by Dr Edward C. Hamlyn M.B.Ch.B.

Befriending our Farmers

Each and every one of us has a vested interest in caring about the farmer because our health depends upon the quality of what we eat. That quality depends upon good husbandry which in turn depends upon the best quality of food providing the highest rewards for the farmer.

As farming economics are rigged at present the highest reward for farming goes to the man who can produce the cheapest food, that will sell. As long as it looks good on the shelf at the right price we eat it. The health of the shelf is more important than the health of the farmer and more important than the health of the consumer.

Back in 1930 an American dentist Weston Price embarked on a mission to find out why the people of a few remote communities maintained perfect teeth until death at a ripe old age. Not only did he find out why they had perfect teeth but that this accompanied perfect health and no insanity and no crime. He found that these people from various areas had one thing in common and that was a 100% natural unpolluted diet. In those days the Eskimo lived entirely on what he pulled out of a hole in the ice, garnished with the content of the rumen of the caribou. His old people had nothing from which to die.

Weston Price found other isolated pockets of population who enjoyed perfect health and in every case the secret was the quality of their food. Cancer is a manmade illness, it does not exist in the wild. This research proved conclusively that our health depends upon the quality of our food and food quality should have the highest priority in civilised life.

After all, if we turned things around we should be able to do better than the wild. Instead we seem hell-bent on producing vast quantities of cheap food that is probably not fit to be consumed by man nor beast.

Chemical residues which are allowed to enter the food chain cause cancer.

If you want proof that the warlords of commerce treat our health with utter disdain notice the manner in which we are being forced to accept GM foods as though safety doesn't matter. All the time we move further and further away from the ideal of good husbandry toward the ideal of industrialised eating.

We know this is wrong, organic food, that is safe and nourishing food, has become a luxury item. We see health food shops appear in our high streets as we attempt to make good the increasing shortcomings in our diet and we see food programmes on TV, with comic chefs becoming all the rage. But we do not see any attempt to save our farmers from ruin and our health is in their hands. And it depends utterly on good husbandry becoming financially viable.

Nobody is going to help the farmer unless we do. No one else cares, but each one of us cares about our own health and the health of our loved ones. If we wish to eat well and thereby live well, we must save farming from ruin.

The rot started 300 years ago when King William, fighting the French, ran out of money to pay his soldiers. He needed 20 million quick. Financiers came to King William and offered him a deal. That deal, as you will discover as you read this booklet, incorporated the most outrageous scam ever dreamed up by the criminal mind. You will also discover that our currency henceforth became debt and you will see the devastation this has wrought upon the worlds' economies. Debt has worked its way into every facet of our lives.

Farmers, faced with a time lag between seed time and harvest and an even longer time lag between insemination and maturity, are victimised by this intolerable burden of debt. When interest rates are high and exchange rates are askew farmers start to disappear. The best go first and the giants of industry take over and the giants, concerned with bulk sales and shelf life, care nothing for our health. To entrust them with our health is suicidal.

As a result, cancer and other diet-related diseases reach epidemic proportions and the NHS struggles to cope. Insanity and crime likewise begin to mushroom at unprecedented rates. We are, whether we know it or not, engaged in an unpublicised struggle for survival. We simply cannot afford to let our best farmers disappear and the quality of our food to continue to decline.

Fortunately there is a way out. A simple do-able way. Read on.


...and all that
by Kieron McFadden
The current drive on the part of transglobal corporations to enter into our food chain potentially lethal genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has nothing to do with providing us with decent wholesome food.

GM food contains the very real possibility for planetary catastrophe. It is foisted on us without our consent or understanding. Its manufacturers are quite willing to gloss over the risks, play Russian Roulette with the food chain and the environment and to disregard the health of future generations.

When food itself, a fundamental basic to our survival, becomes fraught with perils that arise as a consequence, not of natural disasters such as drought or flood, but of man-made blights arising directly from the "market forces" of the economic system we have erected to serve us, then clearly our very civilisation is in peril.

Human demand is supposed to drive economies but that is not what is happening. Something is driving us where we don't want to go - but demand isn't it.

What are the "economic" forces that compel corporations such as Monsanto into a recklessness where considerations of health, safety and human need are disregarded like unwanted ballast? And what is the source of them?

When one traces the whole farrago back to its underlying "why?", one discovers that there is a hidden flaw in our economy that renders it incapable of responding to real human need.

When one understands that flaw and its consequences, all becomes clear - and the door to a solution that will benefit all mankind is thrown wide open.


How necessary is it for us to take the trouble to understand all this?

The answer to that question is, bluntly: it is a matter of screaming urgency.

Much has been written with great authority by those who seek to warn us of the dangers posed by genetic experimentation. Perhaps the best of these can be found in Dr Vernon Coleman's Health Letter, Vol 2 No.11 June 1998 (available from Publishing House, Trinity Place, Barnstaple, Devon, EX32 8HJ). Read it if you are in any doubt as to whether our predicament is as dire as it sounds.

The problem is that it is difficult to make the situation sound dire enough! It is almost impossible to put into words the extent of the peril that Monsanto et al have inflicted upon us. That peril is arguably by far the greatest Man has ever faced and you and I are living it here and now. Whether or not we take those warnings to heart and galvanise ourselves to action in our own defence is a matter of whether we wish to live or die - period. Inaction will kill us. Waiting for government to "do something about it" will also kill us because government, for reasons you will see, serves other powers than its electorate.

The inescapable truth of the matter is that our understanding of genetics is tiny compared with the vast amount as yet not known. The potential consequences of tampering with the very building blocks of life are catastrophic.

When food giants like Monsanto endeavour to persuade us that the risks are "small" (whatever that means), the argument is tantamount to a discussion as to how many bullets are in the chamber as we hold a gun to the head of all life on the planet.

One only has to understand the basic interdependency of the multitudinous strains of organic life whose balanced interrelationships have evolved over hundreds of millions of years, of which only a small fraction is as yet properly mapped and understood, is to know GM foods, not atomic warfare, have become the major threat to health and life on this planet.

It is impossible, at present, for any of us to protect ourselves by refusing to eat food contaminated with GM organisms because such organisms may already be in the food chain through their use in animal feeds or in products such as soya that have been on the market for some time.

Government is not going to take the unequivocal action necessary to fully protect us from present and future infiltration of GM organisms into our food and the environment. It should, but people fall into the trap of believing that it will, or can, because there is something about all this that none of us are being told.


Serious problems with our food began long before the advent of genetic experimentation, at the root of which lie economic pressures on farming.

As long ago as 1974, Dr Americo Mosca, author of Atoms in Agriculture and chemistry prize winner of the Brussels World Fair had this to say about the effects of "modern" farming upon our survival:

"I calculate that in the U.S. the use of toxic genetic chemicals, (herbicides, insecticides, hormones, steroids etc.) cause damage equal to atomic fallout from 145 H-bombs of 14 megatons each, or in terms of atomic bombs - from 72,500 atomic bombs of the Hiroshima type. For this reason in the United States in the last ten years disease of all kinds and births of mentally retarded babies have increased tremendously. The damage to plants, crops, soil fertility, and water pollution are practically incalculable. If use of these toxic genetic chemicals persist in agriculture and on food this will cause the destruction of the American people."

A Senate document (#264 of the 74th Congress, 2nd Session) published by the US Congress as long ago as 1936 warned that laboratory tests proved that US farm and range soils were depleted of minerals even then and that grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, eggs and even milk were not what they had been a few generations earlier. More than sixty years later the mind boggles as to just how much worse has become that already dire situation.

As Hamaker and Weaver so aptly pointed out in Survival of Civilisation: "It makes a clear picture of why all the living things on Earth have been slowly starving to death....."[emphasis added.]

This is no exaggeration. In Secrets of the Soil, Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird describe how malnutrition begins with overworked and tired soil that is poisoned with synthetic chemicals.

As if we did not have enough problems, we now have to contend with the arrival on the scene of genetic experimentation, which addresses none of the reasons much of our food is already of such dangerously low quality and merely adds further terrifying complications to existing shortcomings.


The food giants compete in a market place where competition is unimaginably fierce. The hope of being able to produce a "bigger and better tomato" or a "new improved onion" with higher yields per acre and in-built resistance to pests or disease is more than just an attractive one. Were it to be achieved, the advantage it would provide over rivals in the market place would be enormous. None of the competitors embroiled in that life-or-death rivalry dare risk falling behind in the race for the economic grail.

Genetic scientists are therefore set to work in the hunt for some innovation that will provide a market lead. It is a quest pursued with seeming desperation, where to stop for a moment to consider ethics or safety or even the future of life on the planet would be a fatal lapse the food giants cannot afford.

The giants race as if compelled into by far the most massive gamble with its future the human race has ever taken.

Why take this perilous direction at all when there was nothing genetically wrong with food to begin with? It is perfectly able to meet our needs and perfectly SAFE, provided it is grown properly in the first place. But the farmer is seduced by subsidies into malpractice.

Yet there is little effective market pressure to produce safe, nutritious food, using methods that do not cause wholesale destruction of the land on which the food is obliged to grow, even though we already have the means and the know-how to do it.

In the economic maelstrom in which he has been forced to fight to survive, the conscientious husbander of the land cannot compete financially with the factory farmer armed with chemical fertilisers, growth hormones and genetically altered seeds and other harmful expedients.

The prevailing market pressures are in the direction of producing food cheaply and in bulk, cutting costs - particularly labour costs - as much as can be possibly achieved through mechanisation, aggressive treatments with chemicals and growth hormones and so on, with little regard for the nutritional value of the product or the damage done to the land and the environment, not to mention the people who eat the stuff.

Food should be the one area of economic activity fully under consumer control, the industry supplying not only what the consumer wants but what he NEEDS for optimum health. But all the evidence points to the industry moving in the other direction. The consumer gets attractive packaging, food low in nutritional content and heavily contaminated with all manner of chemicals, the very things he doesn't need if he wants to live long and healthily.

What are the market forces that render the food industry increasingly unable to meet real human need? How on earth does it come about that contaminated, poor quality food and utterly foolhardy experimentation with genes are financially viable whilst being completely unviable in any sense that relates to human survival?

There is an inherent contradiction in the fact that the price we pay for living in a highly advanced technological civilisation with a diverse and highly evolved economy is being unable to eat properly.


The market forces at work here, built like a design-fault into the very fabric of our economy, are entirely man-made. They ensure that our economic system is unable to function properly in terms of serving our needs. The only reason they remain in place at all is that you have been kept in ignorance of them.

To understand the inherent simplicity of a truth hidden beneath a smokescreen of economic gibberish, one needs first to get back to some simple basics.


Who creates it?

If you thought that our government issues our currency, think again. It only issues a tiny, almost negligible, 3% of it.

The remaining 97% came into existence through bank lending. Almost all of the money in circulation exists as a loan, over which the lender retains the right of ownership and which must be paid back, with interest.

Take a look at this simple fact: every country has a national debt. Britain's, for example, currently stands at a colossal 380 billion. A national debt is essentially what a country's government has borrowed from private financial institutions like the Bank of England. Without exception, banks are private corporations, owned by private investors for private profit.

Government borrowing is one major route through which money is created and then circulated in the economy.

The other major route is private and commercial borrowing, through mortgages and other forms of credit.

97% of all the money in circulation is borrowed, either by the government or by you and I.

The sum total of Britain's national debt (government borrowing) and private and commercial debt, now stands at over 1 trillion.

Britain is typical of every nation.

But if every national economy on the planet has outstanding debts to the tune of trillions or billions of pounds, where do their creditors find the money to lend?

Where does such a vast sea of money come from?

The answer is: it does not come from anywhere. It does not exist until the moment it is loaned. It is conjured out of thin air!

Banks are not lending money some depositors left in their vaults. When they lend, no depositor's account is debited.

For instance, the bank lends Joe 5000; Tom does not then receive a letter from his bank manager saying his savings are temporarily unavailable because they have be lent to Joe. It does not work like that, although people have been allowed to believe it does.

So what does go on when Joe is loaned 5000?

What actually happens is that the bank simply enters the figure 5000 in Joe's account.....And that's just about it!

No money moves from one account to the other. The transaction is purely and only a ledger entry, the writing of figures in a column, the changing of numbers on a computer screen. In essence the process is the same as a forger printing fivers in his basement and lending them out at interest. Only in this case the government has secretly given the forger carte blanche to do so.

A stab of computer keys and, hey presto, Joe now has the figure of 5000 in his account, which he can spend by writing cheques or changing it for cash at the cashpoint, through direct debits, standing orders or using plastic cards. That 5000 has now entered the economy as money although it did not exist until the moment it was loaned.

But the money thus created is only Joe's to use temporarily. Like anything that is loaned, the lender still claims ownership of it and in the case of money, a toll is charged for its use - which is what we call interest.

Joe has to pay that money back, plus interest. He does that by working hard to earn it, selling assets or whatever and eventually pays the bank more money than he borrowed, say 6000.

The bank's effort in creating 5000 out of nothing amounted to entering figures in a column. Joe's effort in accumulating and handing the bank 5000 involved real work, real production - the creation of wealth - of some kind.

The bank now has 6000 in its vaults where no money existed to begin with. Although the bank gave Joe temporary use of the money it created, that temporary use obscures the fact that ultimately the bank was creating money for itself.

Neat, isn't it?

This is how all but a minuscule proportion of the money circulating in the economy is created. Although it is often hidden by a smokescreen of complexity and jargonated gobbledegook this is what happens when you, for instance take out a mortgage. The 70,000 you borrow to buy a house is created at the moment it is entered into the seller's bank account. It did not exist until it was loaned. The 200,000 or whatever that you pay in interest over the next 25 years is what the lender charges you for the use of the money he created by tapping computer keys. And don't forget: if you fall behind on those interest payments, the lender can repossess your home and wind up owning a 70,000 property into the bargain.

Your mortgage and loan repayments are your share of the burden of supplying money to the economy.

Mind you, that's not the only millstone you carry. The government pays back its own loans using money taken from the citizenry through taxation. In fact, central banks lend to government on the collateral of taxation levied on the people! So when we say the government pays back the non-existent money it borrowed, what we really mean is you pay.

As this lending mechanism is the way our currency is created and if for every billion that enters circulation, a debt of one billion plus interest is immediately owed, it follows then that the total debt must be more than the total amount issued!

And we discover that more money is owed to the banks than actually exists in circulation. Far more. Britain's combined debt is just over a trillion pounds, but all the money in circulation only totals about 680 billion.

If all the money owed to the banks were paid off, the entire money supply of the country would disappear into a black hole and there would still be colossal debts.

In other words, we cannot get out of debt. Ever! It is a mathematical impossibility.


Let's dig further into the basics of this thing.

Money was originally invented by some genius whose identity is lost in antiquity as a convenient alternative to barter, an alternative without which a highly developed civilisation like ours could not exist.

Imagine trying to pay the taxi driver with a bag of coal or the grocery bill with a box of spanners and a set of golf clubs. Imagine trying to carry all that around with you when you go shopping.

So the idea of money was conceived. All money is (or rather should be) is a system of tokens (notes or coins or even symbols) adopted to represent or stand proxy for goods and services. One can then exchange the tokens rather than bags of coal, boxes of spanners or what-have-you and the tokens are easy to carry around. One can then exchange the tokens for actual goods when one wishes to.

That's just about all money is: a system of tokens that have been adopted and agreed upon by people to represent goods. People have agreed to use it and they have confidence that they will be able to exchange the tokens for goods whenever they wish to.

Whatever value is assigned to the token (one token is equivalent to one bag of sugar, bushel of wheat, tin of sardines or whatever) there have to be enough tokens in circulation for people to be able to exchange among themselves goods and services easily and smoothly. If tokens are scarce relative to the amount of goods and services available to be exchanged, then that exchange cannot easily occur, the producer cannot sell his goods and the consumer does not have enough tokens to express his demand or desire for the goods. That is called deflation.

If there are far too many tokens in circulation for the amount of goods and services available, then the value of the tokens declines and prices rise. There are too many tokens chasing too few goods. That is called inflation.

That's all there is to it.


Each time new money is created and borrowed into circulation, a debt is created. But as the debt has interest attached to it, it automatically exceeds the amount of new money created. The debt owed by the rest of the economy to the lender increases faster than the supply of money to the economy.

When the debt is paid back, that creates a shortfall of money supply that must be made up - by further borrowing.

The overall indebtedness of the economy to the lending institutions ratchets ever upwards.

That debt is spread throughout the economy amongst all the people within it. It is not necessarily distributed evenly. The portion of that burden borne by some is greater than that borne by others and a lucky few perhaps manage not to carry any. But the point is that indebtedness must be carried by someone, through overdrafts, loans, credit cards or - the biggest slice by far - mortgages.

Everyone of course wants to get out of debt but if the economy's money is supplied as a debt, then for money to be in circulation someone has to be in debt. For someone to get out of debt someone else has to go into debt!

When the level of indebtedness has reached such astronomic proportions that the total debt is around twice the entire money stock, as it is in Britain today, then the entire economy becomes riddled with debt, assailed by a seemingly unstoppable epidemic of borrowing, and it appears impossible for anyone to maintain their standard of living without going slowly but inexorably (or quickly but inexorably) deeper and deeper into debt.

If you want reality on this, try living without debt (no credit cards, mortgage, H.P., deferred payments, loans or overdrafts of any kind) or try setting up and expanding a business without any borrowing and see what happens to your standard of living.

But consider this: one borrows when one is short of money; that is, spending power. When the entire economy is madly borrowing, the entire economy is very very short of spending power. In other words, there is a huge shortage of money and a vast surfeit of debt!


The existing monetary system has been firmly established for 300 years.

Money's original purpose, as we have shown, was as a system of tokens to represent or stand proxy for goods and services. Were it is issued to a nation by that nation's government debt-free, that is precisely what it would do; it would remain a flexible and convenient system that enables the basic principles of exchange, supply and demand and reward for endeavour to operate smoothly.

Where money comes into existence as a loan, the obligation behind it to repay at interest pulls it in two fundamentally different directions at once. It becomes dysfunctional as a means of exchange and the whole economy, originally evolved to serve human need, begins to operate like a faulty machine spinning increasingly out of human control.

Imagine a calculator, which unbeknownst to the operator has a fault which holds down the number seven and multiplies every answer by seven: that calculator will always give the wrong answer. Two times two becomes twenty eight, three plus four becomes forty nine and so on. If the operator uses the calculator to work out his accounts or do his tax returns he will pretty soon wrap himself around a pole trying to make anything make sense.

The current money system has become just such a "held down seven" wrapping governments and honest men around said proverbial pole and thwarting their best endeavours to come up with workable solutions to economic problems.

The dysfunctional machine has been with us for a long time. So long, perhaps, that we think that is how the machine is supposed to work, that nothing better should be expected from it.


Money went of the rails long ago when banks started lending certificates purporting to represent and "pay the bearer on demand" gold they did not actually have. The certificates became the first paper money, and each time one of these bogus certificates was loaned to an unsuspecting borrower, new money entered circulation.

That practice of lending pieces of paper falsely claiming to represent wealth that did not exist became and remained both the foundation of banking practice and the basis of supply of money to the economy.

The fraud was set in stone in 1694 when William of Orange, who had invaded England and taken the throne a few years earlier courtesy of finance provided by the international bankers of the day, found himself in debt to the tune of 20 million. He could not pay his army and his pals the financiers advised him to borrow money which they would issue to him.

Someone should have warned King William of the perils of listening to "experts" with a vested interest in their own "advice". Part of the "deal" was the setting up of a privately owned central bank run for the private profit of its shareholders which would become the lender of money to the English government.

It was named the "Bank of England" so that generations of Englishmen would believe it to be part of the government, which it was not. In fact its investors were probably not even English.

The Tonnage Act was passed which empowered financiers to create the currency required to run the economy.

But instead of just supplying the economy with it, they called it "credit", in other words a loan. Calling it a loan enabled them to charge interest on it.

Note that the use of the word "credit" in this context is a lie. Credit assumes that you have been provided with money from somewhere else that you can use. But that is not what happens at all: you are not being loaned existing money, new money is being created, coming into existence as a debt, which did not exist until you borrowed it!

When the proportion of debt money increases to the point it has reached today where it comprises 97% of the total money stock, and the overall debt is impossible to repay, what occurs then is a continual rescheduling of the loans, borrowing to pay back what one owes, then borrowing more to pay that back and so on forever.

Money used to be assigned a value, by representing something, often a certain weight of gold or silver. By now it is assigned a value by having it represent debt and debt is not just nothing, it is less than nothing. In the modern economy the money channels are clogged by debt.

At every level indebtedness to the banks, the continual repayment of money to them, is becoming a bigger and bigger component of costs, committing more and more of disposable incomes, company profits or local and central government revenues to debt servicing. Money committed to debt repayment cannot be spent on anything else. Therefore consumer and producer alike experience a continual and worsening shortage of spending power.

As a system of currency it does not work, except to make those who issue it very very rich by gradually siphoning off all the wealth of the country.


As the stock of money in circulation has grown, debt has increased, as it must where money is borrowed into existence. As debt, and the burden of paying it back, have increased, spending power has declined. As spending power declines, it can only be compensated for by the supply of more money to the economy. But that money is supplied by borrowing it into existence, which increases the overall level of indebtedness, reducing spending power and necessitating more borrowing.

The government borrows, local councils borrow, we borrow to buy our houses, our cars, washing machines, refrigerators and deferred payments, HP, credit cards and overdrafts are used to obtain more and more of what we purchase.

Instead of saving in order to buy what we need, we take what we are seduced into believing we want and then work to pay for it later.

There used to be a finite gap between earning and buying: a man earned the money, then went out and bought something with it. Nowadays there is an ever-widening gap between earning and buying: we buy something now but must then go on earning further and further into the future to pay for it.

Increasingly what we buy today ties up spending power into the future. What is borrowed today must be paid back in greater amount tomorrow. When we pay back from our income what we have already borrowed, the amount of that income that remains available for further spending on goods and services is reduced. Spending power is reduced. Consequently a shortage of spending power runs through the entire economy.

While the system of debt-money is in place there can never be other than a shortage of money and a vast surfeit of debt.

The volume of money in circulation and available to buy goods and services can never match the volume of goods and services that are available to be bought. Industry can produce goods but cannot sell them, more and more tax pays for less and less service.

Among producers competition for the consumer's scarce spending power steadily increases. The battle for market share and sales intensifies. There is said to be a "drop in demand" but it is not demand that has dropped, it is the ability of the consumer to express the demand because he cannot get his hands on enough of the tokens he needs to do so!

People buy cheap and shoddy products not because they demand cheap and shoddy products but because they do not have enough money to express their demand for higher quality products. Producers likewise are forced to embark on a quest for cheaper and cheaper ways to produce their products, by mass production or gradually dropping quality, because the consumer does not have enough spending power for the producer to be able to demand the prices he needs to cover the cost of producing higher quality products.

Suppose we need to build a new hospital. The materials to build it exist, the people to build and man it exist, the demand for it exists. But it cannot be built. Why? Because there is not enough money. So why not create more money so that the materials, skills and demand can come together?

That does not happen because governments simply refuse to take responsibility for a job that is rightfully and logically their duty: the creation and issuance of the nation's money.

Instead of creating and issuing money into the economy to satisfy the economy's demand for it, what they do instead is have banks create it, then borrow it from the banks, then issue it into the economy, then take it, plus interest, out of the economy again and hand it back to the banks, then ask the bank to create even more money to replace what has just been removed, borrow it, issue it, pay it back with interest!

The only real limiting factors to our standard of living, to what we can create and have and do, are absence of resources, skills, people or need. For instance if there were no coal in the ground we would obviously not be able to have coal. Or if coal existed but no-one knew how to mine it or no one were willing to go down mines, then we would not be able to have coal. If no-one wanted coal because everyone prefers gas, then there would be no market for coal. Fair enough.

But where coal exists and there are people who can dig it up and who are willing to dig it up and want the work and people want it to warm their homes but great mounds of it sit there unsold because the consumer cannot produce enough tokens with which to buy it, then that "lack of demand" for coal is an entirely artificially created scarcity. It is not the coal that is scarce. It is money - spending power - itself.

So we have a scarcity of money, an artificially created barrier to quality and need because the only real barriers are absence of resources, skills, people or need.

While we live in a civilisation of unprecedented technical know-how and massive productive potential, the legacy of the debt money system is income tax, unemployment, business failure, declining services, decaying cities, bad food, poverty, a deteriorating environment, shoddy goods and a very uncertain future.

We hope this brief sketch of our problem with money will have provided you with a good basic understanding of why our economy runs as smoothly as an old banger with sugar in the petrol.


What is real wealth? Real wealth is anything that improves the quality of our lives, that makes them more comfortable, fulfilling and pleasurable. It may be air that is healthy to breathe, safe drinking water, wholesome food, a decent car, comfortable home, freedom from taxation, recreation, art, happy personal relationships, whatever people value, which enhances their survival.

Real economic growth then would be a growth in the abundance of those things which enhance our survival. That would include clean air, wholesome food, durable high quality products and does not necessarily mean more and more shoddy goods mass produced with short life-spans that have to be changed every few years.

Trade is the exchange of goods and services for the mutual benefit of both parties taking part in the exchange. It is through trade that the quality of our lives is improved and that is real wealth.

Trade got into trouble the moment the government surrendered to the banks its job of creating the nation's money.

The cost of debt repayment is now built into the cost of virtually everything we buy. Producers are squeezed by two pressures: the rising cost of borrowing eating into their viability on one hand, and on the other the problem of competing with other producers for the consumer's own shortfall in spending power occasioned by the increasing burden of the consumer's own debt servicing.

This creates an interminable, desperate paper chase for scarce money.

Industry is forced to cut costs and find every way it can to maintain financial viability, by producing ever more cheaply and that pressure has bedevilled us all with cheap and shoddy goods, goods produced with far less quality and durability than industry could achieve were it not forced into this state of perpetual desperation.

As these pressures increase, producers are forced into commercial warfare, a life or death struggle for money that is always in short supply through bulk sales of cheaper goods, the desperate quest for new and ever more distant markets, by never surrendering an inch of market share to rivals because the tiniest slip can mean the difference between staying afloat or going under. And there is the bank waiting to foreclose or repossess one's property.

Thus we arrive at debt-driven growth, growth driven not by real human need but by artificial "market forces" implanted in the economies of nations by the method of issuing currency as debt.

Real economic growth would mean a growth in all those factors conducive to survival, to a decent healthy life, and that would include better quality and durability of goods, cleaner air, more nourishing food, more drinkable water, well stocked oceans and rivers, an improvementin the whole ecological balance upon which we depend for our very lives.

Debt-driven growth does not deliver that. The existing money system, which is not a true money system, means that growth in economic terms and growth in survival terms have become contradictory, even mutually exclusive.

An inherently insolvent nation cannot balance its books, so the nation seeks to export in order to obtain enough foreign revenue to make good the short-fall. So does every other nation because every other nation has exactly the same problem.

Trading from a position of interminable insolvency, every nation tries to invade every other nation's home market. Nation A desperately produces beef to export to nation B, while nation B is just as desperately trying to invade nation A's home market with its own beef.

Export-or-bust becomes the overriding preoccupation. So great is the desperate scramble for foreign revenue, one of the biggest components of the export trade is the sale of arms, one of the great evils of the modern world.

Selling products abroad becomes not so much a matter of trading some surplus for things we do not produce ourselves but a matter of dire necessity. Foreign sales bring in foreign revenue. That foreign money is raised in its country of origin with a debt behind it but when it buys our exported goods it arrives here as debt-free money because the debt remains behind in its country of origin.

Similarly when the nation buys goods from abroad, the money goes overseas and becomes debt- free revenue for some other nation, but the debt behind it remains here.

In this way pressure is created to export goods and to resist importing goods. And every nation is trying to export like mad and avoid importing at all costs. But for one nation to export another nation has to import!

The world in other words is at war. Companies are in a state of commercial warfare with other companies. Countries are in a condition of commercial warfare with one another.

Commercial warfare has replaced trade. It is a war of attrition in which there are no winners.

There is no place for ethics in war. No place for honesty, decency, trust or respect for human life. No respect for the environment and no possibility of long-term survival for anyone.

Trade was supposed to be a matter of mutual benefit but the mad, desperate, tooth-and-claw scramble for scarce spending power is to the universal detriment.

And all because our currency is issued as debt.


It is suggested in some quarters that GM foods may solve the problem of "world hunger".

It is certainly true that people in many parts of the Third World are being slowly tortured to death by starvation.

But before we buy the PR from food giants, perhaps we had better remember that one of the "virtues" of GM crops is that the farmer is obliged, by contract, to buy new seeds each year from the seed producer, and if the likes of Monsanto get their way the "terminator gene" will render seeds produced by the GM crops sterile, thereby obliging the farmer to buy seeds each year. This will further harm farmers in the Third World for obvious reasons.

It would be a good idea to take a closer look at exactly why nations which, for example, can keep half the planet supplied with coffee, tobacco or bananas cannot prevent the very people who produce the tobacco, coffee or bananas from going hungry or living in squalor.

Nowhere is the iniquity of the fraudulent debt system of issuing money more ugly than the atrocity visited upon the people of the Third World.

The debt that afflicts Third World countries, though it derives from the same scam of lending money that was conjured out of thin air, operates somewhat differently to the national debts of richer nations.

By differently we mean more viciously.

At the end of World War Two, the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) were set up as institutions to administer international lending. They have played a leading role in creating the insoluble indebtedness of the Third World.

The WB was set up by the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944, to "aid" reconstruction - particularly of poorer countries - in the aftermath of World War Two by providing countries with loans with which to rebuild their economies.

This is a neat formula by the way: lend nations the money to fight a war and then when the war is over lend them more money to rebuild everything they smashed up.

The IMF meanwhile was created to provide an international pool of money - a kind of vast overdraft facility - on which countries with balance of payment difficulties could draw.

In the half century since their inception, the IMF and WB have largely replaced country-to- country lending and have advanced hundreds of billions of dollars in loans to developing nations.

Where did the money come from for these loans? Exactly the same place as the money loaned to your to buy your car or your house: thin air.

The theory of such lending goes something like this:

A country borrows money (at interest) in order to build a development project or range of projects.

This would help its economy - particularly to produce goods for export.

From the increased revenues earned by these increased exports the borrower should be able to repay the loans plus the interest.

The borrower winds up thereby in better economic shape. This all sounds very plausible. Unfortunately for the borrower this is not how things have worked out in practise. Not by a very long way.

The reality is very different.

Let's take Brazil for example. By 1980, 78% of her export revenues were going on servicing debts to her creditors. Despite increasing repayments on her debts more than tenfold and repaying her original debts several times over, she wound up far more heavily in debt than when she started!

By 1996 Brazil had reached a point where her entire export revenues were not enough to cover the interest on her loans!

Where a country's economy is geared for exports, a vast proportion of the food, goods and products her people make leave the country. That material wealth does not benefit the people that create it. Neither do the people benefit from the debt-free revenue brought in as a result of the country's exports because it goes to pay off the interest on loans from the IMF and World Bank. No matter how much and how hard its people work, nor how much wealth they create, they will not benefit from their production and will become poorer.

The cruelty and injustice of this process is mind-boggling. To labour and receive no or paltry share in the fruits of one's labour is surely slavery by definition - with the IMF and WB in the position of the slave owner.

No matter how much it is dressed up, given a contemporary gloss, justified or excused, that is the basic fact of the matter for millions of human beings. Where once the leverage that made one man a slave and another his master was force of arms, the leverage now takes a form more clever, more covert, more hard to see and because it is hard to see more difficult to fight. That leverage is the money system itself.

In the prophetic words of Sir Josiah Stamp, once governor of the Bank of England and therefore in a position to speak with some authority: "...if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit."

Brazil's experience is typical of Third World countries. Such nations are virtually working themselves to death and rendering their own people destitute in an effort to honour debts to the international money lenders who lent them money created out of thin air!

Why does this happen? Well, what happens to the money borrowed by the Third World nation? That nation spends the borrowed money abroad in order to buy the oil and other wherewithal it needs to modernise its economy. The money goes abroad and becomes part of the economy of the developed nations but the debt remains behind in the debtor nation.

These countries are forced to export all their wealth to pay the interest. The loan itself could never be redeemed.

Unfortunately, as you will see, the cards are stacked against it ever being able to do so in sufficient amount to pay off the loan.

The massive and relentless drive for exports in order to obtain the foreign revenue needed to pay off the debts has devastated local economies. Third World nations have been obliged to give priority to producing goods for export rather than for use by their own people. Export crops, for instance, monopolise the best land, smallholders are squeezed out and move to the crowded cities or onto poorer land. Self-evidently local people cannot eat food that is shipped abroad.

The advantage of exporting, theoretically, is that it brings in debt-free money from abroad, as discussed earlier, but where that debt-free revenue goes to paying off debts to foreign institutions, none of that money benefits the local economy.

The IMF and WB constantly try to dump the blame for this remorselessly tightening poverty and the attendant ruination of local infrastructure, social services and education upon the developing countries themselves.

The fault however lies squarely with the IMF and WB and is built into the monetary system they administer. It is a system of plunder and conquest by proxy of unprecedented cruelty.

The debt trap of these IMF and WB loans is that they deliver control over the economies of entire nations to international bankers because the loans come with conditions attached to them.

One such condition is the removal of government protection for home markets, which lays the less developed and therefore more vulnerable economies of such nations bare before the forces of global markets, themselves embroiled in global commercial warfare. The debt-driven goal of every nation from the biggest to the smallest, who are all trading from a desperate position of insolvency, is to become net exporters. On the global markets the corporations based in the richer nations are king and into this theatre of warfare the less developed economies of often small nations are expected to compete. To pay off their loans is impossible - to even come close, they would have to compete more successfully in terms of trade balance than the richest and most powerful nations on Earth!

The dropping of trade barriers which protect home markets always results in more powerful nations and their dominant trans-global corporations taking over many domestic markets and causes a rise in imports. For developing nations, desperately trying to become net exporters in order to pay off loans that were originally intended to enable them to become net exporters, a rise in imports is about as needed as a nuclear warhead detonated in the skies above the capital city.

Loans are often granted on the condition that they are used to purchase goods in the creditor nations. This means that the debtor country, in searching for whatever fuel, machinery, computer equipment and so on it needs to develop its home industries cannot shop around for the best deals. Neither can it spend the loan in another debtor country, which prevents developing countries helping one another. It also means that instead of remaining as spending power either in the debtor country or in Third World, the money brought into existence by the loan ends up debt-free back in the creditor countries! Only it arrives back in the creditor country without the debt attached to it! The debtor country meanwhile no longer has the money but it still has the debt!

With so many debtor countries re-orienting their economies for export and so many seeking to export the same goods, the resultant glut on various markets intensifies competition and results in a fall in prices and hence a fall in export revenues.

As the level of indebtedness has mushroomed out of control and the Third World's debts have become progressively more unrepayable, what begins to happen then is that new loans cease to buy anything at all and simply fund interest payments on old loans.

The attachment of conditions to the granting of loans, then gradually more stringent conditions to reschedule loans gradually moves control and direction of the debtor nation away from its people or government and into the hands of the banking elite that administers the global debt- money supply. Such conditions often empower the lender to oversee the development of an entire economy. The measures imposed stipulate drastic cuts in social services, welfare, education, housing, domestic food programs and in fact anything that would divert money away from the paying off of escalating loans or furthering export growth, ie the removal of wealth from the debtor country.

All the countries of the Third World are being covertly stripped of the ability to determine their own futures and direct their own resources in whatever directions they see fit - particularly in the direction of doing something to improve the lot of their own people.

Inflicted on developing nations IMF and WB conditions have proven to be utterly devastating, with falling incomes, unemployment, inflation, increased trade deficits, increasing outflow of capital, mounting external debts, de-industrialisation, displacement of people and the destruction of communities. They lead inexorably to massive deprivation, particularly among the poor and those social groups less able to defend themselves against such harsh strictures.

In terms of helping the debtor nation develop its economy and pay off its debts such conditions are tantamount to tossing three tons of lead into a sinking dinghy.

This is not incompetence or inferiority on the part of Third World nations. They are simply obliged to play the game on a playing field about as level as the north face of the Eiger. This is a game that was rigged from the outset, to their disadvantage While such a system exists not only is it impossible for them to pay off their loans it is impossible for them to establish thriving economies for the benefit of their own people.

The international banking elite which controls the money supply to all the nations of the world can do what they like to any economy simply by extending or withholding credit or manipulating interest rates. What they have done to the Third World nations, they have done out of choice. The impoverishment and enslavement of people, the starving to death of children that has resulted from their deliberate, calculated policies.

This process of legalised global fraud has delivered into the hands of the financial dictatorship that controls the world's money supply, covert but factual sovereignty over millions of people.

The financial elite, creating money with a sweep of the pen, making massive profits from the risk free investment of numbers in columns, have acquired dominion over the Earth.

This is the source and cause of world poverty and world hunger. All other "reasons" given are but myths trotted out to hide from view the ugly crime at the bottom of it.


The excesses of multi-national corporations (MNCs) are not what is wrong with the global economy. They are an extremely unpleasant symptom of the underlying malaise.

The debt-driven economic system we have briefly discussed makes the supremacy of MNCs inevitable because it creates an economic climate where "ruthless and amoral big business" is the creature best equipped to survive.

All the strictures of the debt-money system: debt-driven growth, fierce commercial warfare, the desperation of nations to export, shortage of spending power leading to the need to cut costs in labour, raw materials, production and transport best achieved by bulk production and economies of scale, the inevitable insolvency of all productive enterprise, dangerously low profit margins, and all the rest in fact render "ruthless and amoral big business" the only direction industry can go.

Quite frankly if you want quality and human scale production, economic growth that takes into account morality, care for the environment and the needs of people, you are currently living on the wrong planet. Planet Earth does not have an economy geared for that kind of thing, however much its five billion inhabitants wish it did.

The success of the MNCs lies in the fact that they have evolved so as to command massive resources, which enables them to mass produce like never before, market globally, hold governments to ransom and so persuade them to relax labour laws and environmental protection, cut unit profits to the bone, achieve economies of scale, take advantage of the huge economic disparities between nations, particularly between rich nations and the Third World where banking activity establishes in debtor nations the very economic conditions that favour MNCs.

These are the very qualities you need if you are to survive in the debt economy.

No-one in such an economic climate can take their foot off the pedal for a second. Concern for human sensibilities, the environment or indeed any consideration other than the next sale are simply not compatible with survival in a market place where one grapples with equally desperate rivals. Success is now scarcely measured in profit margins. Market share is the goal, driving MNCs to acquire assets which they can offset against their debts and thus remain solvent at least on paper, hence the predatory, acquisitive, expansionist approach that so marks the MNCs.

None of this excuses the behaviour of MNCs but it at least helps one understand the environment which has spawned and now drives them.

To say MNCs are innocent victims of an insane environment is being over kind. At the highest levels the banks and MNCs are intricately interwoven. The men with shareholdings in the commercial banks are frequently the same men with shareholdings in MNCs. The Rockefeller family's control both of Standard Oil and various banking interests is but one example and the recent dismantling of Yugoslavia and its takeover by western banking and corporate interests - using western armies as their muscle - show how the international loan sharks and MNCs act in concert.

At the very highest echelons of planet Earth we have the hidden financial dictatorship that can make or break nations and has the Third World in factual bondage.


The mechanics of a debt-based money system have forced farming down a road that, unless corrected, can only lead to disaster.

As we have shown the debt-based economy produces a climate of ruthless commercial warfare.

These forces act upon farming more cruelly than they do upon any other sector of our economy.

Over the past 40 years farming has become the least profitable and most heavily indebted sector of the economy. Income from farming was three times higher in real terms in 1948 than in 1990. Between 1971 and 1998 alone, farm incomes fell by 66%.

Why? The prices the farmer receives for his crops have, in real terms, declined while the costs of production and the burden of debt have risen dramatically.

While incomes have fallen by 50% in just 14 years, debt charges have increased by a massive 44%. In 1980 for instance an incredible 40% of all farm incomes went to pay interest on bank loans.

Between 1978 and 1992 total farming debt quadrupled while bankruptcies in the industry rose from 84 in 1980 to 504 in 1992, a truly astonishing rise.

Ever wondered why food is so expensive while farmers are going bankrupt in droves? Over 70% of what the shopper pays for his food in the supermarket goes on logistics, the cost of distribution. The margin that goes to the farmer or grower is minuscule and the margin that actually goes to the store itself is not that much greater.

The bulk of what we pay goes on transporting the stuff all over the planet. Strawberries grow in fields just down the road but we buy strawberries at Wimbledon imported from Australia or somewhere, with all the storing, packing, crating, shipping, loading and unloading that entails - not to mention all the cost involved in making frequently mediocre products look mouth- watering even when they actually taste like the gaudy cardboard in which they are frequently packaged.

Farmers are particularly vulnerable to the costs of borrowing and fluctuations in interest rates because unlike many industries they do not have recourse to share-ownership as another means of borrowing money. The pressure on them to borrow and the resultant burden of that borrowing is particularly acute because, by the very nature of what they produce, there is a huge gap between planting seed and the harvest and between insemination and slaughter. And that in turn creates pressure for short-cuts: the use of artificial methods to speed growth or increase yield, regardless of quality.

The National Farmers Union, surveying the carnage visited upon an industry in whose robust health every single one of us has a vested interest, wondered why the government just stood by and let it happen. Good question.

But the government did the same thing with coal, steel, shipbuilding, aeronautics, cars, textiles, shoes, electrical, electronics and fishing, so why not farming? The question still goes begging a satisfactory answer.

Governments often shrug helplessly and blame "market forces." The reality is they are not helpless at all. The means to rectify the situation almost overnight exists. What is lacking is the desire.

The desire will continue to be absent until there arises a vociferous demand from the electorate for monetary reform.

But back to farming: large scale agri-businesses with the ability to mass-produce more cheaply are considerably advantaged in such an economic climate where cheapness and bulk production become the overriding factors affecting success or failure, rather than the quality of the food produced.

The smaller farmers are more heavily burdened by escalating debt than their large-scale counterparts, more hard hit by interest rate fluctuations, the vagaries of the global casinos called money markets or fluctuations in the market itself. They are also disadvantaged by the fact that their customers, the retail outlets are themselves geared for bulk.

When small farms are forced into bankruptcy, banks foreclose and these ruined concerns are bought up by the larger agri-businesses better able to achieve economies of scale and withstand the pressures of the debt-based economy.

Many farmers may want to farm the land properly and produce good quality food but they cannot: the pressure of rising debt keeps them on a treadmill from which they cannot extricate themselves.

Cost-cutting leads to increased specialisation and centralisation, which drives up transport and storage costs whilst making less efficient use of natural variations in the quality of the soil.

Real consumer needs are ignored and consumers are persuaded by marketing and PR actions to want what the producers are able, within the economic strictures, to produce. In this mad chase for debt-driven growth only checks applied from without by public outcry or the conscientious actions of concerned governments apply any restraints.

The whole problem with our declining food traces back to the "held down seven" of our money issued as a debt. The culprit has been hidden from view until now, which explains why the solutions to problem with our food and so many other modern ills have thus far eluded us.

What is happening to our farming industry at present amounts to an annexation of the entire industry and its land by trans-global corporations, the take-over of our very food supply by remote and unsympathetic powers. This is something no invading army has achieved for hundreds of years and presents us with an extremely dangerous situation.

We can fight off invading armies. How does one fight off the pillage of a debt-based money system run by a hidden international banking elite armed with computers and aided and abetted by friends in our own government and bureaucracy?

Well, there is a way, which we will discuss later.


In a system of free trade there is supposed to be healthy competition and freedom of choice and he who produces the best products most viably, will prosper.

In the debt-driven economic warfare that masquerades as free trade the last thing the trans-global food conglomerates and pharmaceuticals need is competition, especially competition that produces a better and more popular product.

Thus organic food production and complementary medicine (which often exists to make good the damage done by poor nutrition) is competition that must be taken over and eliminated by fair means or foul.

Methods are being deployed to do just that and these methods have nothing to do with consumer demand, free choice, democracy or honesty.

The new Food Standards Agency (FSA) is a case in point.

It is a very interesting exercise to trace the origins of the FSA. Who set it up and what were the real motives?

The recent BSE scare prompted a clamour for action to ensure the safety of food. The very fact that such protective measures were generally agreed to be necessary, indicates just how serious have become the dangers of our mass produced foods.

The origin of BSE was a practise initiated by farm feed giants: the inclusion of slaughterhouse waste in animal feeds. The farm feed giants got found out and had to be seen to be cleaning up their act, so they promoted the FSA as a measure to ensure the safety of our foods. As the safety of our foods had been so manifestly compromised that people brought up on a diet that included beef (which had sustained generations of their ancestors without problem) could no longer be sure they did not have germinating inside them some horrible disease that would engender an agonizing and humiliating death, this seemed a good idea.

Unfortunately the FSA included in the package a levy to pay for it! The Big Guns know full well that any levy can be manipulated to eliminate all competition from small businesses already struggling in the debt-based system.

If the FSA were true to the reason it came into existence, ensuring the standards of our food supply, then its main concern would be to protect us from GM foods, contamination by pesticides and the decline of food's ability to actually feed us due to the poor husbandry occasioned by factory farming methods.

But the FSA has a hidden agenda: the elimination of the small food outlet by raising a fixed levy the small food outlet will struggle to pay.

The very people who are responsible for contaminating the planet's food supply are running the FSA, not to protect us but to make it impossible for anyone to protect us. In the FSA, they have found themselves another Stealth Bomber in the war to feed our stomachs.

While this attack on the small farmer is launched, a similar attack is under way against the suppliers of herbal remedies, vitamins and food supplements through the shadowy CODEX organisation.

Officially known as the United Nations World Health Organisation (WHO) Codex Alimentarius (Nutrition Code) Commission, it is empowered by governments to set standards of operation for the health industry.

Unfortunately those "standards" set by Codex-devised global regulations will result in the entire health food industry being taken over by the world's drugs industry.

If allowed to become law, Codex's proposals will mean that no vitamin, mineral, herb or food supplement can be sold for preventative or therapeutic use; none sold as food can exceed dosage levels so low as to render them ineffective (eg. 50mg for vitamin C) and all new dietary supplements will be banned unless they pass Codex approval first. Those products that do manage to pass safely through this minefield and reach the consumer will be prohibitively expensive.

Almost the entire range of food supplements, vitamins and complementary medicines will disappear from the market or become luxury items and the shops that specialise in them and the manufacturers who produce them could be wiped out.

Millions of people find complementary medicines a safer, more workable alternative to often dangerous drug-based medicines, whose own standards are monitored in Britain by the Committee For Safety in medicines (CSM) and in the US by the FDA (Food and Drugs Administration). Both these committees have had their impartiality called into question due to the presence amongst their ranks of vested interests from both food and pharmaceutical companies. But if you thought you could protect yourself by supplementing your diet or by turning to safe and effective alternative remedies, then think again: that right to choose how you care for your own health is being removed.

Dietary supplements and complementary medicine constitute a popular growth industry with a record of safety far superior to those who now seek to regulate, and through regulation eliminate, it. It is highly debatable what right pharmaceutical and food giants, with their abysmal record of dangerous and deficient products, have to regulate anyone. As things stand the only one regulating these giants is the giants themselves. One might as well trust Slobodan Milosevic to be on his best behaviour.

This is not an argument against any kind of regulation. The monitoring of product standards and the honesty of advertising claims is a perfectly acceptable quality-control function, provided it is done by a truly accountable and independent body. But having members of one industry regulate a competitor in whose destruction they have a vested interest is corrupt.

Recognise that you are looking at dishonesty. Notice that all respect for human health and life are absent. See before you commercial warfare in which there is no place for honesty, ethics, or decency. And whether you and I live or die does not much matter to the generals plotting the strategies of this war.


We are sorry to have to tell you that this is the harsh reality of the world in which we live.

Giants like Monsanto et al are above the law and above Parliament.

They have unlimited access to credit and are so intertwined with the world banking fraternity which conjures that credit out of thin air as to comprise a coalition.

That coalition tells government what to do. Thus the law relating to GM products can be, and has been, overturned in the High Court; government currently helps Monsanto to develop and sell its GM products to the tune of 50 million a year, whilst it announces that the paltry 8 million a year it spends on helping farmers produce organic food is to be withdrawn; governing parties elected to look after the interests of the people are manifestly deaf to the electorate's loud objections to GM foods.

The financial dictatorship call the shots because they control the money supply. They give unlimited access to credit to those they favour and withhold credit from those they don't. Globalisation is a product of this phenomenon but the financiers similarly hold the whip hand over the media and over government itself.

Nobody gets into power without financial backing and money now only exists if bankers give permission for it to exist. If they called in their loans there would be no money.

This massive power rests on the foundation of a fraud. Bankers have a secret mandate from government to create money and issue it as credit.

Ironically, government could end that power tomorrow and free itself and the rest of us simply by withdrawing that mandate and taking on the job of money creation itself.

So why doesn't it when it is not even difficult to do?

It does not do it because there is no demand from the electorate.

There is no demand from the electorate because the electorate has been deliberately kept in the dark.

The electorate still has the real power but has been duped into not using it.

It's time we changed that.

The motives for what appear at first to be mind-bogglingly stupid measures become clear when one realises that over 90% of the organisations allowed to send delegates to Codex meetings represent multinational pharmaceutical organisations and food giants like Monsanto (which has at least one, possibly more, representative on its board of directors).


We are fortunate in that we now know how and why the economics of our civilisation have been working to the universal detriment and our job is to ensure that understanding passes out broadly to all men.

Reform of the monetary flaw at the core of our economic system is not only possible but it is easier done than said.

That reform can be summed up as follows: restore to government the sole right to create money, at a rate ordained by the people. Done in full public view and thus correctly supervised. Spent into circulation by the government via reducing taxation, starting with PAYE at a rate that keeps pace with economic growth so as to avoid inflation and deflation.

We must make our politicians enact this reform. It could start on it tomorrow if it had the will but it won't find the will unless we as an electorate generate the demand.

When one considers the utter ease with which reform could be implemented, the dramatic way it would improve all our fortunes and the screaming urgency with which such action is needed, one weeps for the decent people being unnecessarily ruined or made sick or killed because governments fail to act in their interests.

Monetary reform does not merely hold out the prospect of "keeping the patient alive", nor focus only upon stopping things getting any worse: it opens the door to making the patient healthier and happier than he has ever been. And in so doing opens the door to the kind of bright future of which Man once used to dream.

In the midst of bad news we find good: the opportunity to create a civilisation in which Man's creative energies can be brought to bear for the universal benefit.

There is nothing wrong with Man, with his ingenuity, his creative potential or, for the most part, his good will. There is nothing wrong either with the genetic blueprint of the living world. There is much wrong though with one vital basic: how his money system is working.

The first step towards rescuing our lost freedoms from the tyranny of trans-global corporate madness is exposing the money fraud.

So let's do it, let's let the cat out of the bag!

Contact BAMR now and find out what you can do to help.

"In our time, the curse is monetary illiteracy, just as inability to read plain print was the curse in earlier centuries."

Ezra Pound

Click to send comment.