Sunday, 20 November 2011

Declaration of the Occupy Auckland movement

(this document is a revision of the grievances listed by those in the occupation, reframed to transform negatives into positives & offer solutions to the problems)

To the People of Auckland and New Zealand; we of Occupy Auckland present for your consideration our view of the concerns felt by the 99% that we all share.

We assert that our government is required to serve the public interest. Because it has been serving vested interests ahead of the public, we demand instead ethical conduct and full accountability above and beyond the 3-year electoral cycle. We are acting on behalf of the oppressed. The old ideas, entrenched systems and traditional ways of thinking put our society on an unsustainable path. We need to set a new course that ensures a future for us and our children. We cannot defer decisive action any longer, we must move forward!

Those in Occupation live with the risk of arrest. They have put their bodies, reputations, careers, property and relationships in jeopardy. They are enduring hardship to devote a significant part of their lives as an expression of determination to serve this common cause. Consequently, in Solidarity with all other peaceful Occupiers around the world, we declare our intention to replace business as usual with a better alternative.

We do not accept that 1% of the population have any right to own and control most of the wealth in our country. We understand that the situation is caused by an exploitation and control system emanating from overseas that uses the US Federal Reserve, corporations, and the apparatus of democracy to make dupes of our politicians. We reject the traditional assumption that everyone else must suffer the consequences of the decisions of these people and pay the price they impose on us.

We will not tolerate that more than 200,000 of our children live every day in hopeless poverty. The shameless exploitation and manipulation of our young people for profit by companies selling them unhealthy foods and damaging products must stop. As parents, we cannot accept that our children's health and well-being is threatened by these outside influences as part of business as usual. All legislation that permits chemical poisons to be put in our foods must be eliminated.

We reject the current policy that young New Zealanders must pay more for a University education than past generations; the quality of our democracy depends on the universal education of citizens. Nor will we accept that our elderly parents, who worked and paid taxes all of their lives, should now live in fear that their pensions and their access to quality medical care should be threatened. When governments use fear to reduce the quality of life of old people it demeans us all. Provision of intergenerational equity must be a foundational principle of future governance.

We denounce the practice whereby young people are expected to work for nothing as "interns", or languish in dead-end jobs because companies refuse to pay for vocational training. Paying the cost of job training was the traditional norm in business and legislation must impose penalties on delinquent employers. Artificially high levels of unemployment and reduced working conditions have been forced upon us by the architects of globalisation, due to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries, so we need to replace this status quo with a suitable alternative economy. It is imperative that this country becomes self-sufficient before the global trading system collapses.

Our society is sick and riddled with institutions acting in breach of the principles of natural justice, so we intend to create one that is just and healthy. The free-market experiment has produced widespread pollution and the promise of a trickle-down of wealth has failed to be delivered in reality. It is time the experiment ended. Free trade is a valid principle but has had too many negative consequences in practice. It must be replaced by fair trade.

We acknowledge the widespread harm done by the lack of corporate ethics, so we require a fundamental change to business as usual. Companies must be required by law to serve both public and stakeholder interests. Many of our young families cannot afford to buy a home. Those that can are allowed to be trapped by unscrupulous lenders into a lifetime of debt slavery. The government must accept it's moral responsibility to provide a better alternative. We believe that ownership and control of land and natural resources is invested in the citizens of Aotearoa by right. Any privatisation by business must be conditional upon public approval of mutual benefits.

We abhor the disproportionate control of our political institutions and our media by the 1%: from this malignant social control system a multitude of injustices proceeds. To provide social justice we must eliminate it. We assert as a governance principle that all legislation that recognises companies and corporations as natural persons be removed; that they shall not be entitled to protection under our Bill of Rights (part 3, sec. 29), and they may not act to influence our political processes for their own ends. We allow that restructuring and relegislating corporations could transform them from agents of evil to organisations that provide for the common good, in which case their right to lobby governments should be restored.

We trust you will endorse our prescription for a better alternative to business as usual, and we appeal to you to demonstrate your solidarity with the Occupy movement.

Join us. Come add your voice to ours, help us find a better way.

In solidarity, the General Assembly of the Occupation of Auckland


Endorsed by: Bill Watson, Dennis Frank, Vanessa York, Tim Lynch, Bera MacClement, David Holden, Eva Naylor, Jenny Campbell, Patricia Kane, Joy Sadler, Diego Sonderegger, Paul Bruce, Lydia Mair, Christine Ellen Henderson, Steve Goldthorpe, Deborah Yates

Friday, 4 November 2011

Nats & Greens swap campaign slogans

Bemused at the Greens campaign slogan on all the election posters, promising to make us all rich, I then noticed the Nats' election posters were promising a brighter future & the penny immediately dropped!  Obviously the 2 parties have done a deal to swap their respective traditional brand identifications in order to get a blue-green coalition up & running! 
Truly forward thinking from John Key, knowing that the Nats have been a shoo-in to win this election since Phil Goff agreed to be their patsy, so he's decided on a strategy that will set him up for retaining power over the next decade or so.

Since everyone wants to be rich, and most people are stupid enough to think it'll happen if they vote for the party that promises to do it for them, the Nats' cabal of strategists figured the best way to help the Greens out of their ghetto of 7% of the voters - where it's been static since the 1990 election - is to give them use of the traditional right-wing slogan that pushes the capitalist get-rich-quick scheme button in the psyche of the voter.

The deal requires the Greens to yield up the vision of a brighter future promised by the sustainable society.  No problem - it hasn't got the party any extra traction over the past 20 years.
So the scenario for creating a durable blue-green coalition has a wide swathe of voters that used to vote blue following the lure & switching to vote green, probably enough to get the Greens up to around 15% of the popular vote & create a sizeable rump of Green MPs in parliament.  National can afford to ditch 8% of the voters and still win handily, owing to Phil Goff's solid reputation as a right-winger going back a quarter century to when he was one of the rogernomes privatising state assets all over the place in the '80s.  Phil is remaining staunch in his stance of being a friendly tory just like John Key to ensure Labour can't be distinguished as a separate brand from National by most voters, in order to keep the Labour vote below 30%. 
Credit has to got to the party hacks in National and the Greens who dreamed up such a sophisticated scheme.  You never thought they could be that clever, eh?  After complaining in my editorial about the Greens being incapable of lateral thinking, looks like they're set to prove me wrong!  Punters may be tempted to respond that the Greens are not being so gauche as to actually promise to make individuals richer.  True enough, the slogan reads For a Richer New Zealand, so the extra wealth is intended for the country as a whole.  Clearly a socialist wolf in capitalist sheep's clothing!!  They've managed to outwit the Nats at their own game, can you believe it??  That's true sophistication in political strategising!  Take a bow, you clever lateral-thinking greenies!

Thursday, 3 November 2011

hypocrisy at Occupy Auckland: jew financiers still addicted to racism

A story has emerged from Occupy Auckland as the result of some from the movement making a token protest against Citibank, as reported in the NBR 29/10/11 (link below).  “One protestor expressed concern about what he called a "Zionist conspiracy" and the influence of the “Rothschild banking dynasty.”

Google "Zionist conspiracy" and you get “About 1,260,000 results (0.16 seconds)”.  The fact that Google identifies these web pages in 0.16 seconds is solid evidence that capitalism ain't all bad, huh?  Google “Rothschild banking dynasty” and you get “About 923,000 results (0.15 seconds)”.  So this lone protestor has a cultural base of 2 million plus websites providing a solid consensual basis for his personal concern.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I got an email informing me that a jewish woman helping to organise Occupy Auckland has launched an initiative trying to get the movement to deprive the lone protestor of his right of free speech.  Apparently she is leading their grievance committee, which is quite an achievement given that the movement has agreed to have no leaders!

Someone should explain to her that protesting any jewish financial or political cabal cannot reasonably be interpreted as an attack on the entire jewish race.  If there is such a thing. The thing is to hold wrong-doers accountable for their behaviour - and punish them for harming others.  The fact that wrong-doers belong to any particular ethnicity is irrelevant.  If the people in Occupy Auckland are so stupid that they let this woman get away with silencing the lone protestor, they may find out he's not really alone - and they may lose their entire support base in the populace.

The right of free speech is enshrined in a United Nations covenant (see Article 19 in the link below).  People need to act accordingly, not try to suppress it.  Speaking truth to power is now a widely acknowledged primal need that people are experiencing in contemporary society.  This has been so the past couple of decades.  Attempting to silence someone by invoking assumptions that politically correct behaviour requires conformity from all in a group is liable to bring the group into disrepute.  She should know better than to do this!  Non-conformists provide a healthy contribution to society by illuminating various dimensions of any debate and thus increasing cultural diversity.

Moral guidance requires an understanding of notions such as integrity, authenticity, hypocrisy and wisdom.  Someone who is obviously clueless in this regard is a poor exemplar.  But abysmal performance can always be redeemed.  Folks in Occupy Auckland ought to explain to her all these considerations, and with a bit of luck she'll see the errors of her ways.  Then it will be necessary to identify the practices of the financial cabals that are mass-producing victims around the world, as an essential part of the report that the grievance committee is formulating.

If the committee doesn't include the identity of the culprits in it's report, we will consider it a failure.  The truth must be told.

In the usury wiki there's an historical review of the notion with religious observance specified.  Traditional jewish practise of usury is mandated by a variety of the Bible quotes listed going right back into the early parts of the old testament (root sources around 3 millennia ago) - but only against non-jews!  Doing it against other jews is specifically forbidden by the word of God - see the relevant quotes.

Note the irony of this woman complaining about the NBR article creating the impression that Occupy is anti-semitic (ie racist) whereas the jews have been practising institutionalised racism in their financial practices since before the start of their recorded historyThe hypocrisy of making the lone protestor seem racist in this context is remarkable.

The financier jews are free to choose to abandon their racism at any time, of course.  She could ask them to issue this public statement:  "Someone has pointed out that we have always practised usury upon non-jews.  This is true of course, but our excuse is that God told us to do it. Sorry, God was wrong.  We won't do it any more, okay?  Promise, cross our hearts & hope to die."

One can imagine the scene if they actually did this: the Jewish God would reward that hope!!  The heavens would open & an enormous bolt of lightning and heavenly fire would issue forth, smiting not all the practitioners of usury - just the ones who issued the public apology... :)

Dennis Frank, 30/10/11