Economics I

Economics III

Economics II

Gregory VII a midget who walked on stilts became pope by acclamation at a funeral service of Alexander II in 1073. Gregory had an entire school of forgers turning out document after document with the papal seal of approval to cater for his every need.

Many earlier documents were touched up to say the opposite to what they said originally. Some of the earlier documents were themselves forgeries. The forgers turned today into “always was and always will be” which even today, contrary to the findings of history is the peculiar stamp of Catholicism. Though the longest lasting of all revolutions could never have worked in an era of universal literacy, printing, photo copying and carbon dating, it worked without a hitch in an age of inept scholarship when even emperors could not read nor write.

I am going to talk about the Stock Market because I believe it is important to understand that the Stock Market is a parasitic institution used to milk people of their hard earned money but I will lead up to it by explaining first of all some of the economic policies that appertain to it in Great Britain. I use Britain because it is one of the two countries (the other is Zambia) that I am familiar with but the principles can be applied to any country.

The British economic policy is based partially on

The Stock Market, Interest rates, Foreign exchange rates Inflation, Commodity prices, Tax system
How many of us fully understand what this is all about? Very few. Nobody?

Yet despite this generally and genuinely acknowledged ignorance many of us believe that the future welfare of humanity is inexorably tied up with it.

In 1990 thousands of British people were trying to sell their houses at a loss because the government had increased the interest rate on mortgages to an unprecedented 15.3 percent. Hardly anyone could afford to buy these houses going for a song because they too could not afford to take out a mortgage. The result was a plethora of repossessed homes and depleted bank accounts of those who managed to keep up the payments.

What was the cause of this working class economic situation? How could a man be going about his business one day, working hard, paying his mortgage, making ends meet, then a few months later find himself in dire straights, perhaps even out in the street when he had not changed his lifestyle in any way and was still making the same contribution to society as he was making when everything was going well?

A few years prior to the devastation of the early 90’s the interest rates were about 7.5%. Margaret Thatcher’s government at the time hit on to the idea of selling council houses to the sitting tenants. She even offered them a discount determined by the length of time the tenant had lived (and paid rent) in the house, a seemingly generous offer.

After the Second World War, Britain was in a state of devastation. There was a serious shortage of houses for the men returning from the battlefields so the government embarked on a huge scheme and built houses for ‘their’ returning heroes.

Have you ever wondered how the government, with its economy in ruins could mount and fulfil such a mammoth project and then suddenly stop? Today, even after billions of barrels of oil and North Sea gas have boosted Britain’s economy there is still a housing shortage?

I wonder how many people know the extent of the homeless problem in Britain. It is less than 200,000. In a population of 60million that is a drop in the bucket. If there are only 200,000 homeless people in Britain that means there are 59.8 million who are housed. If Britain can house 59.8million, why not 60million? The answer is because it is not in the interest of the parasite class to house the entire nation. Some must live a life of destitution so that the working people will witness a lifestyle that is worse than their own and work harder to prevent it happening to them.

How could a government declare war and - out of the blue in the middle of the worst economic recession the world has ever known - mobilise the entire country and its workforce to fight it. The same government that could not feed, house or clothe its people suddenly and seemingly from nowhere found the resources to manufacture bombs, aeroplanes, uniforms, battleships and billions of tonnes of food and supplies for the troops.

Who built those houses after the war? Not the government – I am asking who literally- shirt off – physically built the houses? The working man. Who built the factories, the cement works, the brick works? The working man. And who operates these institutions? The working man. So to whom does the house he built belong? The working man. So why is he paying rent to the government for his own house?

Most of the council houses so “generously” sold off to the working classes by Margaret Thatcher’s government were built before or in the early 50’s so when the Tories started selling them off they had already soaked up 30years rent and they had already used up 30 years of their lives. How much longer were the matchbox houses expected to last? Another 30 or 40 years?

These houses were offered to the working classes at what was claimed by the vendors to be a very generous price. However the buyers were still unable to raise enough money for the transaction because the working man in Britain only earns enough to make ends meet, there is no surplus for luxuries like a home. Perhaps we should think about that as well; making ends meet today might include a colour television a couple of weeks holiday a year and a few domestic appliances which admittedly makes for a better life than before the war but it is still only making ends meet. Why can’t the nation produce twice as much or three times as much or five or a thousand? Why always just enough to make ends meet?

So the government got the building societies to lend the prospective buyers the money to buy their own homes. Unfortunately the building societies didn’t have sufficient cash to finance the purchase of the plethora of homes that suddenly became available so the government lent them the money to lend the people. Where did the government get the money?

If the government really needs money all it has to do is print some but unfortunately this method can cause inflation, which in turn devalues the money already in circulation, which is mostly in the hands of the parasite class so that solution is unacceptable. There is another solution:

The working man needs money to pay the government for his own house. The building societies need money to lend to the people so that they can buy their houses from the government and the government needs money to lend to the building societies. Full circle.

Where is the cash? There isn’t any, it is not needed.

The government says to the working man, “You own the house but you owe me £20,000” the working man says, “I own the house but I owe the government £20,000. Where will I get the money to pay the government? I will ask the building society to lend it to me?”

The building society says to the government, “If I give a cheque to the working man for £20,000 will you accept it as payment from him for the house and as a debt from me to be paid back over x number of years?”

The government says, “Yes we can do that but you will have to pay us back the £20,000 over the x number of years plus y percent per year interest.

The building society tells the working man, “ We will lend you the £20,000 to pay the government for your house but you must pay it back over x number of years and you must also pay us y + z percent interest per year.”

What has happened? What has changed?

The working man is still living in the same house, but he now has the warm feeling of ownership. The change is only in his mind. Nothing about the house or himself has physically changed. The government is now receiving more money than it was receiving in rents because the mortgage and interest payments are higher than the rents and the parasite owners of the building societies are raking off a share of the working man’s labour for doing absolutely nothing.

It is all an illusion and delusion. The people receive discount on an arbitrary price. Somebody says (the government valuer?) the house is worth £25,000. The government says, “ you can have it for £20,000”. The purchaser thinks he is getting a bargain, once again just a thought in his head. Is the house worth £25,000 or £20,000? The house is worth neither it is worth a house. What would be the point of selling a house to a man for a sum of money he cannot pay and for a sum that frightens him away from the deal.

If the man does a calculation and from the calculation concludes that he cannot pay and so decides not to buy the house of what use would be the government plan to sell the houses?

If you want a hungry donkey to move forward with your load what do you do? You dangle a carrot in front of its nose. The government as always wanted the working man to work harder. It had two ways of achieving its desired goal the carrot and the stick. The stick method is not very effective, as we know from the experiences of Communist countries. You need almost as many wielders of the stick as you need donkeys; a great deal of time and effort is wasted in the war between the donkey and the wielder and the donkey in its frustration sometimes turns on and kills the wielder. So in Britain the government long since discarded that method for the carrot.

The working man thinking that in 25years time he will own his house works his heart out putting the monetary gain from the increased effort into the coffers of the government and the building society. In 25 years time the house will be 25 years older and if he doesn’t spend more money and effort keeping it in good repair the house will be dilapidated and worth nothing. In effect then he will have spent his entire working life on food, clothing, shelter and a nest egg that has dwindled to nothing.

Let me tell you this story. My father and mother both served in the Second World War and each of them, as I already mentioned, lost a brother in that same war. When it was all over, newly married and still in their twenties they borrowed money and bought a house in Witton Park for £350 – to them at the time it was a fortune for a house with; no electricity nor bathroom facility. I remember my dad earning £5 a week and if I can remember it must have been the early 50s so that can give you an idea of how much the £350 was to them in the late 40’s. I grew up in that same house.

When I was 15 the government declared Witton Park a “Category D” area, meaning derelict, unfit for human habitation. Indeed the whole village was a slum, though our house certainly wasn’t among the worst. Someone in fact had offered my father one thousand pounds for it. The government though would not allow the transaction since all were to be demolished. We moved out and indeed other people moved in renting from us for £1 a week until the government got its act together. Eventually the council notified my parents that the house was to be purchased on a compulsory order and for it they were to be paid £50 yes fifty pounds. My parents refused the money on principle so the council lawyers sent them another letter stating that if they did not accept the payment court proceeding would be instituted against them and they would end up with the costs.

My parents - having grown up when they did - of course succumbed to the blackmail and accepted the cheque, what else could they do? I will not pretend that this act of perfidy does not stick like a chicken bone in my craw but the point I am trying to make is that the so called government of Britain and not only of Britain but of every country, doesn’t care a fig for right and wrong, they will walk all over whomever, so long as whomever is working class and in a position where they cannot or will not protect themselves.

So when the house is 60 years or so old and dilapidated the government will – if they own the house – have to build the working man another one, or pretend to build him another one by getting him to build it himself. And if the house is not dilapidated the reason will probably because the man took better care of it and spent more of his own money and energy keeping it in good shape.

And even if at the end of all this the house still stands, the man is not paying anything to the government and the government resents it. What effect will this have on the government of 25 years earlier that sold the working man his own house?

The answer of course is none. It is no longer in power so the problem, if there is one, will be somebody else’s.

The working man can at times through circumstances far beyond his control get into an awful mess with mortgage repayments. In a carrot and stick situation you hang the carrot from a stick that protrudes from its head, so that when the donkey moves the carrot moves. The result is a shift of load but no carrot for the donkey. Using this method governments entice working people into their programmes and then move the goalposts.

Twenty five thousand pounds at 7.5 per cent interest is too much for the working man so he rejects the offer out of hand. So what did Margaret Thatcher do? Reduced the price of the houses to an amount that would encourage the people to buy and in the process deluded them into believing she and her party were doing them a favour.

You can have the house at twenty thousand pounds she said. Excellent deal until the

Interest rate shot up to 15.3 per cent and some of them lost their homes and their savings trying to salvage the situation.

And you know what? When the people lost their houses nobody thought to blame the government past or present they blamed circumstances, inflation and economic instability. Margaret Thatcher and her policies have destroyed the lives of many thousands of people but is one of them her own? No way. As I speak Margaret Thatcher is living a life of luxury. There should be a law that prevents leaders from benefit from incompetence and mismanagement. If the people are suffering the leaders must also suffer.

What are the real problems of a government?

Food Clothing Shelter Education Health Transport Leisure
Notice anything about that list? They are genuine problems that have always and always will present a problem to the human race. These problems were there before anybody thought of a monetary system or an economy. What is the situation now? Every one of these problems is dependant on, stifled, encumbered, exacerbated by money. Conclusion: Money creates more problems than it solves.

Here’s another list:

Homeless people, jobless people, striking workers, unhappy teachers doctors nurses, inefficient education system, appalling transport system .
And there probably isn’t a person in the world except me that doesn’t believe all of these problems are caused by lack of money.

People do not have homes but materials are available if somehow they could be paid for. There are plenty of people available to build houses if they could be paid for doing it. The government can print money and thus solve the problems of homeless people and of jobless people so why doesn’t it’

Inflation.

The working class people receive far less than their share of the national wealth yet when they complain they are accused of harming the economy. Do the accusers seriously believe that the working class people want to harm the economy any more than they do? After all who are the first people to genuinely suffer when the economy sinks into depression? And if any one has the right to harm the economy surely it must be they that built it in the first place.

Do the politicians not realise that the people are intelligent enough to know how much the nation can afford and when to put the brakes on excess in order to safeguard their own investment and their own hard labour? How is it that the so called ruling classes are so readily prepared to accuse the miners nurses railwaymen and farm workers of holding the nation to ransom when asking for a few extra pounds a week to ease the torment of everyday living but seem totally oblivious to the discrepancies the inadequacies and the plain injustice in a system which blatantly discriminates in favour of a minority? Isn’t it just plain hypocrisy?

Why don’t the “ruling classes” print some more money in order to solve the problems of the workers, after all if it is true that 1% of the British people own 95% of the nations wealth does it not follow that a transfer of 5% of the rich people’s 95% would roughly increase the wealth of the majority by 100%?

Inflation.

If you have nothing in your pocket and there is 100% inflation and therefore 50% devaluation, how much have you lost? And the man or woman with a thousand million in the bank has lost how much? Do you see why they continually propagate the myth that inflation is the precursor to the end of the world? They do it because for them, in their minds, it is.

Let me before I go any further explain the true reason for a recession:

A recession is a period of time calculated to redress the imbalance caused by a boom. During boom periods Working-class people, through their incessant nefarious demands for more, acquire copious amounts of money that is not good for them or their superiors. Too much wealth in the hands of Working-class people is unacceptable because it encourages sloth and bad capitalistic habits. A recession is a period introduced to redress this dangerous situation.

If you don’t believe that ask yourself this question. During recession does the Earth continue to revolve on its axis and travel around the sun? Does the agricultural land disappear do the factories and the machines that are otherwise used for the production of peoples needs suddenly disintegrate? Do people refuse to work or to consume? The answer is obviously no, so what causes the devastation?

People cause it and to be specific the parasite classes cause it - deliberately. Money is sucked out of the economy in order to “bring down inflation” (the best analogy I can think of to explain this “solution” is heating the house up by setting the furniture on fire.) the result is catastrophe for the working classes who foolishly believe ( because they are incessantly told so ) that the inflation the politicians are trying to bring down is the cause of all their problems.

All recessions are deliberately caused by human beings in order to relieve the working classes of the wealth that they accumulate in boom times; another way of doing it is by allowing them to participate in the Stock Market. I shall explain.

A circular letter from Pope Gregory VII regarding Emperor Henry IV stated

“On the part of God the Omnipotent I forbid Henry to govern Italy and Germany.

I absolve all his subjects from every oath they have taken and may take and I excommunicate every person who serves him as king”

In order to have this censure lifted Emperor Henry marched across the Alps with his wife and infant son and in nothing but a woollen tunic stood knee deep in snow for three days and nights until Gregory, having brought Henry to the point of death deigned, on conditions, to grant Henry’s wish. As Machiavelli remarked in his “History of Florence” “Henry was the first prince to be honoured with the sharp thrust of spiritual weaponry”

Gregory VII virtually invented the concept of Roman Catholic asceticism. He never had a doubt or an opinion, he was always quite certain about everything.

“If I were not me, I would like to be Gregory VII” said Napoleon Bonaparte, archenemy of the Catholic Church after the battle of Auterlitz.

If Napoleon chose Gregory rather than Innocent III it was probably as a result of tossing a coin.

You can hear it on the evening and late night news; trouble in the City, share prices falling, impending doom, Chancellor intervenes to save the pound, recession in sight.

All hyperbolic nonsense.

Certainly the pound can fall against the dollar, brokers can and do jump out of tenth floor windows, stock market crashes do precipitate recession but it is all unnecessary hype and self inflicted pain caused by the greed of monetarism. It only relates to the real world in so much as selfish money grabbing people permeate it.

What are shares? I don’t pretend to be an expert on the stock market; it isn’t necessary. What I do know is that stock market jargon and technical economic claptrap are used to con the working class people into believing there is something mystical about the whole system, which they, as mere mortals, are unable to understand. They are induced into believing that economics is an esoteric subject beyond the grasp of the working class brain, upon which the welfare of the entire world depends and for which the working classes must be eternally grateful to the superior minds of their “upper class” betters.

This is how the stock market works: let us say a man starts up and runs a company that makes shoes. It grows into a multi million pound business. The man dies and leaves the company to his children. It is unlikely that the children will have the same feelings for the company that the father had. The company is buildings, machines, stock and a workforce. The children who become the new owners may have no interest in the company whatsoever except to harvest the profits.

Let us presume in this hypothetical situation that the children can’t agree on a way forward for the company of inheritance so to resolve the problem of their impasse they decide to sell it. How many people are there around with enough money to purchase a company for shall we say twenty million pounds? Not many? And of the few that there are how many would want to buy the problems of a shoe manufacturing company? Even less, right?

So this family could find itself the prisoner of an inheritance that is more trouble than it is worth. There are two solutions to this problem, one; look for an individual purchaser and be compelled to sell at a greatly reduced price and two divide the company up into smaller parts and sell them to hundreds of not so wealthy shareholders. That’s where the stock market comes in.

What happens physically to the company from such a transaction? Nothing happens except that ownership changes from a few disgruntled inheritors to many share holders. That’s when the fun and games start; buying and selling of these shares among the “investors.” Investors in the stock market sense is a euphemism for gamblers and as with all gambling there are winners and losers except, in the case of stock market culture the ultimate loser is always the Working-class people.

If shares are deemed to be cheap there will be lots of buy orders. The demand will force the price up until the investors decide that they are too expensive at which point the price starts to fall again. There is no levelling off period, shares either rise (a bull market) or fall (a bear market) they never remain at the same price.

How do investors determine whether or not the shares they are buying or intend to buy are worth the money that the stock market demands for them? They don’t know. Once again think of the analogy of the glass of water in the desert and the glass of water in the river, are you still with me?

Yes

You went quiet for a long time.

I’m listening.

Well just like the glass of water which has a value determined by circumstances and the opinion of the person doing the valuation, so too with stocks and shares.

Suppose we represent a share by a brick. The share that the speculator buys represents a part of the company equivalent in value to one of its bricks. Let us say the share and therefore the brick are both worth 50pence. Why does the speculator buy it?

He buys it in the hope that someone will at a later date buy it from him at a price higher than 50 pence. Due to inflation and growth the general direction of share prices is always up so the speculator assumes that unless something untoward happens to the brick, if he bides his time he will make a profit on the eventual sale. He is also hoping that in the time period between buying and selling at the date determined by natural growth some mug will come along and buy from him at far more than the shares are worth and far more than he paid for them.

Prior to the crash of 1987 lots of people, encouraged by insurance companies and other business houses with vested interest, realised this and seeing the better than usual rise in the monetary value of these bricks poured their money in and the price rose and rose.

Now anybody who knows about the stock market will tell you that bears always follow bulls and bulls always follow bears. So there was bound to be a period at which the share - holders would realise that the bricks were not worth the money people were paying for them. Sorry I forgot to mention that there are two major ingredients, which fuel the stock market, one is ignorance and the other is greed.

Anybody wanting a true value (in monetary terms vis a vis current financial market costs) of a share needs to study the assets; liabilities and trading figures of the company whose shares are in question. How many people who buy shares do this? Very few, so why do they buy shares of a company of which they know nothing? Because some stock broker or insurance man has convinced them that the shares are a good investment. What do the insurance men and stockbrokers know about the trading figures of the company whose shares they are promoting? They too generally speaking know nothing.

The Messianic Law at work once again; nobody does anything without a presumed gain. The insurance man is in the business of selling endowment policies, which have a share component; the stockbroker is in the business of selling stocks and shares they make there living from it. No sales no living, they are not in the business of making Joe Public rich. If Joe grows rich on the advice he is given it is a bonus for the promoter since Joe will then believe he is a good guy and return to him with more business.

Insurance men and stockbrokers, selling shares to the public, is a classic case of the blind leading the blind. Unfortunately the ordinary Joe buying shares thinks the stockbroker’s knowledge of the market is wide and profound and he thinks this because the broker can point to facts and figures that high-light the mood and trends of the market. What is the prime mover of these moods and trends? Once again; ignorance. And what is the purpose of these moods and trends? The best analogy to explain them would be the bait on the end of a fishing line.

The price of a brick today is fifty pence; one month later it is sixty-five pence, the price having risen steadily by 0.5 pence per day. Now along comes the ignorant buyer with his wiz kid financial adviser who looks at the trend of the value of the brick.

“The price is rising, the brick must have some inherent value not apparent to the naked eye. You’d better buy some, the price is bound to rise higher.”

Has the brick changed its nature? No, the only thing that has changed is the thoughts in the minds of the speculators. The mood has changed.

That’s what happened in 1987. Millions of ordinary people poured their life’s savings into shares because you-know-who convinced them they would get rich. They were shown the figures and the graphs; they could see the market was rising, shares were increasing in value so understandably they (the working classes) after a suitable priming period begged for a piece of the pie. And did they get it? Of course they did. Where did the bricks come from? Did new companies appear from out of the ether to cater for the newfound need of the working classes? No that’s ridiculous isn’t it?

The brick owners - that is, the regular shareholders, meaning the real brick owners, the ruling classes – sold them their shares.

When the working classes got their hands on all this money which they had deviously squeezed out of their upper class betters by going on strikes and demanding pay rises it became obvious that they had accumulated more financial wealth than was good for them. If everybody grew rich there would be nobody left to do the work would there? “Hard work” as they say, “purifies the soul and never killed anyone” I don’t know who said that, but it wasn’t me.

There are solutions to this anomaly, indeed there are a number of solutions; the government sells the working people their own houses; that’s one way and the parasites sell them their share; that’s another.

“Look at the price of bricks. Get your money into bricks you will make a fortune.” This is a bull market the price is rising. When prices are rising bricks are trading, someone is buying and someone else is selling. Who is buying? The speculator, the Working-class man, duped into buying shares by insurance men; themselves working class people. Who is selling? The upper classes, the pariahs, the parasites, scum of the fucking earth (sorry sorry I’m getting carried away) the ones in the know. They don’t buy shares on the bull market they don’t buy shares on the rumours they start the rumours. By the time Joe public hears the “hush hush, keep it to yourself” hot tip, half the world knows.

And the price continues to rise – one pound fifty pence, two pounds, two pounds twenty pence. The working class man is worth a fortune in bricks bought at one pound fifty and two pounds and now they are selling at two pounds thirty. Where is the workingman’s wealth, his lifetime of hard work? It is in the bricks. And the money? The pariahs have it, given to them “legally” by the workingman for bricks.

The workingman is now close to broke but he has plenty of bricks. What do the pariahs do? They dump a whole load of bricks onto the market and the price drops through the floor. Two pound fifty, two pounds, one pound, fifty pence.

Now the pariahs have the money, which is the reason they initiated the exercise but unfortunately the workers have the bricks all they have to do is wait for the price to rise again. How do prices rise? Through demand. Who is going to demand bricks? Not the working classes, they don’t have any money. The only people who have money are the pariahs and they are not going to demand brick just to make the price rise. What do they do? - - - - - - - - Wait. Everything comes to the pariahs who wait.

You see, the working-class people invested in the bricks hoping to make profit, they need money. When the market falls on its face their need for money doesn’t dissipate, they still need to pay their mortgage they still have to feed and educate their children so bit by bit they are forced to sell their bricks at a loss in order to make ends meet. No prizes for guessing who buys those bricks.

And that is the way life goes on in Britain and all the other countries that operate these unfair stock market systems. I am not saying that the individual working man cannot make profit out of the stock market because if he is shrewd enough he can but working man per se, meaning the class in its entirety cannot make profit they always lose. In a gamble there are always winners and losers. Where one person invests nothing and comes out owning bricks and another makes bricks and comes out owning nothing it is the latter that loses.

Are you finished?

For now I am.

So let me see if I can sum up what you are trying to say.

“There is but one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is no salvation or remission of sins - - - - - We declare announce and define that it is altogether necessary for salvation that every creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” Written by the hand of Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull, Unum Sanctum 1302 – to this day the edict has not been rescinded.

Pope Clement VI said, “Before me no one had any idea how to be pope” he often jested, “If the king of England wants his ass made a bishop he only has to ask.”

In 1377 the future Pope Clement VII whilst acting as papal legate to Cesena on the Adriatic, murdered the entire population (eight thousand, including the children) of a town, for objecting to his mercenaries raping their women. The slaughter took place after discussions with the town officials persuaded them to lay down their arms.

Sorry, before you sum up let me just say something about Africa in general and Zambia - this country I have spent three decades of my life in - in particular.

Go ahead.

Zambia has a population that approximates to the population of the city of London. Great Britain has a population of almost 60 million yet Zambia’s land mass is four times greater than the landmass of Britain.

The sun shines every day in Zambia. In the summer, which is the rainy season, it is hot but rarely humid. When it rains it rains hard and a downpour may last for an hour once or twice a day, each outburst followed by a hot dry spell. It rarely becomes unbearably hot and never unbearably cold.

During the winter months the sun is warm, there is a cooling breeze and it will not rain. There are millions of acres of uninhabited virgin bush land and provided you can afford the nominal amount of money required to employ domestic workers, you need never cook, wash, do the gardening or housework.

Foreigners who choose to work on contract in Zambia can enjoy a great deal of respect from their employees. They can be important people in a way that would be impossible to achieve in the West, big fish in small ponds.

To an everyday working class English man, fed up with the rain and mists of England; to the elderly woman sitting huddled next to her one bar fire in the depths of winter depression, Zambia may seem like an ideal place to live. Its climate is said to be among the best in the world.

Yet the average Zambian would give his right arm to have the lifestyle, which those in Britain take for granted – even complain about. The lower paid man or woman, scraping out a living in England, is by comparison to the Zambian counterpart, living a life of unattainable luxury.

British people have heard of the Third World of course and many donate generously to various charities involved in trying to feed and educate the inhabitants. Yet “developing” is an inappropriate term for countries like Zambia because it implies that Zambia is in a transitional stage. Nothing could be further from the truth. Zambia and indeed almost all the countries of Africa are slipping inexorably back into the bush from which it came little more than a century ago.

The Zambian people have their wonderful climate and thank God, because without it many more would die during the winter months; but they have an unbearably high price to pay for it.

It is so easy for people living in the West to look at those in the Third World and whilst pitying them feel removed from their plight. With all the media coverage there is a danger that the West will become desensitised to the plight of the Third World. There is another danger, the danger that comes with the idea that with the desire of African people to have independence 30 years ago they brought the problems on themselves.

It is true they did but they are only human and most were illiterate and ignorant when allowing themselves to be hoodwinked by their self-seeking politicians. Can they not be forgiven for their mistake? Is it too late to seek restitution?

Evelyn is a Zambian. She is 28 years old, married with three children, the youngest just over one year old. She is an attractive, intelligent woman, with a calm almost soothing aura; if she lived in England she would be a teacher or a nurse. It is the kind of work that would suit her personality.

To work in any kind of white collar or professional position, it is obviously important that a good level of education is achieved. In England there is no reason why anyone should slip through the net and remain uneducated, it is taken for granted that all children will attend school. Any one who is too poor to provide school clothes books or stationary can apply for help to the Welfare State. No one in Britain need lack education because there is no money to pay for it.

Despite Evelyn’s obvious intelligence she works as a housemaid. She must do this and she is lucky to have a job. She works from seven o’clock in the morning to four in the afternoon for just a little more than the local currency equivalent of one pound per week. And yet the cost of food in Zambia is, if anything, more than the cost of food in England.

Evelyn’s three children must go to school. She knows they must, because if they don’t they will be unable to have a good life. By a good life Evelyn means a job. Without a little education jobs are almost impossible to come by. But attending school is not easy. The school is one-hour walk away; the children attend every weekday for four hours. They start at the age of seven and finish at thirteen.

Whilst at school the children will learn, besides their own language, English, maths, religious education, social studies and science. These are, as one can imagine, taught at a very basic level given that the children are finished with school at thirteen and the teachers are barely literate themselves.

Before they are allowed to go to school the children must have school uniforms. Without uniforms they are not allowed into school so the parents of the children lucky enough to have a job borrow the uniform money off their employers and pay it back monthly from their salaries. The uniforms are not new and they are not cheap. A British child would be ashamed to go to school in the uniforms that these mothers toil for months on end to buy.

The unemployment rate in Zambia is 95% that is, if you count the people with gainful official employment who pay tax. There are an awful lot more of course who consider themselves employed but don’t have a job – if you know what I mean.

Those who cannot work must steal; those who can work must steal also. Almost everybody from the president down through the judges the police and even the clergy steal. The thieving is not officially recognised, by which I mean it is still frowned upon, unlike in the Congo where you can get a certificate in it. At least 75% of the Zambian population is malnourished and most young people carry the HIV virus.

Evelyn lost her baby when he was fifteen months old. He died from malnutrition. She breast-fed him but it wasn’t enough. She tried to find food to feed him but she failed. Her husband had money but he needed if for drink.

At first Evelyn didn’t know how ill her baby was, there were no doctors or nurses to visit her and there is no social network system. Whether Evelyn’s baby lived or died mattered not at all to anyone in authority. She was on her own. When there was no more she could do, she took him in desperation to hospital where after a week he died.

Evelyn lives way out in the bush so to get her child to hospital she had to carry him for miles. She expected and received no help whatsoever.

When in hospital in Zambia the patient must pay for food or have someone bring it in. A child can be brought into hospital suffering from malnutrition and die because nobody feeds it. The bathrooms are filthy; excrement overflows from the toilets onto the floor. Hundreds of people die everyday in Lusaka’s main hospital they cannot fit all the bodies in the morgues. The staff, lacking every facility and working in horrendous conditions are often abrupt and sometimes downright unkind.

Martin has to support himself, his wife and three children as well as his mother and her three children on a salary equivalent to ten pounds per month. If he cannot work all of his dependants may well die so he knows he is lucky to have a job. Every year Martin suffers from malaria and can’t work – his family must go without. He drinks kachasu (the local paint stripper) to alleviate the constant pressure and by doing so adds to it. Yet drink gives the only relief he knows to the constant fear of disaster with which he has always lived.

Evelyn and Martin both live in one room brick built houses - courtesy of their employer – with corrugated iron roofs, about the size of a garden shed. They have no toilet or bathroom no kitchen and the food in Zambia if anything is more expensive than in Britain.

So how do these people live?

I don’t know. Seriously, I have lived most of my life in Africa and I have looked into that question because I too need an answer. Many white people and apamwamba blacks (literally translated means, up there – rich people) excuse this blight on the human race by trying to fob off enquirers with the excuse that “These people don’t need much” or “These people are used to living on very little” to which I say, bullshit.

“These people,” simply do not live, they survive. And even their survival defies my powers of logic, which concludes that they shouldn’t. They eat birds, rats, mice, caterpillars flying ants. How desperate would you have to be before you served up that food to your children?

Zambian peasants are not good gardeners. There are a number of reasons for this but the main one is theft. Dig your garden, plant your crop, and carry the water for miles to irrigate it, where does a pauper buy seed and fertilizer and implements? When the crop is close to maturity, sleep with it because as soon as you turn your back it will be stolen.

Last year Evelyn’s husband had an affair with another woman. During the affair he became very aggressive and continued in that vein until the affair ran its course. Recently he started another affair. If he leaves Evelyn - and the girlfriend comes round to taunt her that he will – she cannot survive. She is terrified that he will leave her.

Evelyn is also afraid that her husband and his girlfriend may kill her to get her out of the way, she is seriously afraid. In Zambia poor people are expendable.

The police in Zambia are badly paid. They can make money to live if they accept bribes. Every so often they mount roadblocks to check the roadworthiness of vehicles but everybody knows these are just fundraising events. They never ask the motorist to repair his vehicle all they care about is the fine, which ends up officially heaven knows where but more often than not in the pocket of the officer on duty.

The people understandably are terrified of the police. They know that if they are found stealing they will be tortured. They will be forced to confess, guilty or innocent, unless they can pay a bribe.

Britain seems like heaven to the average Zambian yet even in Britain things aren’t perfect. Husbands batter their wives, parents abuse children; people are unemployed and afraid for their future. Women resort to prostitution; there are drug addicts, squatters, molesters, murderers and perverts. In Britain there is corporate and political corruption and as everywhere the working class are exploited.

Things are certainly better in Britain than in Zambia but they are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Britain could be like Zambia or Zambia could be like Britain, they could both be better.

The whole world could be better, richer than it is in every way. People want solutions to the horrific problems of the world but they are going the wrong way about finding or achieving them. Everybody could become like Evelyn or Martin for whom nobody really cares. They are real people. They have real feelings just like everyone else’s. They love their children and they are afraid, for themselves and their children. They work and they sleep, there is no time for pleasure except for the gut rot pleasure that comes out of an old plastic container.

The difference between Britain and Zambia most people except me would agree is money. Take the financial problems away from Zambia and a beautiful country of abundance would emerge. Take the financial problems from Britain and more could be done to eradicate crime and immorality than was achieved with all the religious blackmail ever thought up in the entire history of the Catholic Church.

Evelyn and Martin and their Zambian brothers and sisters are a warning. The planet is warming up and already the weather is causing devastation in many parts of the world including the West. Hurricanes do not discriminate in favour of westerners. Already peoples houses are being swept away by storms and burnt to the ground by bush fires while people watch on TV and say, “Shame - - - - poor things” then switch to another channel. Soon the insurance companies will stop paying out, they’ll go into voluntary liquidation and say “pick the bones out of that” and then they will leave you to find your own solution to having no house and no money to buy or build another one. You will be on your own just like Evelyn and Martin. George Bush doesn’t care if the world ceases to exist in a hundred years time because he thinks he won’t be around to suffer the consequences. He is wrong.

One day I, who am everybody, will be afraid, afraid of the authorities, afraid of illness, afraid of dying, there will be no room for any other emotion but fear. There can be only one solution to this problem and that solution is God. God has created this everything and He has a plan. That plan cannot be ambiguous. There is only one-way which is the way the truth and the life. Seek and thou shalt find the truth, which will set the world free from sin suffering and ignorance.

On the death of Gregory XI the cardinals elected Bartholomeo Prignano Archbishop of Bari to be Pope Urban VI only to change their minds later and elect Clement VII. So there were two popes who took it in turn to excommunicate each other.

In 1389 Urban the pope no one wanted performed the only useful act of his entire life and died. The fourteen cardinals remaining in Rome at Urban’s death promptly elected a murderer and probably the worst simoniac in Church history Boniface IX. There were still two popes.

The duplicity created no end of problems. Bridget of Sweden was canonized three times in order to be certain she was a saint because nobody was quite sure of the credentials of the popes doing the canonizing.

When one pope or anti-pope died the respective cardinals, split into factions and elected a successor so in 1409 a Council was evoked to once and for all solve the problem of two popes. The mitred fathers under the majestic portrait of Cimabue’s Christ solemnly declared that Gregory XII of Rome and Benedict XIII of Avignon were heretics and schismatics and by doing so deposed them.

Then they elected Cardinal Filargi of Milan who became Pope Alexander V. This should have ended the schism except that Gregory and Benedict did not agree so there were 3 popes. Three infallible popes, all claiming Divine authority over the Church, each excommunicating the other two and all threatening to call a Council of their own.

Now can I sum up?

Of course, what kept you?

I was entranced by your eloquence. All right here goes:

The only being in the Universe that matters is you and this can be said of all humans. You are God because everything is created by the mind, your mind, without your mind nothing has any value. You exist at all times and in all things and it is your all - consuming desire to be happy that is the reason for everything. We can say empirically that all actions of the human being are determined by calculation 100% on a selfish basis. The human being accumulates a lifetime’s knowledge, which collectively represents beliefs. The brain in every decision to determine which decision will bring most happiness calls upon these beliefs. When the brain decides, the body cannot act against the decision. In so much as the human being is compelled by this nature to do the best it can for self in all circumstances it is a robot.

Nature has no morals. Nature is indifferent. If the entire universe ceases to exist tomorrow it is of no consequence to Nature. This is not however true of the human being. This is not true of you who are humanity in total. If all things go awry you have much to lose. Because you are part of nature however you too don’t care - except for yourself. The only reason that it matters to you that your child will die is because the death will cause you pain. It is the pain that the death inflicts on you that is of paramount importance – recognise this reality.

If nature had sent any child in the creation to any mother in the creation or through the womb of any mother in the creation to any father, those parents would love that child just as much as the one that they now think is their own.

The potential for love in nature is infinite yet realistically it is non-existent because love is also totally and unavoidably selfish. We must stop asking people to “love your neighbour as yourself” because it is impossible to do. We can’t love anything other than ourselves because the programming will not allow it.

When we realise that all human beings are ourselves albeit in different bodies and in different time frames it becomes important to us all that we are fair to each other for what we sow we reap. When that message sinks in to the human psych the ground is set for a political and social system that will be fair to and beneficial to all mankind. The manifesto must read “All of us or none of us” The rules must apply fairly to all and in a fair world there can be no monetarism.

So monetarism has to go?

I am summing up. Isn’t that what you are saying?

I am not sure who is saying it you or me, but that’s what I think.

You and I are one so it doesn’t matter which of us says it the result is the same. If my opinions are different to yours it is because later in your life something happened to change your opinions. Nothing has happened I assure you so I am in complete agreement with you. Monetarism has to go.

Tall order.

Tall order, you said it. But it is not a problem that will be overcome in one day. You cannot get up one morning and say “No more money” because that will just cause chaos. Money has to be eased out; you have to show the people that it is not necessary. Not only not necessary but insidious, it is harmful, it eats away at the soul of society like a cancer.

Not easy to convince everybody of that. Like I said, tall order.

Yes but not impossible. Already you have some ideas haven’t you?

Say it for me I’m tired of talking.

The solution is to be found in the old adage; divide and rule.

And in the other adage that if we give them enough rope they’ll hang themselves.

We are both talking here about the apamwamba, the rich people the pariahs as you call them, I presume?

Who else?

So we are talking about the nation of the United States of America specifically, the billionaires the millionaires the rich sportsmen and women, the film stars the singers and entertainers?

We are and we aren’t.

Explain that.

What we are talking about is the waste of human resources, the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a minority and the inefficiency of the system that tolerates this situation. We are not talking about “the evils of Capitalism” we are not going back to the days of communism where everybody is equal and everybody must have an equal share or else.

I thought that’s exactly where we are going.

Once again we are and we aren’t. We want to achieve the same, shall we call it, socialist state that the communists tried to achieve but we have to acknowledge that they failed miserably. We must ask ourselves why they failed.

I’m listening.

They failed because they didn’t know what they were doing. They could see that something was wrong but they failed to understand what the cause of the problem was and jumped to conclusions with answers that came right out of their emotions,. They made the same mistakes that men have been making throughout history and concluded that if black is the problem white must be the solution.

So can you explain where they went wrong?

They went wrong by not understanding the nature of the human being. The so-called Capitalist is no different to the so-called socialist in his basic nature. Bill Gates or John Paul Getty or the Sultan of Brunei are no different to the anti capitalists that every year protest indignantly at the economic meetings of the leaders of the Developed World.

Just like Lenin and Trotsky the anti capitalists would like to destroy the men who they feel unjustifiably have more than their fair share of world wealth. Yet if one is to speak to these people one will find that their perspective of wealth differs dramatically from the perspective of the anti capitalist.

“One of them must be wrong” you may say but in that pronouncement there is a possibility that you are wrong. You see, nature and therefore the plan of God doesn’t care. Hitler could have been stopped with one heart attack but it didn’t happen. All the injustice in the world could have been stopped with retrospective thinking but God who at the beginning of the Creation knew about the injustice before it happened made no attempt to prevent it. This proves that it was meant to happen.

It is said that Bill Gates has one hundred billion dollars. Whether he has or not probably even he doesn’t know. How many feet does he have to put shoes on? How many backs to put a shirt on, and how many meals a day can he eat? After a while the money loses its meaning. If someone were to give me a million pounds I would be ecstati,, if someone gave Bill Gates a million pounds he would more than likely have forgotten within five minutes of receiving it.

Is it not true that Bill Gates is the major shareholder of Microsoft? And is it not true that Microsoft have done a great deal for the world of personal computers? And has the world not benefited from that work, and is it not true that the world would be a much poorer place today without the input of Bill Gates to the world of computers?

The answer to all of those questions is probably yes so why is any one complaining about the wealth that Bill has accumulated from his own effort? That would no doubt be the question of Bill to his detractors. At present the Western World operates what it calls a capitalist system. This is a misnomer because it suggests that capitalism is a philosophy of the human mind, which some people have adopted for the purpose of social and political expediency. This is not true, capitalism is the way of nature, the way of God, we are all capitalist whether we like it or not because nature will not permit otherwise.

To capitalise means to take advantage of a situation in order to make profit. The Messianic Law states that it is impossible to act otherwise so that being the case all the wars all the struggles all the effort and destruction however well intentioned – enacted to destroy capitalism - were doomed to inevitable failure. What a waste.

The problems of the world supposedly caused by capitalism, are not caused by Capitalism at all but by monetarism. Unfortunately the communist world of Lenin, Stalin and Moa Tse Tung did not recognise this. Because they failed to recognise it they practised monetarism – the real enemy – and as a consequence destroyed themselves. The act of destroying capitalism is a capitalist act, meaning that Lenin Stalin and Moa hoped to gain something from the destruction of Capitalism and were therefore practising it. 

Monatarism allows people to capitalize, meaning make a profit it does not demand a corresponding effort. In a monetarist society one is permitted to make an unlimited amount of money without making a contribution. All kinds of crooks – drug dealers, corporate raiders, thieves, liars, perverts can and do rise to the pinnacle of success and take their descendants for generation and generation with them while the true contributors meaning the working classes go through corresponding generations carrying these parasites on their backs.

This has to stop.

I think everybody knows that Tommy but how is it going to stop? For instance, take a look at Bill Gates he didn’t steal his money he earned it within the parameters of the existing rules. Who is to say that he doesn’t deserve the money he has earned?

That’s a good question, I’m glad you asked me that. I think we established in one of our earlier discussions that it is imperative that we aim for a perfect world. We may not achieve it but to aim for less is to aim for imperfection and certain failure.

Yes we did decide that.

And in this perfect world surely everybody should have unlimited happiness?

Theoretically, yes even that is correct.

You are right theoretically being the operative word but practically it is not possible.

Certainly not in this day and age with mans limited knowledge and scientific development.

Having agreed with that though you must also agree that there is nothing wrong with the principle of perfect happiness and therefore the principle of infinite material abundance.

Go on.

All this talk about evils of wealth and rich men having no right to their wealth, I’m sure you will agree is just prejudiced opinion.

So you believe Bill Gates is right to keep his hundred billion dollars while half the world is starving?

Right? What do you mean right. Therein lies the problem you see. Who and what determine rights? Fists, weapons and religious terrorism have determined these so-called rights and each of these methods is tainted by personal opinions. That’s why there have been so many religious and territorial wars (A religious was is a territorial war). One man’s opinion disagreeing with another mans opinions causes conflict.

You believe in Jesus I believe in Muhammad is a recipe for conflict, always has been always will be.

At the end of the day and at the beginning of it every belief is backed up by force and all conflict, which results always from differing beliefs, causes destruction and conflict and destruction causes poverty and misery. The solution is to remove the conflict by removing the different beliefs. We can only do that by establishing the truth.

Go on.

If we tell Bill Gates that he is not entitled to his 100 billion and he doesn’t agree we can either go away or continue to suffer the consequences of the discrepancy or we can try to rectify the anomaly.

Sounds like more conflict to me.

Could be and we don’t want that if we can help it.

Do you mean that conflict is acceptable if there is no alternative?

If there is no alternative, but let’s not get into that for the moment. We don’t want conflict but even a belief that we don’t want conflict at any price is a recipe for conflict, do you see what I mean?

Not really.

Well if you have someone who doesn’t want to fight for what he believes in and somebody who does the person who does will bully the other person into accepting his views which are what?

Belief in fighting for what he believes in.

Crazy isn’t it?

It certainly seems like it.

Exactly, it seems like it but in reality there is no conflict in the law of nature. The apparent pacifists in life don’t operate a different code of ethics to everyone else they simply scheme in order to get there own way. The big man uses his might and the weak man uses his brain to persuade the big man that the best way forward is to develop a code of conduct that will result in progress by the means of cooperation and pacifism.

And doesn’t that work?

It might if you can get every one to agree and abide by the rules. The problem is though that the big man will resort to his old ways as soon as the new ones go against his personal interests.

Take Bill Gates for instance. If you were Bill Gates would you be easily persuaded that a system that doesn’t permit you to have so much money is a good system? And isn’t it likely that unless we can persuade the Bill Gates’ of this world of the need for such a system we are not going to be able to change it?

Why?

Because the system that is operating is a monetary one and to do anything to or within it we need money. In other words the people who have the most money are the ones best able to effect the change.

Impossible situation don’t you think?

Very difficult but not impossible the solution is to take the power away from the people with the money.

Isn’t that impossible since surely money is the power.

Money is not the power. Money is just illusion and therein lies the key, True power is the people, harness that power and the world can be changed.

You’ve lost me. How do you harness the power without money?

Look haven’t we agreed that money is not truly power it is people who are the power Of what use is a computer without someone to operate it or to use the information it processes and regurgitates? Of what use is a truck without someone to drive it a machine without someone to operate it?

Bill Gates’ money is worthless without people who allow themselves to be manipulated by it, people who are themselves poor. The solution to the problem created by the unfair distribution of money therefore is to not cooperate with the system.

And how do you do that. Even you know that if Bill Gates offers some poor devil money to do whatever Bill wants him to do the guy will do it.

Of course I know it. We have to persuade him not to do it.

And how do you do that?

By making him understand that the monetary system exists for one reason, which is to facilitate the theft of the Working man’s wealth by the parasite class. There is no other reason for it.

Carry on. This should be good.

Have you ever flown over Africa?

Have I ever flown over Africa? Have you? Hang on, give me a sec I’ll do it again. There you are I’ve just done it.

My there are some sarcastic so and sos in the spirit world these days. What did you see? Millions and millions of acres of virgin bush, not so?

Yes.

And the people of Africa for the most part are starving. Don’t you feel that there is something wrong?

They don’t have enough money to cultivate it.

Suppose we take a ten-pound note, dig a hole, put the note in the hole with fertilizer, cover the note with soil and then water it daily, what will happen?

The note will rot in the ground.

Nothing will grow?

Nothing.

If you do the same with a potato or a carrot seed, what will happen?

Probably they will grow.

So agricultural growth has nothing to do with money. If we can cultivate without money then surely all the barren land in the world can be brought into use and the problem of food shortage solved?

Maybe, but without going into fine detail you know that the money factor will prevent that from happening. You do after all need money to buy seeds and fertilizer and to buy the land.

Do you remember some years ago the European Economic Community offered the farmers subsidies to grow certain crops?

Yes.

What happened?

There was such abundance that they had to throw milk butter wheat and other products into the sea?

Why did they have to do that?

Because the surplus would have caused a slump in prices.

Meaning the abundance would have caused the prices in the normal market to drop so much that the producers would have lost money and not been able to pay the interest on their bank overdrafts.

Something like that.

Don’t you see that despite the fact that there was starvation in the world these bureaucrats decided to dump good food into the sea rather than cause a hiccup with their monetary system?

Would it be a hiccup or havoc?

Tell me which is the more serious problem, a bit of unpaid bank interest or people dying of starvation?

Are we talking of a bit of bank interest here or farmers having their businesses closed because they can’t meet their overdraft payments?

There you are, you see. Even you are complicating the issue by suggesting that the problem is farmers business and livelihood when a blind man can see that at the end of the day all we are talking about here is money. The government can pay the money owed to the banks simply by telling them that they owe it to them and can have it any time they want it, a figure on a bank statement is all it need be but no they won’t do that. Why? Because history has them convinced if they do that the world will come to an end through inflation.

Did I tell you what happened to me with Barclays?

I was there with you.

Yeah well they destroyed 30years of hard work, put 65 men and women out of employment deprived the Zambian nation of 10 tonnes of processed meat products per week and completely destroyed my life, and for what? For nothing, in the end they had to write off the money I owed them because they couldn’t get blood from a stone. What did they gain from destroying me? Nothing except perhaps some sort of perverted pleasure and this is how the world works. Ignorant bankers sitting in offices every day destroying farmers industrialists and other hard working individuals - whose shoes they are not fit to polish - for monetary gain bits of paper, illusion.

The criterion unfortunately for almost everything that happens in this world is money. If there is no money to be made from it, don’t bother. At least don’t bother going to a bank for help because they have no interest in anything but their own greed. Even if we don’t rid this planet of money – which we will – the banking system has to go, they produce nothing, why should they be paid for it.

So what do you suggest?

I suggest that we stop the practice of money being the criterion for everything that we do. The criterion must at all time be the welfare of the people. No one should be able to start or operate a business that exists solely to make money – like a bank for instance or a building society or a stockbroker or an insurance company. Just think of the wastage created by these non-productive institutions, I’ve mentioned it to you before haven’t I but it is worth repeating. If we can eliminate the wastage on monetarism, tobacco and armaments employ everybody in production and service then there will be enough for everybody.

How can society allow Bill Gates to own 10 houses when he doesn’t need them and others who do need them own none? How can society allow the land to remain barren when people are starving for the sole reason that it is monetarily inexpedient to cultivate it?

Can I just say something about the insurance companies that you mentioned? How would it be possible for a man to buy another house if a hurricane for instance blew down the one he owns, if he does not have insurance cover to pay for it?

Does the insurance company build houses?

No but they supply the money that will pay for the house to be built.

And where do they get the money? Don’t answer that the answer is obvious. If money represents labour and materials don’t you think it would be better spent on useful physical services than on an institution that does nothing but gather in money and take a huge cut out of the money for its useless services.

Are they really useless? After all they are gathering in the money?

You said yourself that they don’t build houses and they don’t offer any service other than shuffling about other peoples money, so they are useless are they not?

Look, a farmer borrows money from the bank in order to buy a tractor, agricultural implements, seed fertilizer and he uses these things to grow a crop. When the crop is grown he has to share out the crop with the bank, the insurance company the tax department all of whom did nothing. They didn’t even put one spade into the ground. Why should they benefit from the hard work of the farmer? Indeed not only do they benefit from his hard work but they are the first to benefit. They are the first to take their pound of flesh and if they don’t get it they put him out of business. A useless banker puts a useful farmer out of business for the reason of selfish gain. There must be something wrong with a system that tolerates that.

How will a man who loses his house in a storm get another one if he doesn’t have any insurance?

In a perfect society the system will build him another one.

But where will it get the money?

There won’t be any money. In a perfect society everything will be free; food, clothing, housing, medical facilities, education, leisure.

How will these things be paid for if there is no money?

They won’t be paid for will they if there is no money. Money is not the solution it is the problem. Let me see if I can explain:

A man’s house is blown down by a hurricane. He either has or he does not have insurance cover. At this point his problems are the same whether he has insurance cover or not, he needs a new house. In a fair society he must have a new house not because he has insurance cover but because he is a human being. An efficient and fair government will guarantee him a new house and this principle must apply to everybody.

But it can’t do that because if it gives a new house to everyone who needs one the government won’t be able to afford it.

There you go with your monetary talk again. Afford means money and there isn’t any so they can afford it.

So what you are saying is that there is enough food around to give people for nothing and enough houses and enough everything else?

What I am saying is that the needs of the human race are not limitless. The number and size of the people’s stomachs limit the amount of food that is needed; the houses are limited to the number of people on the planet. We must determine the number who can live happily on this planet and limit the numbers by birth control accordingly and then everybody must be involved in the business of production and service with a small number in the business of administration. We must put the idle land to work and we must stop the wastage of materials and personnel on the business of money accumulation.

So are you saying that people will just walk into a supermarket and take what they like from the shelves or that if they like a particular house that is empty they can just move in.

Essentially yes that is what I am saying but I understand that you must have some major misgivings so I’ll answer your questions before you ask them.

One embarrassing consequence of the trinity of popes was John XXIII Baldassare Cossa. He was rumoured never to have confessed his sins or taken the sacraments. Nor did he believe in the mortality of the soul or the resurrection of the dead. It was doubted by some that he even believed in God.

He was noted as a former pirate, pope poisoner (Alexander V) mass-murderer, mass-fornicator with a partiality for nuns, simoniac par excellence, blackmailer and pimp. He was ordained into the priesthood one day and elevated to the papacy the next.

Many Catholics recognised this reprobate as their sovereign lord who held the Church together with his rock-like faith only to be dissuaded of the misplaced belief when in 1958 another John XXIII was elected, ipso facto declaring the first holder of the name a fake.