Health v medicine


How to collapse an economy 


Fed-up with the Fed 

Beast from Jeckyll Island 

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892 


Fractional reserve banking 

Fiat money 

16th amendment not ratified - income tax illegal  

Money myth   

Gold Standard 

Usury / interest 

Fall of civilisations    

Hidden taxation  

Social credit 






Up ] Customs ] Cartels ] [ Globalisation ] Corp US ]




World Bank and IMF appalling record of achievement 

50 Years is enough  | World Bank/IMF Fact Sheet  

World Bank/IMF Questions and Answers 

I was wrong. Free market trade policies hurt the poor 

You say the billionaires have stolen your future? 

The Mexican  | Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs 

World's people living in "survival" mode 

Globalisation/Enslavement of Humanity 

Harmonization mostly industry dominated 



The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order 
by Michel Chossudovsky 

 In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this new enlarged edition –which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction-- the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.

"As Michel Chossudovsky, author of The Globalisation of Poverty, has pointed out, an entirely undemocratic world body "has been casually installed in Geneva, empowered under international law with the mandate to 'police' country level economic and social policies". This amounts to a "repeal of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights", providing "legitimacy to trade practices which border on criminality [including] the patenting of human life forms".   John Pilger, New Statesman.

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website . He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.



Not one country has experienced growth or a reinvigorated economy due to the structural assistance programs from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.  

World Bank and IMF appalling record of achievement
From 'Everything you know is Wrong' 

The World Bank and IMF's prescriptions of privatisation, liberalisation, and austerity measures have hurt every single country that has implemented them. Greg Palast and Oliver Shykles look at the horrible real-world effects of globalisation in "Burn the Olive Tree, Sell the Lexus." [Everything you know is wrong., page 11] 


Globalization has failed humanity. In the sixty years since the launching of its main instruments, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, global trade has expanded twelve-fold and economic growth fivefold, yet the gap between rich and poor has also widened and the number of poor is greater than ever. 

--Cooperativization as Alternative to Globalizing Capitalism, 
by Betsy Bowman and Bob Stone (Prout newsletter)

I was wrong. 
Free market trade policies hurt the poor

The IMF and World Bank orthodoxy is increasing global poverty
Stephen Byers
Monday May 19, 2003,3604,958923,00.html

In November 1999, during the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Seattle, I watched from my hotel room as thousands demonstrated against the evils of globalisation.

Anarchists clad in black marched alongside grandmothers dressed as turtles and steelworkers from Philadelphia. They saw international trade as a threat - to their jobs, the environment or simply as part of a capitalist conspiracy.

As leader of the delegation from the United Kingdom, I was convinced that the expansion of world trade had the potential to bring major benefits to developing countries and would be one of the key means by which world poverty would be tackled.

In order to achieve this, I believed that developing countries would need to embrace trade liberalisation. This would mean opening up their own domestic markets to international competition. The thinking behind this approach being that the discipline of the market would resolve problems of underperformance, a strong economy would emerge and that, as a result, the poor would benefit. This still remains the position of major international bodies like the IMF and World Bank and is reflected in the system of incentives and penalties which they incorporate in their loan agreements with developing countries. 

But my mind has changed.

I now believe that this approach is wrong and misguided. Since leaving the cabinet a year ago, I've had the opportunity to see at first hand the consequences of trade policy. No longer sitting in the air-conditioned offices of fellow government ministers I have, instead, been meeting farmers and communities at the sharp end.

It is this experience that has led me to the conclusion that full trade liberalisation is not the way forward. A different approach is needed: one which recognises the importance of managing trade with the objective of achieving development goals.

No one should doubt the hugely significant role that international trade could play in tackling poverty. In terms of income, trade has the potential to be far more important than aid or debt relief for developing countries. For example, an increase in Africa's share of world exports by just 1% could generate around £43m - five times the total amount of aid received by African countries.

This has led President Museveni of Uganda to say: "Africa does need development assistance, just as it needs debt relief from its crushing international debt burden. But aid and debt relief can only go so far. We are asking for the opportunity to compete, to sell our goods in western markets. In short, we want to trade our way out of poverty."

The World Bank estimates that reform of the international trade rules could take 300 million people out of poverty. Reform is essential because, to put it bluntly, the rules of international trade are rigged against the poorest countries.

Rich nations may be prepared to open up their own markets, but still keep in place massive subsidies. The quid pro quo for doing this is that developing countries open up their domestic markets. These are then vulnerable to heavily subsidised exports from the developed world.

The course of international trade since 1945 shows that an unfettered global market can fail the poor and that full trade liberalisation brings huge risks and rarely provides the desired outcome. It is more often the case that developing countries which have successfully expanded their economies are those that have been prepared to put in place measures to protect industries while they gain strength and give communities the time to diversify into new areas.

This is not intervention for the sake of it or to prop up failing enterprises, but part of a transitional phase to create strong businesses that can compete on equal terms in the global marketplace without the need for continued protection.

Just look at some examples. Taiwan and South Korea are often held out as being good illustrations of the benefits of trade liberalisation. In fact, they built their international trading strength on the foundations of government subsidies and heavy investment in infrastructure and skills development while being protected from competition by overseas firms.

In more recent years, those countries which have been able to reduce levels of poverty by increasing economic growth - like China, Vietnam, India and Mozambique - have all had high levels of intervention as part of an overall policy of strengthening domestic sectors.

On the other hand, there are an increasing number of countries in which full-scale trade liberalisation has been applied and then failed to deliver economic growth while allowing domestic markets to be dominated by imports. This often has devastating effects.

Zambia and Ghana are both examples of countries in which the opening up of markets has led to sudden falls in rates of growth with sectors being unable to compete with foreign goods. Even in those countries that have experienced overall economic growth as a result of trade liberalisation, poverty has not necessarily been reduced.

In Mexico during the first half of the 1990s there was economic growth, yet the number of people living below the poverty line increased by 14 million in the 10 years from the mid-1980s. This was due to the fact that the benefits of a more open market all went to the large commercial operators, with the small concerns being squeezed out.

The evidence shows that the benefits that would flow from increased international trade will not materialise if markets are simply left alone. When this happens, liberalisation is used by the rich and powerful international players to make quick gains from short-term investments.

The role of the IMF and World Bank is also of concern. The conditions placed on their loans often force countries into rapid liberalisation, with scant regard to the impact on the poor.

The way forward is through a regime of managed trade in which markets are slowly opened up and trade policy levers like subsidies and tariffs are used to help achieve development goals.

The IMF and World Bank should recognise that questions of trade liberalisation are the responsibility of the WTO where they can be considered in the overall context of achieving poverty reduction and that it is therefore inappropriate to include trade liberalisation as part of a loan agreement.

This represents a departure from the current orthodoxy. It will be opposed by multinational companies who see rich and easy pickings in the markets of the developing world. But such a change would benefit the world's poorest people and that's why it should happen.

· Stephen Byers is Labour MP for North Tyneside. He is a former trade and industry secretary and was a cabinet member from 1998 to 2002.


Just say NO to globalism
By Bob Chapman

Globalization is the march of international capitalism and corporatism. It is a force of oppression, exploitation and injustice -- an international one-world fascist government. It exploits all of mankind so that an international cabal of the rich and powerful can subject us, because they believe that they know better what is good for us. This is not an extreme synopsis - it is what they espouse in their own publications, such as Foreign Affairs and the Economist.

The good news is the minority that recognizes this enormously serious problem is not tiny by any means. For every demonstrator there are millions of silent protestors. Economic integration is not a source for good, it represents exploitation and suppression, and an effort to bring what is now known as the G-7 down to the level of the third world. The great leveling process.

In the developed economies, support for further trade liberalization is very uncertain; in some countries, voters are downright hostile to it. The IMF, WTO and the World Bank are reviled for more widely then they are admired. Grudging acceptance in countries could turn into revolution.

Governments are controlled by international business interests that want globalization. They are the catalysts that move business and capital round the world unchecked cloaking their corporate venality in pledges of corporate social responsibility. Needless to say, all who disagree with the new world order are loony or berift of alternative ideas. We believe the invisible hand is the grasp of death for sovereignty and freedom, as these internationalists will conveniently erase all borders.

What makes globalism so unpalatable is that there is absolutely no social justice; everyone loses except those at the top pulling the strings. It is not the function of government to intervene in every sector of our lives and it is not its function to be controlled by international corporatist interests. That is what the Rothschilds and Rockefellers want to subject the world to. Today's corporatist globalist interest offer alternatives that produce little common good.

The NGO's (non-governmental organizations) you see supposedly bashing business interests are simply spreading disinformation to give the public misdirection, because the NGO's are controlled and funded by corporate interests. We don't want NGO's, corporatists or governments controlling our lives. Some of the world's largest companies are more powerful than governments, which can and does make democracy a sham. Profits should not rule. The people should rule.

Americans shouldn't be forced to give up their jobs to foreign slave labor just so some corporation and its shareholders can get richer. There is much more at stake and that is self-determination and freedom. WTO and the corporations have stolen those rights from us. Not only do Americans loose $20 an hour jobs, but also the citizens of other countries are exploited.

Today politicians and bureaucrats are totally paid for by companies that reshape the world for private profit for the few. In the end the only way to keep all three entities from devouring us is to re-demand tariffs. That way there would be no way they could continue their exploitation and theft of our jobs and freedom. Don't be misled it is not only profits these people are after. They want your freedom.

Every job lost to the third world means lower wages and a lower standard of living for Americans and it also means more governmental control over our lives.  It is not progress. It is rearranging who gets what with a specific goal in mind.

Those of us who disagree with free trade and world government are not Luddites - we simply reject the socialization of the world. We do not want our government to disappear, we just want it to shrink and stay out of our lives. International integration of countries is not a good idea and it is not in our best interests.

Economic integration neuters democracy and sovereignty, especially if we have to start paying taxes to the UN. The financial system can collapse under the distortion of free trade due to the liberties taken in its name. The WTO usurps US law and is unconstitutional. It removes powers from elective governments putting those powers in the hands of bureaucrats, who operate in secret and without explanation.

WTO is a tyranny in and of itself over which our elected government has no control. Free trade is not good because it lowers our incomes and displaces our jobs. We are tired of the demand that we pour trillions of dollars into other countries that refuse or are incapable of fending for themselves. There is nothing affordable or fair about world government and once we have it we'll be reduced to perpetual slavery.


50 Years is enough

Fact sheets aim to provide analysis of the World Bank and IMFs activities and how they affect the world. The Network has produced fact sheets on the following:

How SAPs Destroy the Environment


Corporate Globalization's Many Masks

International Monetary Fund (IMF)/WorldBank "debt relief" for poor and indebted countries is a sham

International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank structural adjustment programs have increased poverty around the world

Eliminating IMF and World Bank-promoted User Fees for Primary Health and Education

How Structural Adjustment Destroys the Environment

The IMF, the World Bank  and the HIV/AIDS Crisis

Africa Needs Debt Cancellation, Not More IMF Programs

Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative

How the IMF Bails Out Big Banks

Bailouts for Bankers, Burdens for Women

How the IMF helped create and worsen the Asian financial crisis

The Environment

The World Bank's Financial Components

Corporate Welfare in Haiti

Destroying Orissa, Fueling Climate Change

Privatization in Mexico: Telmex

Poison Profits: The G-7 Pesticide Industry's Stake in the World Bank

The IMF and Corporate Welfare

Group of Seven (G-7) Fact or Fiction


You say the billionaires have stolen your future?
by Dick Eastman (1999)

It is a bitter pill for middle-class baby boomers that their parents are dying without seeing the fabulous future which they once reasonably expected would emerge, certainly by now, from their years of collective sacrifice and toil. 

No one can deny that some marvels have been developed more or less as predicted fifty years ago. Consider, for example, the ease, speed and reliability with which computers gain access to incredibly informative websites and newsgroups . 

Nevertheless, one need only peruse a few old magazines to see how very far today's world falls short of the old prospective "World of Tomorrow" our parents and grandparents were living to see.

Pick up a 1968 edition of McCall's magazine and you will find the entry form for a chance to win a voucher for an all-expense-paid trip to the moon with first-class lunar hotel accommodations, redeemable in 2001.

Open a 1950's copy of Forbes and read John von Neumann predicting that by 1980 all power likely would be virtually costless and that by 2000 the weather would be scientifically tamed for the benefit of farmers everywhere--not bothering to consider the use international commodity speculators might make of such technology if they secretly got it first.

Gaze at the fascinating cover art of an old issue of Popular Mechanics and read the caption: "Robots will be Waiting on You by 1970.

Finally--if the poignancy is not already too much--peer into a 1966 issue of American Home and find the following: 

"By the turn of the next century only 10 percent of us will be engaged in 'work.' The computer and automation will relieve us of drudgery and allow 90 percent to spend time on whatever pleases them. The machines will do the work, create the wealth which will allow every family to follow the leisure path. 

"...the computer-financed economy will provide families with a guaranteed annual income, with cash to buy their own computer system. 

"...One expert has predicted, 'With the machines taking on the tasks that now that now consume all but a fragment of our days, we will be free to undertake completely new tasks, most of them directed to perfecting ourselves, creating beauty, understanding one another better.' 

"Certainly opportunities for further education, development of talents in art, music, design, writing, will proliferate. The home-centered skills--gardening, cooking, sewing--will be approached not as make-work but as great works. ...We will want to create our own art forms and become artists at home."

How tragic that the average American adult today has 30 percent less leisure time than the day those words were written; that at this moment millions of people, too tired and otherwise constrained to enjoy once normal social lives, fill their spare minutes with autistic sexuality (catch the euphemism here) fanned by curvacious pattens flashing on cathode-ray tubes or by hot-button words carried over Alexander Graham Bell's somewhat older invention, as the controlling few rake in the cash. 

The mind simply boggles at this and plentiful other evidence of the gigantic larceny that, blasting all dreams of futurity, has plunged the world's middle classes into today's debt-slavery backwash; the predictably non-utopian result of trying to tread standard-of-living water in foredoomed labor-service competition with the throw-away New Coolies of the billionaires' 'global plantation.'

How is it that we have inherited this world that we never wanted, a world more resembling C.M. Kornbluth's vision (in his 1953 novel, The Syndic) of a society shaped and directed by organized-crime and aiming only at affording maximum individual sovereignty to its "friends?" ('Individual sovereignty' is Lord Rees-Mogg's honorific term for the liberty of billionaires no longer bridled by governments of the people, by the people,... etc.)

What happened? Ironically enough, it was H.G. Wells, the 20th century's leading apostle of Mankind's potential for a limitless future, who 50 years ago fully answered that question. During the first half of this century he assiduously championed the idea of 'putting things in order' for the speedy attainment of a highly desirable worldwide scientific utopia.

But Wells was also a well-connected and astute more-populist-than-Fabian social critic and the first popularizer of nonchauvinistic history from a species perspective, a vantage point from which he eventually came to see the darker fate overtaking his civilization. His last two books, are, unfortunately, his most prophetic. In his 1939 book, The Future of Man (in the USA; it is The Future of Homo Sapiens elsewhere), Wells explained how the Anglo-American elites had recently grabbed the reigns of the collapsing liberalized world order of his time--that great, good, but never-fully perfected achievement of nineteenth-century optimism and good will-- and did so for their own self-serving-and-to-hell-with-everyone-else ends: 

"The disintegrating British Empire is now, one has to recognize, a system of government almost completely out of popular control. Practically it has undergone a reactionary revolution in the last decade, and a loose-knit combination of court, church, army and wealth, intensely class conscience, intensely self-protective, has resumed control of affairs.

"It is an oligarchy skillful in assimilation of useful or formidable individuals but without the slightest disposition to amalgamate with anything else on earth. Its ruling motive is fear of dispossession. Decisions of peace and war are made without consulting any surviving popular will, and the whole capitalist press, the cinema, the radio and indeed all possible means of influencing opinion, concentrate upon the assertion of the rightness and inevitableness of these decisions. Dissent is a muffled and ineffective squeaking, and any inconvenient facts are kept from the public by requests for suppression that are in effect commands."

Such a development, spells death to any hope of the majority of mankind to live any kind of rewarding personal-achievement oriented middle-class life. In his last book, Mind at the End of its Tether (1945), Wells 'signs off' with these words: 

"Homo Sapiens in his present form is played out. The stars in their courses have turned against him and he has to give place to some other animal better adopted to face the fate that closes in more swiftly upon mankind. ...The cinema sheet (i.e., screen --DE) stares us in the face... Our loves, our hates, our wars and battles are no more than phantasmagoria dancing on that fabric, themselves as unsubstantiated as a dream. ...There is no way through the impasse. 

"It will be the Dark Ages over again, a planetary instead of a European Dark Ages. ...Mankind, which began in a cave and behind a windbreak, will end in the disease-soaked ruins of a slum." 

The point of the present essay is not, as Well's final words might suggest, that we give up and trust fabled space aliens to genetically engineer mankind's more-promising replacement.

Nor is it that we must avenge our betrayed parents by killing off the billionaires, as not a few today doubtless privately contemplate. Rather, we must attack the root of why our future was lost and do what must be done to get it back again. To that end I conclude with these words, written at about the same time as those of Well's above, the creed of a little man who excelled even Wells as a true friend of mankind's future: 

"Exploitation of the poor can be extinguished not by effecting the destruction of a few millionaires, but by removing the ignorance of the poor and teaching them to non-cooperate with their exploiters."

The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall. He frees himself and shows the way to others. Freedom and slavery are mental states. Therefore the first thing is to say to yourself, "I shall no longer accept the role of a slave. I shall not obey orders as such but shall disobey when they are in conflict with my conscience." 

The so-called master may lash you and try to force you to serve him. You may say, "No, I will not serve you for your money or under threat." 

This may mean suffering. Your readiness to suffer will light the torch of freedom which will never be put out." Certainly there is unfailing hope for a future in that. 

Dick Eastman Yakima, Washington United States of America 
Every man is responsible to every other man



The Mexican

The American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellow fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. 

The Mexican repled, "only a little while". 

The American then asked why didn't he stay out longer and catch more fish?  

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs. 

The American then asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?" 

The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life." 

The American scoffed, "I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave the small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise." 

The Mexican fisherman asked, "But how long will this take?" 

To which the American replied, "15-20 years". "But what then?", asked the fisherman. 

The American laughed and said that's the best part. "When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions." 

"Millions, then what?" 

The American said, "Then you would retire, move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos." 



The TRUTH about Democracy

In the western world approximately 95% of the wealth is possessed by approximately 5% of the people. That means, using these same figures, that 95% of the people, the overwhelming majority, possess only 5% of the wealth.

The politicians would have us all believe that this is the will of the majority. That is the politician's idea of what they call democracy.

When did the 95% of people, the overwhelming majority, ever vote for the right for themselves to be poor and vote for the tiny 5% minority to possess their own (the poor people's) share of the nation's wealth, that the poor majority's ancestors have fought and died to protect?



World's people living in "survival" mode 

NESARA Brings Prosperity Worldwide
Dove-of-oneness newsletter, January 5, 2003
available from

I recall years ago in a college Economics class hearing the professor state that only 5% (five percent) of the people on the planet "control" 95% of the world's wealth.  This means that the other 95% of the PEOPLE are ONLY in control of 5% of the world's wealth. 

There is much more money and wealth in the world than most of us have ever realized; this is because MOST of us - 95% of the people - have personal knowledge of ONLY FIVE PERCENT of the world's wealth.  Most of us belong to the 95% of the people who have been sharing an extremely small part of the world's wealth - a mere FIVE percent. I recall reading that there is enough money in the world so that if the money was spread around, every person could have been a millionaire 20 or 30 years ago. 

Most people have zero knowledge of the huge amount of wealth on the planet because they are not part of the "elite" small five percent of the people who actually KNOW about and control the massive 95% of the world's wealth. Most people think there is a scarcity of money and wealth; they are encouraged to believe this by the "elite" five percent of the people who control MOST of the world's wealth. 

I recall reading that there is enough money in the world so that if the money was spread around, every person could have been a millionaire 20 or 30 years ago.  We will see, within four years of NESARA's announcement, a new distribution of wealth and most people will have new prosperity funds which they can choose to access.  We will see an entirely NEW way of living where we no longer have to work to "survive", but we do activities because we want to "contribute" our gifts and abilities to improve the world. 


Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow (1954) attempted to synthesize a large body of research related to human motivation. Prior to Maslow, researchers generally focused separately on such factors as biology, achievement, or power to explain what energizes, directs, and sustains human behavior. Maslow posited a hierarchy of human needs based on two groupings: deficiency
needs and growth needs. Within the deficiency needs, each lower need must be met before moving to the next higher level. Once each of these needs has been satisfied, if at some future time a deficiency is detected, the individual will act to remove the deficiency. The first four levels are:

1) Physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comforts, etc.;
2) Safety/security: out of danger;
3) Belonginess and Love: affiliate with others, be accepted; and
4) Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition.

According to Maslow, an individual is ready to act upon the growth needs if and only if the deficiency needs are met. Maslow's initial conceptualization included only one growth need--self-actualization. 

Self-actualized people are characterized by: 
1) being problem-focused; 
2) incorporating an ongoing freshness of appreciation of life; 
3) a concern about personal growth; and 
4) the ability to have peak experiences. 

Maslow later differentiated the growth need of self-actualization, specifically naming two lower-level growth needs prior to general level of self-actualization (Maslow & Lowery, 1998) and one beyond that level (Maslow, 1971). They are:

5) Cognitive: to know, to understand, and explore;
6) Aesthetic: symmetry, order, and beauty;
7) Self-actualization: to find self-fulfillment and realize one's potential; and
8) Self-transcendence: to connect to something beyond the ego or to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential.

Maslow's basic position is that as one becomes more self-actualized and self-transcendent, one becomes more wise (develops wisdom) and automatically knows what to do in a wide variety of situations.

Norwood (1999) proposes that Maslow's hierarchy can be used to describe the kinds of information that individual's seek at different levels. For example, individuals at the lowest level seek coping information in order to meet their basic needs. Information that is not directly connected to helping a person meet his or her needs in a very short time span is simply left unattended. Individuals at the safety level need helping information. They seek to be assisted in seeing how they can be safe and secure. Enlightening information is sought by individuals seeking to meet their belongingness needs. Quite often this can be found in books or other materials on relationship development. Empowering information is sought by people at the esteem level. They are looking for information on how their ego can be developed. Finally, people in the growth levels of cogntive, aesthetic, and self-actualization seek edifying information. While Norwood does not specifically address the level of transcendence, I believe it safe to say that individuals at this stage would seek information on how to connect to something beyond themselves or to how others could be edified.

Maslow published his first conceptualization of his theory over 50 years ago (Maslow, 1943) and it has since become one of the most popular and often cited theories of human motivation.

The "hierarchy of needs" model suggests, among its other explanatory functions, that people will not have much interest in "higher level" activities such as pursuing meaning and purpose, optimal functioning and . if they are poorly fed, poorly housed and basically poor, period. People must feel secure, safe and able to manage the basics of life before they can get very excited about transforming. Wellness, or the pursuit of a fulfilling lifestyle ("self-actualization," Maslow called it) must wait until the basics are attended.


Not a conspiracy…worse!
Conspiracies by their nature seek to do by stealth something which hasn’t already been done.
But the World Economic Forum’s 1000 member-corporations already dominate the world. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s World Investment Report 1998, transnational corporations already control 70% of the world’s trade and 80% of its foreign investment.


World Bank / IMF Questions and Answers

What is the World Bank?

Created at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, The World Bank Group is comprised of five agencies that make loans or guarantee credit to its 177 member countries. In addition to financing projects such as roads, power plants and schools, the Bank also makes loans to restructure a country's economic system by funding structural adjustment programs (SAPs). The Bank manages a loan portfolio totaling US$200 billion and last year loaned a record US$28.9 billion to over 80 countries.

What is the IMF?

Also created at the Bretton Woods Conference, the mission of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is to supply member states with money to help them overcome short-term balance-of-payments difficulties. Such money is only made available, however, after the recipients have agreed to policy reforms in their economies-- in short, to implement a structural adjustment program.

Is structural adjustment working?

No. Structural adjustment has exacerbated poverty in most countries where it has been applied, contributing to the suffering of millions and causing widespread environmental degradation. And since the 1980s, adjustment has helped create a net outflow of wealth from the developing world, which has paid out five times as much capital to the industrialized countries of the North as it has received.

I know there are a lot of qualified people at the World Bank and IMF who are experts in economics and other fields. If structural adjustment doesn't work, then why are they promoting it?

The wealthy Northern countries which control the World Bank and IMF dictate the agendas of these institutions, and their interests are best served by defending the status quo. Furthermore, the Bank's staff is currently dominated by economists who have spent their careers defending the validity of neoclassical economics, the foundation of the World Bank model of development. This orthodox view holds sacred the efficiency of free markets and private producers and the benefits of international trade and competition. Given the lack of accountability to outside parties, there is little incentive for the Bank and IMF to alter the design of structural adjustment, even when faced with mounting evidence attesting to the failure of these programs.

I hear a lot about the debt crisis in the Third World and know that many of the loans are owed to commercial banks and Northern governments. People say that some or all of this debt should be canceled to give developing countries a chance to recover economically. Shouldn't they pay?

Much of this debt dates back to 1970s, when it was lent irresponsibly by commercial banks and borrowed recklessly by foreign governments, most of which were not popularly elected and which no longer hold power. The advent of the debt crisis, which occurred in the early 1980s due to a worldwide collapse in the prices of commodities that developing countries export (e.g., coffee, cocoa) and to rising oil prices and interest rates, forced these countries into a position where they were unable to make payments. Yet there's no such thing as bankruptcy protection for a country, regardless of the circumstances. When the U.S. department store Macy's filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11 in January 1992, it received instant protection from creditors and working capital to keep open. At the same time, when Russia told the West that it could not meet government had to wait for more than a year before the IMF provided financial help.

What is relationship the between debt and structural adjustment?

Since the 1980s the debt situation has steadily worsened, so that now the total debt of the developing world equals about one-half their combined GNP and nearly twice their total annual export earnings. Because of this crushing debt-service burden, foreign governments have virtually no bargaining power when negotiating a structural adjustment program and must accept any conditions imposed by the World Bank and the IMF. And SAPs themselves, by orienting economies toward generating foreign exchange, are designed to ensure that debtor countries continue to make debt payments, further enriching Northern creditors at the expense of domestic programs in the South.

How's the World Bank's record on responsible lending?

In 1992, an internal World bank review found that more than a third of all Bank loans did not meet the institution's own lending criteria and warned that the Bank had been overtaken by a dangerous "culture of approval." Bank officials, in other words, felt heavy pressure to push through new loans even when presented with overwhelming evidence that the project in question was ill advised.

Who makes decisions at the World Bank and IMF?

Decisions at the World Bank and IMF are made by a vote of the Board of Executive Directors, which represents member countries. Unlike the United Nations, where each member nation has an equal vote, voting power at the World Bank and IMF is determined by the level of a nation's financial contribution. Therefore, the United States has roughly 17% of the vote, with the seven largest industrialized countries (G-7) holding a total of 45%. Because of the scale of its contribution, the United States has always had a dominant voice and has at all times exercised an effective veto. At the same time, developing countries have relatively little power within the institution, which, through the programs and policies they decide to finance, have tremendous impact throughout local economies and societies. Furthermore, the President of the World Bank is by tradition an American, and the IMF President is a European.

How is it that U.S. business and other companies benefit from the lending programs at the World Bank?

Development projects undertaken with World Bank financing typically include money to pay for materials and consulting services provided by Northern countries. U.S. Treasury Department officials calculate that for every U.S.$1 the United States contributes to international development banks, U.S. exporters win more than U.S.$2 in bank-financed procurement contracts.

Why is this bad?

Given this self-interest, the Bank tends to finance bigger, more expensive projects--which almost always require the materials and technical expertise of Northern contractors--and ignores smaller-scale, locally appropriate alternatives. The mission of the World Bank to alleviate poverty, not provide business for U.S. contractors.



Harmonization is the name given to the effort by industry to replace the variety of product standards and other regulatory policies adopted by nations in favor of uniform global standards. 

The harmonization effort gained a significant boost with the approval of several new international agreements, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which established the World Trade Organization (WTO). 

These trade agreements have also established an ever-increasing number of committees and working groups to implement the harmonization mandate. 

Unfortunately, most of these working groups are industry dominated, do not provide an opportunity for input by interested individuals or potentially-affected communities, and generally conduct their operations behind closed doors. Yet, under current trade rules, these standard-setting processes can directly affect our national, state and local policies.




The danger of competition instead of fair regulation 
by Richard Hole at

People say that we need serious competition to have fun, keep prices down have a large variety of goods and services. However, this is not true. In fact the opposite is happening, where powerful corrupt people and companies are competing against, taking advantage of, and destroying those people and businesses that are less well off. With the fair businesses gone, the monopolies raise prices, and their products are often of poor quality so that they need replacing. This means more profit for the multinationals at the honest person's expense. Destroying honest innovators and small businesses means that good products and services are suppressed. This is resulting in a smaller variety of goods and services, and making these more expensive.

Instead, God's way is a rightfully regulated fair go for everyone where everyone is well off. If that was the current practice, small businesses along with everyone else, would be doing well and there would be such a great variety innovative products and services. Instead these products and services have been suppressed, so that we have to rely on a corrupt system. Fair price control should be used to benefit everyone and stop companies from making large profits. 

Competition encourages many outlets to sell the same things, which causes confusion to shoppers, who spend excessive time shopping around. There is also often a lack of information from staff that do not know the product. Instead of competing with each other, small specialist outlets focusing on very similar things could work together and share profits. Fair price control could be used to ensure fair and low prices. More fair regulation would ensure groups of businesses don't become too domineering. This would give a more fair chance for small specialized businesses because they would not have to compete. Instead of some businesses marketing many products that other nearby businesses sell they could focus more on the ones they know about. The system would be far more efficient without people wasting time shopping around. There would also be less advertising costs.

God's kingdom is about loving, sharing, contentment, praise, joy and giving, which are the opposite of competition. Today we have a system where there are too many people competing to do the same thing, and too few people serving others and doing God's will. People are therefore taking a limited number of paid jobs and money away from honest people. If one succeeds in a career or enterprise to make money, they are therefore preventing someone else from succeeding under such a competitive environment of limited opportunities. This is causing others to be unemployed or go bankrupt. This is not a problem if people use the money for God's will. Money and time used for the wrong reasons denies other people an opportunity to help others, and inform people of the truth.

Non-serious competition is probably good when it is for exercise, personal motivation and used as a means to lead people to God. But when it comes to serious competition, it means over training, lust for worldly success, money and medals. There is pride if you win and distraction from doing God's will. When you lose there is anger, disappointment, envy, regret and resentment. The disappointment and low self-esteem incurred by people losing is causing suicides, drugs, family breakdown, stress, crime, injuries, anger with God, and people not being thankful to God. These things are not from God.



The Lima Agreement

I can remember when it was considered barbaric to buy goods from people who lived on a handfull-of-rice-a-day-wages.

They were barbaric repressive governments to deal with. Its still barbaric but we got salamied into it by the UN. It was done through a Treaty in 1974 called the Lima Agreement.

The public knew nothing about it. The governments of the world who signed into it did though. The news only got out a few years back on the Internet. No Newspaper ever touched it. Nothing on the TV...ever...and still none. We were sold out to a philosophy that no-one knew about.


The Dark Side Of Globalism

Tom DeWeese, 01/27/04

There are many faces of globalism and it comes with many names, but in all cases the goal of globalism is to erase national borders, eliminate national sovereignty, reduce national identities and move toward global governance through the United Nations.

The European Union is the prime example of the results of globalism, where once-proud nations have surrendered famous currencies like the deutsche mark, the franc and the lira. It's where ancient cultures like Greece and Rome have erased their borders and buried their cultures to be led by a Union of Socialists with loyalty to nothing but the drive for more and more power. Yet it's done in the name of equity, economic prosperity and ecological integrity.

Globalism is sold to the unsuspecting public with words like free trade, open borders and environmental protection, but it's really about redistribution of wealth; your wealth. It's about erasing national borders and national sovereignty. And it's about top-down control, not necessarily by elected officials, but by special interests called non-governmental organizations (NGO's), which are only sanctioned by the United Nations.

Globalism calls for a wrenching transformation of our society, away from representative government and independent nations to the establishment of a global village with global citizens. The entire plan is outlined in detail in the UN's Agenda 21, a treaty signed by then-President George Bush at the UN's Earth Summit in 1992. You've heard some of the terms used to implement that treaty. The Wildlands Project is one. Smart Growth is another. The Wildlands Project calls for the "re-wilding" of 50% of all of the land in every state, restoring everything back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus stepped foot on the continent. In other words, the elimination of human presence on over 50% of the American landscape.

Smart Growth is the plan to herd us all into specific human habitat areas, out of the suburbs and our beautiful yards and into crowded cities and high rises. As one smart growth advocate gleefully put it: "It will be the humans in cages with the animals looking in." Both of these schemes are part of an overall agenda called "Sustainable Development." If you remember nothing else, remember these words. Sustainable Development. And remember that Sustainable Development is your enemy. What is it? Imagine an America in which a specific "ruling principle" is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen. That principle would be used to consider everything you eat, what you wear, the kind of home you live in, the way you get to work, the way you dispose of waste, the number of children you may have, even your education and employment decisions. That "ruling principle" is Sustainable Development. The goal of Sustainable Development is to transform the world into feudal-like governance by making NATURE the central organizing principle for our economy and society.

This is what Sustainable Development policy advocates: "Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and, material) where humans are one strand in nature's web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore, the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature's rhythms." This quote comes from the UN's Biodiversity Treaty. An international agenda has been set in motion, beginning with the United Nation's treaties and agreements. That agenda is now working its way down through federal to state to local government policy. It is now the official policy of the United States government and every single city, town and small burg in this nation are working on plans to implement it. There are no exceptions.

Wherever you live there are an average of 10 to 18 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working directly with your elected councilmen and commissioners on plans for your community to determine:

How your property will be used;

How business may operate in the community (indeed which businesses may even operate),

The type of housing that may be built,

Where roads may or may not be run, · How food is to be grown,

How labor is to be used and how your children are to be educated.

The plan is to change your way of life to fit into the new global society. According to Sustainable Development policies, air conditioning, convenience foods, single-family housing and cars are among the products, habitats and modes of transportation that have already been determined to be "unsustainable." Add to them, ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing fields, logging, dams and reservoirs, and power line construction, as outlined in the UN's Biodiversity Treaty (also a product of the Earth Summit) and you can get the full picture of America under Sustainable Development. Across this nation people are already suffering under Sustainable Development policies as they are losing their homes, their jobs and, in some cases, whole communities under this wrenching transformation of our society in the name of the global village.

There has never been a single vote in Congress to create Sustainable Development. It's all done through cleverly rearranged wording of existing programs and budgets, using UN treaties as guidelines. It's all under the radar. Sustainable Development is anti-property rights. Anti-free enterprise. It is anti-individual liberty. It is anti-national sovereignty and national borders. It is anti-Western culture. There can be no hope of living in a nation of limited government with Sustainable Development as official government policy because the two are diametrically opposed. Americans would never concede their liberty to Swastikas or Hammers and Sickles, but tuck it in a green blanket for environmental protection and we' ll toss it all on the fire like an old-fashioned book burning. This is about totalitarianism. It's about controlling every aspect of our lives with decisions made by non-elected committees that will get more powerful and more oppressive with each passing day and each new regulation proposed by newly empowered special interest groups.

Sustainable Development is anti-science. It is anti-knowledge. It is anti-human. It is the creed of the mindless savage who seeks brute force over reasoned thought. And if we don't learn of its evil now, if we don't heed the warning, if we don't rip it out of every level of government policy by its well entrenched roots, then American life, indeed human existence, as we know it, will enter a new dark ages of pain and misery unlike any ever experienced by the community of man.

There is one sure way to stop Sustainable Development and the globalist movement. I tell it to everyone I meet, everyday of my life. I tell it to you now. Get the United States out of the United Nations.


Many Multinational Corporations (= Transnational Corporations = TNCs) use Transfer Pricing, Financial Instruments, Tax Havens, Charitable Trusts, Family Trusts, Sovereign Trusts, and other unethical methods of avoiding Company and other Taxation, then use the surplus funds to outbid and outsell competitors, thus gaining both windfall profits, regular "super profits," and effective access to the political leaders, according to some critics of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). News snippets and other documentation give evidence that the predatory Transnational Corporations (TNCs) use their political donations and statements that they might cut employment levels if they do not get 'proper consideration,' and so actually induce governments to give them MORE privileges, tax concessions, and tax-funded government payments than most ordinary people (the real taxPAYERS) would even dream of requesting for themselves unless there was a regional calamity like a flood. Links are also listed to find ethical multinational corporations.


DEVASTATING IMPACT OF BIG CORPORATIONS ON PEOPLE AND THE EARTH: Al Anderson, of USA, in his MAI Page, writes: "Worldwide, the super-rich and their multinational corporate empires are inflicting a devastating impact on the rest of the earth's residents, and on their environment. So, while an elite few live in luxury, increasing millions are either homeless in their 'home' countries or unwanted refugees in foreign countries, often under life-threatening conditions." See his arguments in A Critique of the MAI at
And see A MAI-Day Alert   Why is Globalization Bad? MAI, Part 2   How To Make Globalization Work -- MAI, Part 3

MONEY MARKET OVERWHELMING OUR SOCIAL IMMUNE SYSTEM: Book The Cancer Stage of Capitalism. "Our social immune system is being overwhelmed by growing out-of-control money market cancer. In this bold new look at the recent uncontrolled spread of global capitalism, John McMurtry, professor of philosophy at the University of Guelph [Canada], develops the metaphor of modern capitalism as a cancer. Its invasive growth, he argues, threatens to break down our society's immune system and -- if not soon restrained -- could reverse all the progress that has been made toward social equity and stability. This essay is a condensed version of an article Prof. McMurtry wrote for the American journal Social Justice [22(4): 1-25, 1995.]." Click: or for fuller details, including the title of another recent book Unequal Freedoms: The Global Market as an Ethical System, Toronto: Garamond, 1998, click the link given above at his name, which is:

"FREE MARKET" FALLACIES: John McMurtry also wrote "Free Market" Fallacies. "The corporations, in other words, are assumed not only to have the right to a free ride on costly services and infrastructures paid for by the citizens of free-trade countries, but the right to be held non-liable for any costs and damages they inflict within these countries." John McMurtry's work in social and political philosophy, political science and sociology has been widely published internationally in journals, textbooks and public forums. His latest book, The Invisible Prison: The Global Market as an Ethical System, will be published by Garamond Press this fall [1998 northern autumn]. The article at the above-linked Webpage was excerpted from a longer essay he wrote for the Journal of Business Ethics.

MULTINATIONALS RELY ON GOVERNMENTS, PAY NO TAX: "But despite their brash free-enterprise ethos, TNCs [=Transnational Corporations = Multinational Corporations] rely very heavily indeed on the state. When a TNC thinks of setting up a plant it holds an auction, commanding competitive bids from nation states with ofrings of tax-breaks, grants, roads, power supplies, a compliant, 'flexible' labour force, a 'sympathetic' regime. Huge public subsidies prop up TNCs everywhere.
"... finance houses and banks ... so much surplus cash now sloshes around that they're becoming richer and more powerful than TNCs. ...
Because these institutions have grown so bloated, and because globalization is all about paying no taxes, states are becoming virtually bankrupt. ...
... alternatives... the globalizers are opposed to every single one of them ... The simplest would be to impose a tax on the transactions of foreign-exchange markets, which could generate two-and-a-half trillion (thousand billion) dollars a year.
... the state bureaucracy ... has, by and large, aligned itself with globalization, set itself against the people and lost all political credibility." -- David Ransom, "Globalization -- an alternative view", in New Internationalist, November 1997, pp 7-10.

by: Walden Bello, TNI Fellow

We must consider "disabling the transnational corporations ... that constitute the core of the global economic system."


I am not talking about withdrawing from the international economy.

- I am speaking about reorienting our economies from production for export to production for the local market;

- about drawing most of our financial resources for development from within rather than becoming dependent on foreign investment and foreign financial markets;

- about carrying out the long-postponed measures of income redistribution and land redistribution to create a vibrant internal market that would be the anchor of the economy;

- about de-emphasizing growth and maximizing equity in order to radically reduce environmental disequilibrium;

- about not leaving strategic economic decisions to the market but making them subject to democratic choice;

- about subjecting the private sector and the state to constant monitoring by civil society;

- about creating a new production and exchange complex that includes community cooperatives, private enterprises, and state enterprises, and excludes TNCs;

- about enshrining the principle of subsidiarity in economic life by encouraging production of goods to take place at the community and national level if it can be done so at reasonable cost in order to preserve community.


For 44 years Multinational Corporations have paid little or no Tax.
Corporate Australia now 90% foreign-owned.
60% of foreign-owned companies report to Taxation Office they operate at a loss!