of 1973. On its return to office in 1975, the National Government did not alter this as the change had little effect on banks.
Trustee savings banks as a repository for workingmen's savings were authorised by a Legislative Council Ordinance in 1847. The Wellington Bank had in fact been formed in 1846, with Auckland following in 1847, and subsequently banks opened at New Plymouth, Lyttelton, Nelson, Napier, Dunedin, Invercargill and Hokitika. The Lyttelton branche bank moved later to Christchurch.
The establishment of the Post Office Savings Bank, which began operations in 1967, was a major set back to trustee savings banks; indeed, in the minds of some politicians it was intended to be just that. It impinged on the issue of centralism as against provincial Government and the centralists did not favour the local provincial nature of the trustee banks.
page 52;
The fact that even in good years we did not show an overall surplus on our external current account and had to borrow and even draw from the IMF was also of concern, so that we were forced to move to restrain not just consumption, but capital development as well.
page 61;
It was in 1967 that, as a result of the wool slump, we borrowed into the higher tranches by way of drawings from the International Monetary Fund and gave the fund a controversial letter of intent. The semantics of a letter of intent as debatable then as they are today when the Fund has some 40 such arrangements. When the leftwing politicians and academics claimed that the Fund had laid down conditions before permitting us to draw in the higher tranches, I insisted, as did the Fund, that it was up to the Government of the member country to indicate the policies that it would pursue in order to restore balance to its economy, while the Fund made its decision on whether or not to agree to the drawings in light of the policies that were proposed.
page 62-3;
In February 1985 at a seminar of the Association of Economists the academic economists from the universities attacked the Treasury colleagues for giving simplistic and indeed bad advice to the incoming Labour Government of 1984. Curiously they were saying what I had been saying since the time of the 1984 election. In reply the Treasury economists explained that where as in earlier years Treasury advice was Keynesian, they had gradually moved to new theories which were not, they claimed, simply monetarist, but which basically favoured an open economy, even though, in a move towards that economy, there would be some pain............ To blandly say, as the Treasury economists did, that, "we were formerly Keynesians, but we have now moved and support the mainstream of economic thinking," is an appalling admission. The truth is that in terms of the economic management of the New Zealand economy both theories are inadequate.
page 66;
In my 1968 budget I referred to the establishment by the International Monetary Fund of a new international reserve asset, the special drawing right(SDR) and the problem of smaller countries which depend for their export earnings on commodities, the prices of which fluctuate violently. I have spoken on that theme at IMF meetings and elsewhere ever since.
page 69;
The early 1970s saw a changing world economy and those changes had a massive impact on a country so dependent on world trade as New Zealand. On 15 August 1971, President Nixon closed the gold window. In plain language, American dollars were no longer convertible into gold and the fixed price of $35 an ounce, which dated back to the 1930s was ended.. The date of this move can be taken as the date on which the Bretton Woods system of fixed but managed currency relationships finally ended.
page 70;
Immediately following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, moves were made to bring together a new system and the concept of the Committee of Twenty, was devised. This was a committee based on the membership of the Executive Boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank under which some 120 nations(nearer 150 today) were grouped together into 20
groups, each having some community of interest and a total quota of approximately a the same size.
The effect of this was that the countries with the largest quotas formed a group of one, while the smaller countries were grouped in numbers that made up the approximate quota total and represented by one of their members. Voting on the Executive Board is by quota and in the manner in which the rules are drafted the United States has an effective veto because of the size of its quota on matters of major importance.........
page 71;
The first meeting of the Committee of twenty was held in Washington at the time of the IMF meeting of September 1972. We had high hope that it would bring together some new rules that would take the place of the former Bretton woods system. These hopes were not realised and some two years later, after the first oil shock, the committee changed its name Interim Committee enlarged it membership to 22 to admit Saudi Arabia and later China and continued as a policy making body which in the first decade of its existence did little that warranted its continuing operation.
In particular, it made no progress on the establishment of a new set of rules for the worlds monetary system, although it considered and discarded several worthwhile initiatives mainly
because of objections to each by the United States. One was the proposal that the SDR should be established as the major international currency by substituting it for externally held currencies, principally US dollars. This tripped over the requirement that the United States should give some kind of guarantee in respect of the dollars that were substituted, which they were not prepared to do. Another proposal which was not acceptable was 'symmetrical surveillance' that is to say, that the IMF should exercise surveillance over surplus countries as well as deficit countries, given that each dollar of surplus creates a dollar of deficit - atleast in theory, because the statistics do not add up by something of the order of $100 billion. It was held to be unreasonable that the whole burden of adjustment should fall on the deficit countries. The proposal was eminently fair and is an issue that I believe must be addressed again for it is inevitable that it form part of any stable system for world monetary relationships..........
New Zealand has a record that is second to none in its support of international institutions of which we have been members, and our willingness to obey the rules, both in letter and in spirit. We have been constantly disappointed however, by the fact that so many countries - and among them some of the most affluent - have for domestic political reasons been prepared to bend or even ignore the rules when it suited their purpose. The history of the IMF and its
sister organisations since the break down of the Bretton Woods system has unfortunately been one were short term self interest has overridden long term wisdom. That this has now apparently been recognised can not alter the unfortunate history of the years since 1971.
page 109; 
Following the second oil shock in 1979 the volume of petro dollars increased but the position of the non oil developing countries began to look less attractive, particularly as some of the new industries that were being developed found that when they came on stream their products, and steel was an example, were facing, protectionist barriers in their natural markets in the wealthy industrialised countries, in some cases the very countries that had provided the loans to build the plants.
page 153; 
The international institutions must be reformed with a mandate that fits the needs of the 1980s and into the 21st century. The immediate debt crisis must be dealt with, not as a bail out of either the heavily indebted countries or commercial banks but as a means of averting the collapse of the worlds financial system with a resulting world wide depression such as we have not had since the 1930s, a depression from which no countries economy would be immune.