Author Topic: British plan to execute protestors at G20 -- CONTROLLED OPPOSITION/FF  (Read 21823 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Revolt426

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,190

G20 protesters 'will try to bring London to standstill'

Police fear anti-capitalist groups will seek violent confrontation on streets

By Mark Hughes and Jerome Taylor

Saturday, 21 March 2009
Police fear anti-capitalist groups will seek violent confrontation on streets
By Mark Hughes and Jerome Taylor

Italian riot police clashed with anti-capitalist protesters in the centre of Genoa in July 2001 when the city hosted the G8 summit

Next month's G20 summit will present an "unprecedented" challenge as up to 2,000 protesters attempt to bring London to a standstill, the Metropolitan Police admitted yesterday.

The 20 world leaders, including Barack Obama, are to visit the capital for the summit on 2 and 3 April. They plan to discuss ways to tackle the global financial crisis.

But their presence is expected to encourage a large number of protests, with scores of activists from an array of different causes determined to generate publicity from demonstrations around the event.

The majority of protest groups have promised to demonstrate peacefully, but there are fears anarchist and hardcore anti-capitalists from Britain and abroad will try to fight police in pitched battles reminiscent of the anarchist riots of the late 1990s which caused millions of pounds of damage.

Senior officers at Scotland Yard say they are aware of several groups which plan to converge on the City of London financial district to cause blockades, and attempt to get inside major banks including the Bank of England.

One organiser is believed to be a senior lecturer at the University of East London. Some groups are said to be considering filling roads with sand and then sending children to play in it, making it impossible for police officers to forcibly remove them.

An anti-capitalist umbrella group calling itself "G20 – Meltdown in the City" has promised to "storm" banks and target many of the luxury hotels where world leaders will stay.
Climate change campaigners will also concentrate their protests within the Square Mile where they intend to hold one of their ubiquitous Climate Change Camps. Previous camps have been held at Heathrow and outside Kingsnorth power station in Kent, but this time thousands of activists will descend on the City in the week up to the three-day summit.

The Independent has learnt small "commando" groups of environmental activists are planning high profile publicity protests, similar to the Parliament rooftop protests last year.

One climate change activist, who has been arrested on numerous protests, said yesterday: "With so much media attention and so many world leaders coming to town next week I can guarantee there will be all sorts of groups looking to perform an array of exciting direct action stunts.

"I just hope the action won't take the form of throwing things at the police as that gets us nowhere."

Tibetan activists from around the world will also use the G20 to protest against the continuing crackdown in Tibet, where scores of people have been killed and arrested by Chinese forces since widespread rioting and protests broke out last year. The G20 meeting takes place at the ExCel centre in Docklands, and the Metropolitan Police plan to use a marine unit to prevent attempts by protesters to infiltrate the site by boat.
More than 10,000 officers' shifts will be used in the operation, which will cost the Met at least £7.2m, although £4.7m of this money would have been spent regardless of where the officers were patrolling.

Sir Paul Stephenson, the Scotland Yard Commissioner, said: "G20 is a huge challenge for the Met. Quite clearly the notice for this event is less than one would normally have, but I think we are in extraordinary times and that has led to an extraordinary event."

Commander Bob Broadhurst is in charge of the security operation – one of the biggest the Met has ever mounted. All police leave has been cancelled for the duration of the summit and officers from six forces are working to second guess "innovative" protesters determined to evade traditional security arrangements.

"We have to be flexible and mobile," he said. "These are innovative people and we must be innovative as well.

"They are very clever people and they understand our tactics and will try to outsmart us. I have encouraged officers to try to think about what these people might try and do and hopefully we will have something to mitigate that. It will be an exciting couple of days to say the least."

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.

Offline Revolt426

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,190
Is London afraid they wont get their way? wtf Mumbai attacks on G-20 Leaders Hotels?.

British hotels are vulnerable to Mumbai-style attacks, anti-terrorist officers warn

British luxury hotels are vulnerable to Mumbai-style attacks, senior anti-terrorist officers are warning, ahead of a major relaunch of the Government's counter-terrorism strategy next week.
By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
Last Updated: 11:36PM GMT 20 Mar 2009

Smoke and flames billow from the Taj Hotel, Mumbai, after terrorists attacked the popular hotel last November Security services officials are also judging the threat against the UK to be at the "severe end of severe", just days before the G20 summit in London is due to begin.

The Daily Telegraph has learned that senior counter-terrorism officers are highly concerned about the possibility of attacks by terrorists using automatic weapons on major hotels and other public buildings.

This marks a change in the challenge posed to the security services, which have previously focused on preventing bombings.

The fears have been heightened by attacks by terrorists armed with pistols, grenades and assault rifles on eight sites including a luxury hotel in Mumbai last November, in which 173 people were killed and 308 injured.

The attacks have forced anti-terrorist officers to watch for any increase in small arms being smuggled into the UK through ports or remote airfields, where security is more lax.

Officials are also considering issuing guidance to the management of hotels, businesses and other buildings where people gather in large numbers about the best way to protect against terrorist attack.

Security sources have also told The Daily Telegraph that the threat of terrorist attack is now reckoned to be at the top end of "severe", the third of four risk levels which rate an attack "highly likely".

The only higher rating would be "critical" which means that an attack "is expected imminently".

The warning comes ahead of the planned launch of the new version of the Government's six-year-old "Contest" counter-terrorism strategy next week, which will include advice on how to protect buildings from attack.

"Contest Two" is also likely to raise concerns that the relentless focus on London is displacing the threat of terrorism away from the capital and towards other parts of the UK.

This fear is particularly relevant to the security plans for the Olympics in London 2012.

One official said the Home Office was "acutely aware" that the focus on securing London ahead of the Games could "displace attacks onto other parts of the UK".

The new strategy maintains the core focus on the four "Ps" - Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare. However there will be a renewed emphasis on the "prevent" strand.

Officials are keen to identify and find ways of dissuading young Muslims from being radicalised and persuaded to become involved in terrorist activity.

The new strategy is also likely to address whether the security services are communicating the threat from terrorism to the public appropriately, amid fears that the warnings are being greeted with scepticism.

Chris Grayling, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "The Government is right that the horrific events in Mumbai have highlighted the need for a different strategy in counter-terrorism.

"No part of the UK is free from threat - and we know that terrorists want soft targets."

Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Commons' anti-terrorism sub-committee, added that he was concerned about the increased risk of attacks outside London.

The attempted suicide bombing of Glasgow airport with a car packed with propane canisters nearly two years ago showed how vulnerable the areas outside the capital are to a terrorist attack.

He said: "My greatest concern is that the regions should get the same level of attention as that which London does because that is where the terrorist will concentrate."

He also questioned whether spending £102million on the prevent strand over the past four years offered best value for money.

He said: "There is no doubt that a lot of work has been done but it has taken a long time to achieve what they have."

Mr Grayling added that there was "still not doing enough to tackle the problem of individuals and groups in the UK who are fostering the hatred and extremism that lies behind the terrorist threat".

The Home Office declined to comment on the record. However a Home Office source "strongly denied" that there was specific intelligence or concern about a Mumbai-style attack on hotels in the UK.

The source added: "We are always on alert. We are not just going to be relaxed and complacent. We are at this threat level. That is why we are going ahead with Contest Two."
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
British plan to execute protestors at G20 -- CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2009, 01:53:09 am »
Welcome from the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is honoured to chair the Group of Twenty in 2009.

Since 1999, the G-20 has contributed to strengthen the international financial architecture and to foster sustainable economic growth and development. The G-20 now has a crucial role in driving forward work between advanced and emerging economies to tackle the international financial and economic crisis, restore worldwide financial stability, lead the international economic recovery and secure a sustainable future for all countries.

The financial markets and the world economy continue to face serious global challenges and the severity of the crisis and ongoing uncertainties demonstrate the need for urgent action. During the United Kingdoms Chair, the immediate priority will be to gain further agreements for a concerted, co-ordinated international response.

The G-20 will need to send a strong signal that it is prepared to take whatever further actions are necessary to stabilise the financial system and to provide further macroeconomic support. At the same time, the G-20 must commit to maintaining open trade and investment, to avoid a retreat to protectionism, and direct necessary additional support to emerging markets and developing countries.

The G-20 should also lay the foundations to move beyond the crisis to a sustainable recovery. In 2009, it will be important to understand the roots of the international financial crisis and identify the lessons that we can learn to ensure that a crisis of this kind does not happen again. The G-20 should develop proposals that will restore global growth in the medium term, including the unwinding of emergency measures taken in response to the crisis.

In addition, we should also make progress on long-term issues such as climate change and international development.

In line with usual practice, the organisation of the G-20 events during the year will be shared between the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank. We are looking forward to working closely and drawing on the valuable experience of our Troika colleagues, Brazil and South Korea, and the other G-20 members.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: G20 Summit where Rothschild and Rockefeller carve up the planet
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2009, 01:54:02 am »
What is the G-20

The Group of Twenty (G-20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors was established in 1999 to bring together systemically important industrialized and developing economies to discuss key issues in the global economy. The inaugural meeting of the G-20 took place in Berlin, on December 1516, 1999, hosted by German and Canadian finance ministers.

The G-20 is an informal forum that promotes open and constructive discussion between industrial and emerging-market countries on key issues related to global economic stability. By contributing to the strengthening of the international financial architecture and providing opportunities for dialogue on national policies, international co-operation, and international financial institutions, the G-20 helps to support growth and development across the globe.

The G-20 was created as a response both to the financial crises of the late 1990s and to a growing recognition that key emerging-market countries were not adequately included in the core of global economic discussion and governance. Prior to the G-20 creation, similar groupings to promote dialogue and analysis had been established at the initiative of the G-7. The G-22 met at Washington D.C. in April and October 1998. Its aim was to involve non-G-7 countries in the resolution of global aspects of the financial crisis then affecting emerging-market countries. Two subsequent meetings comprising a larger group of participants (G-33) held in March and April 1999 discussed reforms of the global economy and the international financial system. The proposals made by the G-22 and the G-33 to reduce the world economy's susceptibility to crises showed the potential benefits of a regular international consultative forum embracing the emerging-market countries. Such a regular dialogue with a constant set of partners was institutionalized by the creation of the G-20 in 1999.

The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and also the European Union who is represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank. To ensure global economic fora and institutions work together, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the President of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also participate in G-20 meetings on an ex-officio basis. The G-20 thus brings together important industrial and emerging-market countries from all regions of the world. Together, member countries represent around 90 per cent of global gross national product, 80 per cent of world trade (including EU intra-trade) as well as two-thirds of the world's population. The G-20's economic weight and broad membership gives it a high degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the global economy and financial system.

The G-20 has progressed a range of issues since 1999, including agreement about policies for growth, reducing abuse of the financial system, dealing with financial crises and combating terrorist financing. The G-20 also aims to foster the adoption of internationally recognized standards through the example set by its members in areas such as the transparency of fiscal policy and combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism. In 2004, G-20 countries committed to new higher standards of transparency and exchange of information on tax matters. This aims to combat abuses of the financial system and illicit activities including tax evasion.  The G-20 also plays a signficant role in matters concerned with the reform of the international financial architecture.

The G-20 has also aimed to develop a common view among members on issues related to further development of the global economic and financial system and held an extraordinary meeting in the margins of the 2008 IMF and World Bank annual meetings in recognition of the current economic situation. At this meeting, in accordance with the G-20s core mission to promote open and constructive exchanges between advanced and emerging-market countries on key issues related to global economic stability and growth, the Ministers and Governors discussed the present financial market crisis and its implications for the world economy. They stressed their resolve to work together to overcome the financial turmoil and to deepen cooperation to improve the regulation, supervision and the overall functioning of the worlds financial markets.

Unlike international institutions such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), IMF or World Bank, the G-20 (like the G-7) has no permanent staff of its own. The G-20 chair rotates between members, and is selected from a different regional grouping of countries each year. In 2009 the G-20 chair is the United Kingdom, and in 2010 it will be South Korea.  The chair is part of a revolving three-member management Troika of past, present and future chairs. The incumbent chair establishes a temporary secretariat for the duration of its term, which coordinates the group's work and organizes its meetings. The role of the Troika is to ensure continuity in the G-20's work and management across host years.
Former G-20 Chairs
1999-2001 Canada
2002 India
2003 Mexico
2004 Germany
2005 China
2006 Australia
2007 South Africa
2008 Brazil
Meetings and activities

It is normal practice for the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors to meet once a year. The last meeting of ministers and governors was held in São Paulo, Brazil on 8-9 November 2008.  The ministers' and governors' meeting is usually preceded by two deputies' meetings and extensive technical work. This technical work takes the form of workshops, reports and case studies on specific subjects, that aim to provide ministers and governors with contemporary analysis and insights, to better inform their consideration of policy challenges and options.

Towards the end of 2008  Leaders of the G-20 Countries meet in Washington. See the Declaration and action plan from the Washington Summit (PDF 72KB) . This meeting remitted follow up work to Finance Ministers. In addition to their November meeting in order to take forward this work in advance of the Leaders summit in London on 2nd April Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors will also meet in March 2009.  A deputies meeting will be held in February 2009 to prepare for the Ministers meeting.
G-20 Events

Deputies Meeting 1st February 2009

Officials Workshop Financing for Climate Change 13th & 14th February 2009

Deputies Meeting 13th March 2009

Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting  14th March 2009

Officials Workshop on Global Economy  25th 26th May 2009

Officials Workshop on Sustainable Financing for Development June 2009

Deputies Meeting September 2009

Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting 7th & 8th November 2009
Interaction with other international organizations

The G-20 cooperates closely with various other major international organizations and fora, as the potential to develop common positions on complex issues among G-20 members can add political momentum to decision-making in other bodies. The participation of the President of the World Bank, the Managing Director of the IMF and the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and the Development Committee in the G-20 meetings ensures that the G-20 process is well integrated with the activities of the Bretton Woods Institutions. The G-20 also works with, and encourages, other international groups and organizations, such as the Financial Stability Forum, in progressing international and domestic economic policy reforms. In addition, experts from private-sector institutions and non-government organisations are invited to G-20 meetings on an ad hoc basis in order to exploit synergies in analyzing selected topics and avoid overlap.
External communication

The country currently chairing the G-20 posts details of the group's meetings and work program on a dedicated website. Although participation in the meetings is reserved for members, the public is informed about what was discussed and agreed immediately after the meeting of ministers and governors has ended. After each meeting of ministers and governors, the G-20 publishes a communiqué which records the agreements reached and measures outlined. Material on the forward work program is also made public.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: G20 Summit where Rothschild and Rockefeller carve up the planet
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2009, 01:55:33 am »
2009 G-20 London summit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
G-20 Leaders' Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy300px
The G-20 Symbol
Date   April 2, 2009
Location   London
Participants   G-20
This box: view • talk

The second G-20 Leaders' Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy is scheduled to take place on April 2, 2009. It follows the first G-20 Leaders Summit, that took place in Washington D.C. on November 14-15, 2008.[1] The venue of the Summit will be at the ExCel Centre.[2]

Heads of government from the G-20 countries are expected to attend.Contents


As hosts, the UK Treasury produced an extended agenda pamphlet proposing the issues to be covered at the London summit:[3]
Coordinated macro-economic actions to revive the global economy, stimulate growth and employment - review measures taken and possible further steps
Reform and improve financial sector & systems - continue to deliver progress on the Washington Summit action plan
Reform international financial institutions (IFIs) - International Monetary Fund (IMF), Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and World Bank

Planned protests

A number of protests are planned during the G20 leaders meeting in London

March 28, a "Put People First" March, organised by labour movements and NGO's

April 1, a a G20 protest by the Camp for Climate Action featuring the planned set up of a camp in the square mile beside the European Climate Exchange

April 1, a street party in front of the Bank of England called the G20 Meltdown.

April 2, Stop the War and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) are organizing a march

Put People First

In response to the summit, a civil society coalition called 'Put People First' has formed, calling for democratised economic institutions, secure jobs and a Green New Deal.

It is backed by major trade unions, international development NGOs and environmental organisations. [4][5] This planned campaign included a demonstration in central London entitled 'March for Jobs, Justice and Climate' on 28 March 2009.

The official website for the platform is

Climate Camp in London's square mile

The website of the UK based Camp for Climate Action advocates staging a camp on 1 April 2009 as a way to focus attention on the economic drivers of climate change. The camp would be located outside the European Climate Exchange, a carbon trading market.[6][7]

On February 24, the Camp for Climate Action lodged[citation needed] a press complaint[8] against the Evening Standard and Daily Mail, for their article "Anarchists plan City riots for G20 leaders' arrival in London".[9]


Leaders of the members countries began to prepare the summit months before the effective date, notably with two official meetings dedicated to that preparation, one held in Berlin on 22 February for European leaders, and another in Horsham on March 14 for Finance Ministers.

European leaders summit

Leaders of the six European countries of the G-20 met on 22 February to prepare the London summit and to coordinate their actions.[10] The meeting was organized at the initiative of German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, and gathered the leaders of Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

The leaders agreed that markets, financial institutions and the wide range of financial assets they create and hedge funds should be subject to appropriate control. In addition, they have called for effective sanctions against tax havens.[11] They also agreed to impose sanctions against countries that intend to undermine their work. Finally, they advocated the doubling of funds available to the International Monetary Fund.[12]

Finance ministers summit

Finance ministers and central bankers of the G-20 met in Horsham on March 14, for a summit to prepare the meeting of April 2. To restore global growth as quick as possible, the participants have decided to approve of coordinated and decisive actions, to stimulate demand and employment. They also pledged to fight against all forms of protectionism and to maintain trade and foreign investments.

The members also committed themselves to maintain the supply of credit by providing more liquidity and recapitalizing the banking system, and to implement rapidly the stimulus plans. As for central bankers, they pledged to maintain low-rates policies as long as necessary. Finally, the leaders decided to help emerging and developing countries, through a strengthening of the IMF.

To strengthen the financial system, the participants proposed to regulate appropriately all important financial institutions, to register all hedge funds or their managers and to force them to provide appropriate information as for the risks they take.[13] They proposed to implement a regulation able to prevent the systemic risks and to curb business cycles, including through the limitation of the leverage effect, which amplifies cycles.[13] They announced new measures to prevent and resolve crises, through the strengthening of the IMF and the FSF.[13] In addition, they have agreed to control rating agencies and their compliance with the IOSCO Code, off-balance sheet vehicles, credit derivatives market, and non-cooperative territories.[13]
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: G20 Summit where Rothschild and Rockefeller carve up the planet
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2009, 01:55:57 am »
China in threat to shatter hopes of G20 summit deal

By Andrew Grice, Political editor in Brussels

Saturday, 21 March 2009

China may scupper hopes of a landmark deal at the G20 summit in London by opposing new rules for the world's financial system designed to prevent a repeat of the current crisis.

As the Prime Minister played down differences between the United States and Europe over whether EU nations should spend more to combat the recession, China emerged as a possible stumbling block to an agreement at the 2 April meeting.

One proposal – backed at yesterday's summit of EU leaders in Brussels – is for tougher global financial regulation including a crackdown on tax havens, hedge funds and private equity firms and an end to pay and bonuses which encourage excessive risk-taking. But Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said: "The main problem will come from other countries, like China for example, that don't have the culture of a common setting of rules."

Mr Brown insisted China was playing a constructive part in the G20 negotiations. "Any suggestion that China does not want a positive outcome for the G20 discussions is wrong," he said. But he admitted he would need further "private discussions" with Premier Wen Jiabao before the meeting. British officials were puzzled by Mr Barroso's intervention, pointing out that China had showed it could abide by international rules by joining the World Trade Organisation.

The Prime Minister said the EU talks had "laid the foundations" for a successful London summit after its 27 leaders closed ranks to avoid sending a negative signal to the financial markets. He said: "We have also agreed on the importance of doing what is necessary to restore jobs and growth by the fiscal actions we take.

"We are agreed on the importance of maintaining vital public investment at this time as we respond to the current crisis and strengthen our economies for the future."

Although the EU rebuffed US calls for a further economic stimulus now, some leaders made clear in private talks they have not ruled out action in future if necessary. They do not want to be seen by voters as being "bounced" into policy changes by demands from Washington, the EU or the G20.

The EU meeting agreed to call on the G20 nations to double to £344bn the emergency funds made available for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out countries during the crisis. EU leaders pledged to contribute an extra £69bn in loans to the IMF.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: G20 Summit where Rothschild and Rockefeller carve up the planet
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2009, 01:57:30 am »
G20 must reaffirm anti-protectionist stance
Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:29pm EDT

By Lesley Wroughton

WASHINGTON, March 20 (Reuters) - The Group of 20 leading developed and developing nations need to reaffirm their opposition to protectionism at a summit in London in April and ensure poor countries have access to credit for trade, Britain's ambassador to Washington said on Friday.

In an interview with Reuters, Sir Nigel Sheinwald said G20 leaders promised in November that amid the growing global financial crisis they would not impose new trade restrictions, but since then many countries, including the United States and in Europe, have implemented measures to restrict trade.

"London will provide the opportunity for everyone to make clear their position on (protectionism) and to take some specific measures which will go the other direction of easing the problems particularly for the poorest," Sheinwald said.

Since November several countries, including 17 members of the G20, have implemented a total of 47 measures that curb trade, a World Bank report showed this week.

The Bank has estimated that global trade will fall this year for the first time since 1982, as the global credit crunch cuts off countries' access to trade financing.

Sheinwald said the G20 meeting, which will be chaired by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and include U.S. President Barack Obama, will discuss trade financing as part of a deal to help developing countries deal with the crisis.

"It will be one of the elements they look at as they construct a deal," Sheinwald said.

He said it was important that the G20 agree on additional resources for the International Monetary Fund to help countries whose economies are hard hit by the financial crisis and global recession.

"As chair of the meeting we hope to get agreement among everybody that there should be a significant expansion of the IMF resources," Sheinwald said, adding there should be a doubling of IMF resources.

The United States said last week there should be $500 billion in new funds on top of the existing $250 billion the IMF already has.

However, European officials say they support a doubling of IMF resources, and when questioned said that would require additional contributions of about $150 billion, which together with $100 billion pledged by Japan, would make a total $500 billion.

Asked what a doubling of resources meant, Sheinwald said, "There are a number of figures being proposed privately in the meetings going on, and we would like to bring that to a conclusion successfully."

On Friday, the European Union pledged more than $100 billion in new loans for the IMF which has warned its arsenal could become stretched if there was a rush by large emerging market countries for its help.

So far, big emerging economic powers like China have said they will not give additional funding to the IMF until their voting power, or so-called quotas, are increased to properly reflect their growing clout in the world economy.

After a year of tough negotiations last year, the IMF overhauled its voting system and gave countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India more say in the institution, which has long been dominated by the United States and Europe.

Sheinwald said a timetable for reviewing IMF quotas would be brought forward so that emerging market countries "can see the end of the tunnel of those negotiations".

"If they felt before they would be spun out, they now have a certainty that those conclusions are going to be reached," he said, adding that Britain supported giving emerging economies more say in global institutions like the IMF and UN. (Reporting by Lesley Wroughton)
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: G20 Summit where Rothschild and Rockefeller carve up the planet
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2009, 02:02:48 am »
And who is a senior architect in the "Shadow Government"
[ "Shadow Government" seems to be a loosely knit think tank of sorts under the website ]

that is pushing foreign policy advice?

The author of the 9/11 Commission Report

Philip Zelikow


[Why isn't he in jail?]

A better G-20 agenda
Fri, 03/20/2009 - 7:03pm

What is the agenda for G-20 action?

The issues for the G-20 summit next month are becoming clearer. But there are so many issues, it really is useful to map them out. I tried something like about six weeks ago, in the context of the arguments about the administration's stimulus package. So, looking ahead to the G-20 summit, I will lay in a series of posts a six part agenda from the peanut gallery ... complete with questions and suggestions for clarifying thought.

But first, a more fundamental point: I hope the Obama administration does a terrific job. From the outside, it is awfully easy to slide into a habit of thought that, every time the administration stumbles, sees opportunity. And if you work on the Hill or an opposition think-tank, you may be getting paid every day to come up with fresh talking points on the administration's latest outrage against the good people of America. That pattern does tend to build up certain muscle reflexes.

So I urge a conscious effort to extend plenty of benefits of plenty of doubts. First, of course, we all want our country to succeed. Senator McCain has already offered this reminder, so it requires no elaboration from me. Second, Republicans, in particular, should pause and ask themselves this question: Given the setting for this crisis, if conditions get dramatically worse and on a global scale, do you really believe most Americans will then say, "Gee, this is scary, let's cut back on government and trust the free market to fix this"? Maybe not. At least concede the large possibility that, if Obama fails dramatically on the economy and conditions become dire, Republicans -- or at least moderates like me -- will not like the political results of what will happen when people get frightened on a very large scale, worldwide.

History does not provide any answers, but it does offer a few reminders about the possibilities. Recall, for instance, that FDR won in 1936 by taking his party to the left and sharpening the anti-business rhetoric. (In doing so, he alienated the national planner technocrats like Raymond Moley and Rexford Tugwell, men who had been core New Dealers and thought the state should work in association with big business.) By moving left in 1936, FDR was actually finding the new political center. His most dangerous adversaries in 1935-36 were not those on the pro-business right. That faction had already been discredited for the majority of Americans. FDR's publicists loved the businessmen's "Liberty League" -- just as Obama's people love to make Rush Limbaugh the face of the Republican party.

What really worried FDR and his aides were the radical populists like Huey Long, Father Charles Coughlin, and Francis Townsend who, together, represented a very large, volatile force in American public life. It is probably fortunate for the United States that this force never unified around a potent catalyst. And this was at a time when the country was slowly pulling out of the Depression, before the 1937 relapse.

It is still too early to judge the Obama administration's policymaking on a great many matters. Even with the budget, I don't know how the administration plans to reconcile its various goals. Then again, I'm pretty sure they don't know yet either. My prevailing sense of the Obama team now is that of a handful of people frantically coping, laying down a few big markers and delegating to congressional barons, as they slowly try to get organized, get their people into office, and flesh out their own ideas.

That said, here is the first part of a better agenda for the G-20 summit:

The national and international agenda for the banking crisis needs to take shape.

According to the Financial Times, the head of the Banque de France, Christian Noyer, is "softly spoken and known for choosing his words carefully." So I paid attention when Noyer made three major points last week:

First, that European and French monetary policy was doing more easing than was generally realized, pumping money into the Eurozone. (Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his institution followed suit in a big way this week; more on that in a later post.)

Second, Noyer said that it was now more important to stabilize financial systems than to embark on fresh public spending programs.

Third, Noyer had some gentle chiding for the United States: "I have the impression that we are a little more advanced [on stabilizing financial systems] in Europe than in the US. It is clear that the US authorities are making every effort to reach that goal but that is probably as important as the size of the stimulus itself if we want to stabilize the economy."

There is a large argument about how to address the banking crisis between the "liquidity" and "insolvency" schools. The "insolvency" school has adherents across the political spectrum and calls for more radical government action now to take over and quickly restructure banks and their balance sheets.
I am attentive to the debate without feeling qualified to judge who is right, though it certainly is worthy of notice when a conservative Republican like James Baker (a former Reagan Treasury secretary) comes out on the side of "insolvency." This is an interesting situation, defying the usual ideological categories, in which both Republicans and Democrats feel the Obama administration is being too conservative.

So look carefully at what the IMF recommended to the G-20 finance ministers last week. Their lead recommendation was that the G-20 should tackle the financial sector problems "head-on." Look at the language: "Policymakers must resolve urgently balance sheet uncertainty by dealing aggressively with distressed assets and recapitalizing viable institutions." It appears the IMF has taken the more radical "insolvency" side of the argument.

Also clear is that the United States cannot and should not adopt a unilateral approach to salvaging "its" banks. I write "its" in quotation marks, because an entity like Citigroup is not really just a U.S. bank. It provides banking services to customers around the world. So does Deutsche Bank, for that matter. So do many others. These are transnational institutions.

The European-based banks may even have more risky exposure than the ones headquartered in the United States. In congressional testimony, former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson has observed that the European-based banks may not just be "too big to fail." They are "too big to be saved," because of the proportionate size in comparison to their governments' resources.

So it is reasonable for outsiders to look hard at how, if at all, the G-20 leaders display their recognition of their need to develop a harmonized approach toward the banking crisis, especially since this issue goes to the very heart of the current crisis. Right now the international policy cooperation does not look reassuring.

To achieve a better G-20 summit agenda for next month, policymakers need to answer this question:

Are the leading countries coordinating their monetary moves?

I include China as a leading country. It is a principal creditor to the world and is entitled to be heard. So what does it mean when Wen Jiabao issues an extraordinary warning shot to the United States to preserve the value of the dollar. Then, a week later, Bernanke and the Fed answer him promptly with loud deeds: a huge quantitative easing (printing money to buy Treasuries and other securities) that has already reduced the value of the dollar nearly 5 percent, just in the last 72 hours.

Question #1: It would be interesting to learn when and how did we explain this move to the Chinese government? Or at least be reassured that we handled this seemingly scornful response in an appropriate way.

Question #2: As both we and the Eurozone engage in this aggressive injection of liquidity, what is the underlying analysis about the danger of competitive devaluations and inflation?

Sure, we all know that some inflation will be a good counter to expected deflation. But, after the price declines of late 2008, the seasonally-adjusted Consumer Price Index has now gone up in both January and February even though unemployment has also been shooting up.

It has long been evident that the Fed would probably have to employ some quantitative easing for at least the reason of helping to keep the price (interest rates) down in the huge coming U.S. debt auctions and also to keep from swamping the rest of the world's need for capital. But why did the Fed move so fast, so soon -- which may constrain its freedom of action later? Does it see something the rest of us don't?

The next step toward a better agenda for the G-20 summit:

The proposal to expand U.S. contributions to the IMF is good and important.

Not to be confused with Secretary Geithner's call for global stimulus spending (about which more below). Geithner's call for expanding IMF "New Arrangements to Borrow" is timely and important. The proposal is to add $500 billion of emergency credit facilities for countries trying to stay afloat, like Ukraine. The money is not for stimulus; it is for fiscal survival and sustaining international trade. Indirectly, the plan might also help mitigate the growing exposure of the European banking system which, incidentally, is one of the reasons that leading European countries are against the stimulus part of Geithner's proposals.

This move should get bipartisan support, showing the United States will do its part in fashioning an international approach to an international crisis. Japan has also stepped up with some large financial commitments to expand the IMF. Its new finance minister, Kaoru Yosano, looks like he is prepared to be a lively, constructive player.

Europeans are already uneasy about the corollary part of Geithner's proposal, the need to update, ahead of the usual schedule, the voting powers in the IMF based on current contributions. Such a review is bound to increase Asia's voice at the expense of Europe. This review is the right move, though, and would not happen -- in the U.S. proposal -- until 2011.

The next part of a better agenda for the G-20 summit is keeping this in mind:

The proposal for global stimulus spending of 2 percent of GDP (with IMF monitoring) is not so good.

Last week, Geithner drew on a new IMF report for support in his call for the world to spend 2 percent of its collective GDP on fiscal stimulus. True in general, and the IMF wants countries "with fiscal room" to plan to keep the fires burning on into 2010.

But the IMF also re-emphasized two other points: 1) Hold on to money that governments will need for "upfront" financial sector support, and these needs will be large; 2) "Reinforcing fiscal credibility is paramount. Thus, fiscal support needs to be anchored by a sustainable medium-term fiscal framework." 

The Great Depression was aggravated, if not caused, by ideological commitment to monetary stringency. But this crisis has very different structural origins, almost the exact opposite. Yet, in responding to this generation's Great Recession, Geithner and the administration seem to be exhibiting a reflexive ideology of their own, assuming that already highly leveraged economies can borrow/spend their way out -- relying on what World Bank president Robert Zoellick recently called "a sugar high."

As a historian, an interesting pattern one sees is how often governments rarely make the same mistake twice. Instead they are damn sure they "won't make that mistake again." And they don't. They slavishly act to avoid the last mistake. Which becomes their new mistake.

Two other recent comments help place these global stimulus proposals into a proper global perspective, one from a historian and one from an economist. Yale historian Paul Kennedy recently tried to imagine what Keynes would think of the current debate. Kennedy thought Keynes "would be uneasy at parts of Mr. Obama's deficit-spending scheme." Not only the domestic part, but also unease with:

... a Washington spending spree that seems uncoordinated with those of Britain, Japan, China and the rest; and, most unsettling of all, at the fact that no one is asking who will purchase the $1,750bn of US Treasuries to be offered to the market this year - will it be the east Asian quartet, China, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea (all with their own catastrophic collapses in production), the uneasy Arab states (yes, but to perhaps one-tenth of what is needed), or the near-bankrupt European and South American states? Good luck! If that colossal amount of paper is bought this year, who will have ready funds to purchase the Treasury flotations of 2010, then 2011, as the US plunges into levels of indebtedness that could make Philip II of Spain's record seem austere by comparison?

For those who don't remember Kennedy's book on The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Philip II of Spain was the exemplar of "Fall."

If Kennedy's worries seem a bit hyperbolic, there are more nuanced cautions from Simon Johnson's recent congressional testimony.

First, Johnson pointed out that America's own stimulus plans are predicated on economic forecasts (for a recovery later this year) that he regards as too rosy. Thus, "In the United States, the budget deficit is approaching a trajectory that is sustainable only if rapid growth returns in 2010."

Second, commenting on Geithner's 2 percent proposal, Johnson (aside from noting its "fuzzy" math) observed:

Very few countries now have room for a fiscal stimulus; debt levels are too high and fiscal capacity is hard pressed by contingent liabilities in the banking system, particularly with an increasing probability of quasi-nationalization. As a result, the idea of a 2 percent of GDP global fiscal stimulus seems quite far fetched at this point.

Contingent liabilities in the banking system: Has anyone noticed that, while some Republicans are worrying aloud that Obama wants to turn the United States into a big-spending and high-taxing version of Western Europe, the actual governments in Western Europe (e.g. France) think the United States is focusing too much on fiscal stimulus!?

What is going on? Did Friedman and Hayek just get translated into French? No, but the French are indeed a bit worried about "contingent liabilities in the banking system." They wish the Americans would focus more on that. Meanwhile, the AIG bonus blowup is going to make that problem even harder for the Obama administration to tackle.

The next step toward a better agenda for the G-20 summit is this:

On financial regulation, don't fall for the dumb dichotomy of global vs. national; adopt a smart synthesis, a global framework for coordinated national regulation.

The papers are playing up an issue for the G-20 summit of Europeans emphasizing the need for new financial regulation vs. Americans talking up stimulus. This would be a truly terrible way for the debate to evolve. The Europeans would be all about attacking bad bankers (like the Wall Streeters they want to scapegoat) while the Americans would seem wedded to their preferred panacea. And the biggest issues get lost both ways.

Fortunately, the U.S. side has moved adroitly to develop an agenda for future regulation (important but not critical right now) that should help answer the European mail. Geithner laid out a set of ideas on this point in the statement he issued last week. They seemed plausible. But Bernanke did an even better job of discussing this issue in an address he delivered to the Council on Foreign Relations on March 10. Here is his four part outline:

First, we must address the problem of financial institutions that are deemed too big--or perhaps too interconnected--to fail. Second, we must strengthen what I will call the financial infrastructure--the systems, rules, and conventions that govern trading, payment, clearing, and settlement in financial markets--to ensure that it will perform well under stress. Third, we should review regulatory policies and accounting rules to ensure that they do not induce excessive procyclicality--that is, do not overly magnify the ups and downs in the financial system and the economy. Finally, we should consider whether the creation of an authority specifically charged with monitoring and addressing systemic risks would help protect the system from financial crises like the one we are currently experiencing.

Bernanke added, crucially, that it is "self-evident that, in light of the global nature of financial institutions and markets, the reform of financial regulation and supervision should be coordinated internationally to the greatest extent possible." In other words, the U.S. side is clearly developing a constructive approach toward the topic of regulation.

One red herring, though, is the "mark to market" issue. The SEC and others are being pressured by Congress (e.g. Barney Frank) to revise these accounting rules. Conservatives like Steve Forbes have jumped on this too, arguing that this is a relatively recent deviation from good old traditional accounting rules. Well, the problem is that in the good old days accountants weren't being asked to sign off on the asset value of hundreds of billions of dollars in collateralized debt obligation derivatives whose asserted value was based on statistical modeling rather than the ability to assess the quality of individual loan performance. These CDOs were also being traded in, shall we say, a rather murky marketplace. As the trading of these derivatives skyrocketed in the last decade, honest accountants tried to cope.

Here again the administration's instincts seem right to me. Geithner in particular has resisted devices to cheat on assessing the asset value of troubled banks, while everyone acknowledges being open to smaller adjustments in the ways the rules work. My only footnote is to observe that, here again, the United States would be well advised to coordinate its regulatory framework with the one being developed by other leading states, like the participants in the G-7's Financial Stability Forum.

A final, and brief, piece of advice for a better G-20 agenda:

Find a concrete move that shows commitment to an open world trading system.

I assume the upcoming G-20 statement will offer some lip service to this goal. The problem is that world trade is falling fast and national actions are starting to belie the multilateral rhetoric. Right now, the United States is part of the problem, not part of the solution -- as Washington set off a rapidly escalating trade dispute with Mexico, even at a time when that vital and precariously situated country is also heading into recession.

No one can expect the Doha Round problems will be solved in a few weeks, if they can be solved at all. But some concrete actions, by a few leading countries, are critical. A big reason why world trade was crippled in the 1930s was because the world's leading advocate of free trade -- Great Britain -- abandoned its leadership and instead chose the path of "imperial preference" in 1932. The paragons of an open world have to be willing, at a time of crisis, to set an example.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately


  • Guest
Re: G20 Summit where Rothschild and Rockefeller carve up the planet
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2009, 02:04:21 am »
"London will provide the opportunity for everyone to make clear their position on (protectionism) and to take some specific measures which will go the other direction of easing the problems particularly for the poorest," Sheinwald said

one of the benefits of waking up is finally understanding what they really mean.

"specific measures....easing the problems particularly for the poorest"
of course refers to Fema coffins, designer-plagues.  NWO speak for "easing problems" is "kill"

Offline CANADIAN-guerilla

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
Re: G20 Summit where Rothschild and Rockefeller carve up the planet
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2009, 02:22:50 am »
in the last month
a lot of us have been surprised with MSM openly talking about the New World Order

i think after this G-20 meeting
there's gonna be a BIG MSM push for New World everything ( Central Bank / currency / etc )

food shortages and/or near starvation
will be the tactic/strategy used by TPTB to get america's guns

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
British plan to execute protestors at G20 -- CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2009, 08:28:26 am »

I was just shopping in London today, and some guys were handing out flyers about a new event coming APRIL 1st... called "Spring offensive".

-Can we oust the bankers from power?
-Can we get rid of the corrupt politicians in their pay?
-Can we guarantee everyone a job, a home, a future?
-Can we establish government by the people, for the people, of the people?
-Can we abolish all borders and be patriots for our planet?
-Can we all live sustainably and stop climate chaos? Can we make capitalism history?


I don't like the sound of this at all.... it seems like controlled opposition. Making capitalism history, ABOLISHING BORDERS?? Climate chaos??

The flyer I was handed out sounds a lot better than what I'm reading on their website. It blames both David Cameron and Gordon Brown.. and talks about literally overthrowing the banks.

Their website, on the other hands, looks like a con. I would hate this to turn into violent rioting, giving an excuse for more police powers, martial law etc..

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
If these people aren't controlled opposition they're probably just deluded leftists.

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
If these people aren't controlled opposition they're probably just deluded leftists.

There's no doubt the people on the streets are deluded. But at the top of the pyramid, this could be controlled opposition.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
HouseMan good catch!

Everybody, please post videos about CoIntelPro/Controlled Opposition so that everybody knows what happens, how these are set up, how to easily identify the provacateurs, etc.  Here is some good information so far:

This is a very deep analysis of what has been occuring in Australia for years and includes all the fake sympathizers that are supposed to be our friends:

Bohemian Owl Provocateurs at Melbourne's G-20 Hyatt Police Riot: The Real Story


"If you demonstrate against somebody that we like...
I'll slip on my wig and see if I can start a riot...

[Remember the wigged/hatted provacateurs at all the rallies]
transform you into an angry mob...
and all your leaders go to jail for my job...
 'I Am The Owl'"

- The Dead Kennedys.

"The Dead Kennedies" Warned us decades ago about rallying people to "Storm the office!"



COINTELPRO: A War on Radical America

By the time the Panthers came along the FBI had been conducting Counter-Intelligence Programmes (COINTELPRO) to disrupt left and Puerto Rican groups for years. Thanks to thousands of FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, we know that agents were asked by their superiors to formulate "imaginative and hard-hitting counter-intelligence measures aimed at crippling the BPP". Massive surveillance via wiretaps, burglaries, live tails and mail tampering was only the beginning.

The Feds shared information and collaborated with local police units. At least 38 Panthers were murdered by various police agencies between 1968 and 1972, and at least 12 others died in 'shooting wars' fostered by the FBI. Hundreds more party members and their supporters were beaten or suffered gunshot wounds.

COINTELPRO methods that appear in released FBI memos:

Forged Mail. The FBI regularly sent forged correspondence to groups or members of groups to exacerbate differences among activists and to create snitch-jackets (see below).

Fake 'Propaganda'. The FBI fabricated and distributed publications, leaflets, broadsheets, cartoons etc. in the name of targeted organizations designed to misrepresent their positions, goals and objectives in a way to publicly discredit them and increase tensions within and between groups.

Disinformation. The FBI released false info to their media contacts. They hoped this process would condition public sentiment to accept brutal Bureau/police repression. Potential killer cops on the beat also watched the TV and thereby had their worst Panther nightmares reinforced. This had the effect of increasing trigger-finger itch during street confrontations.

Harassment Arrests. Repeated arrests of targeted individuals on spurious charges were carried out, not to obtain convictions, but to demoralize, harass and increase paranoia. Arrestees and their supporters found themselves and movement money tied up in case after case.

Informers and Agent Provocateurs. Thousands of informers were used against radical groups in this period. In the BPP and in other groups, many also functioned as agent provocateurs. They encouraged or engaged in illegal activities that could then be attributed to Party members. They disrupted internal functioning and assisted in the spread of disinformation. To exploit rifts between rival black groups, agent provocateurs were escalating the fighting, sometimes starting gun battles.

Snitch-Jacketing. Suspicion would be created, through the spreading of rumours, manufacture of evidence etc. that loyal group members, usually in key positions, were FBI informers. In the case of the BPP, agents knew the likely outcome of this tactic would be extreme violence directed at the jacketed individuals.

Political Assassinations. The FBI physically eliminated selected activists, often after other attempts at destroying their effectiveness had failed. They mostly used surrogates, but provided the intelligence and logistics.

For those feeling smug about not living in the US it might be worth pointing out that ALL the above tactics have been used domestically by the British state during its war with the Irish Republican movement.



3 Minute COINTELPRO Lesson

U.S. Government's Secret Echelon and COINTELPRO Spying Ops


CointelPro FBI's War on Black America

Monarch: Chapter 8: Cointelpro

COINTELPRO smashes Earth First to kill Judi Bari then take over the environmental movement
Judi Bari R.I.P. 1997-Won lawsuit 5 years after she died against the government-no one went to jail


Rockefeller uses agent provocatuers to squash the Anti-War movement
A Rockefeller funded anti-globalization march filled with agent provocateurs with masks and gloves in Washington turned violent, with shop windows smashed as crowds protested on the eve of Saturday's International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings.  These sensationalized protests are the result of the CFR/Heinz infiltration of various protest groups to ensure that increased surveillance goes on with more control over United States Sovereignty.

Stop SPP Protest - Union Leader stops provocateurs

5 min - Aug 21, 2007 -    (1544 ratings)

Greenwald's movie about COINTELPRO and Abbie Hoffman, steal this movie:
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Wasn't there two american security men that were caught with bombs in their trunk during a financial meeting in germany 2 years ago?

they may definitely be setting up something similar.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Chigs

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
Well there is a comment on the facebook page on the "wall" that says this group is controlled opposition beware!

Right on the money me thinks!
"On every street there's a nobody who dreams of being somebody.
He's a lonely forgotten man desperate to prove that he's alive."

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
This is the schedule:

At 12 noon, April 1st the Bank of England.

Capitalism has been heating up our world for years, melting the icecaps, burning up the rainforests, pushing the planet to tipping point. Now we're going to put the heat on them. At the London Summit , the G20 ministers are trying to get away with the biggest April Fools trick of all time. Their tax-dodging, bonus-guzzling, pension-pinching, unregulated free market world's in meltdown, and those fools think we're going to bail them out. They've gotta be joking!

We can't pay, we won't pay and we are taking to the streets

Many, many imaginative actions will be taking place across London on April 1st. One major focus will be four separate carnival parades culminating in direct action against the financial follies in the City of London among them carbon trading.

At 12 noon, April 1st, we're going to reclaim the City, thrusting into the very belly of the beast: the Bank of England.

Early a.m. April 2nd, we're going to bang on their hotel doors, @ the Excel Centre, Canning town to deliver our message of a world beyond capitalism.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Chances are controlled demonstration will backfire at them. The biggest problem we face is getting people active and organized in the first place. I could easily see a controlled rebellion getting out of hand by people from within realizing what's going on and telling others the leadership is wrong and they should organize something themselves (hint  ;)).
Here's an example:
"Someone" joins the protest and demonstrates the stuff we can find common ground on (Banks getting bailouts for example). After getting some basic trust he asks:
"Hey, don't you think this is weird. We're protesting the bankers, demonstrating for government by the people, but at the same time I hear our leadership demonstrate to abolish the borders. Isn't that what the bankers and capitalists want? Just look at Davos and the European Union. Besides, the working class wants to protect our borders, abolishing borders is what's driving down the wages and making people lose their jobs..."
I mean, the governments manage to infiltrate and take over legitimate protest groups. Why can't we do the same?

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The history of conmtrolled opposition in UK is rather extensive.  Guy Fawkes was controlled opposition.  Listen to the Tarpster expose this total con on the British people:



Interview with Webster Griffin Tarpley on Cloak and Dagger Talk Radio,, on the 400th anniversary of Guy Fawkes’ Day, Saturday, Nov. 5th 2005.

Lenny: Welcome back to Cloak and Dagger, I’m your host Lenny Bloom, along with your co-host Sherman Skolnick, The Great American Judge buster, and we’re here to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day.
Remember remember the 5th of November, and of course we’re here to expose the state secrets, the shadow government, the ruling elite.
For this special occasion, this great 400th anniversary, we are joined by one of the great experts in history and one of the top historians world wide, the author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror and the Unauthorized Biography of George Bush, None other than Webster, the Illustrious Webster Tarpley. Webster, It’s an honor to have you here with us today.

Webster: Thank you so much, Lenny, Happy Guy Fawkes Day.

L. This is a briefing and Sherman and I are going to hold our questions for when we get a moment to get them in there, but we expect you to dig in deep and early.
So Webster, Go ahead and fill us in on what is Guy Fawkes Day that they’ve been celebrating and talking about for 400 years.

W. Yes in England, Guy Fawkes Day still remains one of the biggest holidays of the year, if you’ve ever been there, they have bonfires, it’s sometimes called Bonfire Day, they have huge effigies of Guy Fawkes, sometimes effigies of the Roman Pope that are dragged around the streets and burned. Up until the 1950’s it was illegal not to celebrate this holiday, it was a compulsory holiday, and it was also enshrined, as we’ll see, in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, in other words, the state religion of which the Queen is the head, had a special church service for November 5th that focused around Gunpowder Treason and the miraculous deliverance of King James from this plot. Now let me just sum up for people who are not so familiar with this in various parts of the world what is involved.
On the morning of November 5th the British parliament was supposed to meet, and that would be the King, the Lords and the Commons all meeting in the same building, the House of Lords, which is not today’s House of Lords but an older building. And on that morning it was announced that an inspection party the night before, just after midnight on November 5th, in the wee small hours had discovered Guy Fawkes with a lantern, with a supply of matches and with kindling, and also a significant supply of gunpowder in his pocket, he’d been preparing to set off about 30 big barrels of gunpowder that had supposedly been concealed in the basement of the House of Lords, and the plot was: blow up the King along with the House of Commons and the top leaders of the Church of England and everybody else including all different people in the morning when this thing met.
Now according to the story, Guy Fawkes was discovered by a patrol that had been sent out by the government acting on a tip which I’ll tell you about, and Guy Fawkes was immediately taken prisoner, he was taken to the Tower of London, he was immediately put under very severe torture.
Some of his confederates were arrested immediately, they were taken to the Tower of London. They were tortured. Another group of the plotters allegedly went out toward the area where Shakespeare’s home was, out in Stratford on Avon out in Warwickshire.
And they tried to stir up a rebellion, it was actually a plan, they figured when the King had been blown up they would be able to start a rebellion, and these people were cut down pretty much immediately. And a couple of the most important of the plotters – really more important than Guy Fawkes – a guy called Percy and a guy called Catesby were cut down in the process and killed on the spot.
It turned out that all of these plotters were Catholics and this was the big thing. The Government was very interested in the fact that they were Catholics, and before too long the government did everything it did to tie these Catholics to the Jesuit Order allegedly acting on orders of the Pope in Rome and the General of the Jesuit Order to blow up the British Parliament and kill the King, kill the Lords, kills the members of the House of Commons. They were all executed within a month or two – Guy Fawkes, Winter, a bunch of others, and the Jesuit teacher Garnet who was the Jesuit provincial leader of the province of England, he was also picked up, tortured, put on trial, they had a show trial for him and he was also executed.
This became then the basis of the entire English government for approximately 200 years, from the late 1660’s until the middle of the 19th century this thing was in the Anglican prayer book, and a kind of article of the state religion, and of course it’s legendary, it’s a pervasive thing.
So this occurred on November 5th 1605, so we now have the 400th anniversary of those events. Now the finding I would start with is the entire official story is a complete lie from top to bottom. And this looks forward to events like the Gulf of Tonkin, like 9/11, carried out really by the same faction because this is the Anglo-Venetian Whig faction, the Anglo-American financier faction that has dominated the world for the past several hundred years.
This Gunpowder Plot was one of their birth pangs you might say.
Now in our own age we have 9/11 which seems to be part of the death rattle of this same Anglo-American financier faction. But we can understand them a whole lot better if we look into the history of these events. Now let me say just a couple of words about the situation of the time. The big question you had in England among other things was the religious question, and the religious question was that Henry VIII had decided to go Protestant, his son Edward had gone on with this, essentially forcing everybody to change their Catholic religion that they had held for many many centuries, and doing this with police state methods.
England in the early 1600’s was a police state – it was probably the most pervasive police state anywhere in Europe, except perhaps Venice was the other contender, where spies were absolutely everywhere.
The fact was that a very large minority of the population 40 45%, some would even say half of the population, especially in the north, especially in the west, especially as you got away from London, had remained Catholic. A large part of the nobility was Catholic, Shakespeare was a Catholic, Shakespeare’s patrons, the Earl of Southampton, all Catholics, there was a very very large Catholic underground, and the government was determined to crush this, and they were using police state methods.
Now just in terms of the general situation in Europe, you had a fight going on between France and Spain, which had been going on for a long time. Above all, I would point to the fact that you had the Venetians which were the superpower of intelligence, no discussion of secret intelligence operations during this period can be complete without looking at the Venetians.
What the Venetians were interested in places like England was they wanted people to be at war with Spain. You look where Venice was. Venice was sandwiched between Milan, which was controlled by the Spanish, the Papal States in the South and Austria in the north, and all of those were Catholic powers, and most of them were controlled by the Hapsburgs.
So what the Venetians were always trying to do was to run around Europe and try to get people involved in wars with Spain.
There had been a traditional alliance between England and Venice going back to the early 1500’s and the War of the League of Cambrai. So the Venetians had intelligence operations in Britain, and they tried to use them to keep England hostile to Spain, and to keep England if possible at war with Spain. And one of the ways you can do this is to play the religious card, and have a militant Protestant government in London that is going to be hostile to Spain and later on hostile to France. Now this means that all of this mythology about Good Queen Beth and the Golden Age of the Tudors, this is essentially a big lie, that has to go out the window. This is one of the most deep-seated forms of propaganda and prejudice in the English-speaking world, so this is what we got to cut through in order to get to the facts.

L. What king was involved?

W. Well, we’re talking about King James I, he had been the King of Scotland. He had come to the throne in 1603, and he was new on the job. I’ll tell you a couple of things about him, but before we talk about the Kings and Queen.
Queen Elizabeth had been in power until 1603. And she had died, right, she had no children, she never got married, so there was a big fight with the Venetians intervening to see who would get to be the King, and the Venetians were in favor of James VI of Scotland, so they brought him in and made him James I of England. The idea was that the Venetians wanted the English to be free of the Scots. Normally whenever the English invaded France, the Scots invaded England. The Venetians didn’t want that. They wanted the English to be able to devote all of their attention to making war on Spain, because that was what Venice required in order to relieve the pressure coming from the Spanish in Milan.
Now the key to all of this stuff is the Cecil family. You can’t understand any of this without knowing something about Lord William Cecil the older one, and Lord Robert Cecil, who was the younger one. Whether you had Elizabeth on the throne until 1603 or James who was there from 1603 until 1625, a tremendous amount of the real power was in the hands of these Cecils. These people were pro-Venetian and they were intelligent game masters. They were master manipulators, they were devious in a way that for most people is unbelievable even today. They make people like Lavrenty Beria or Himmler or J Edgar Hoover, they make these people look like rank amateurs.
Let’s look at the Cecil family for a second – The elder one, you have to bear with me now, because you know every English nobleman is a moving target, because he has the name he starts with, he generally has another name in the middle of his life, and if reaches the top of his career, he has a third name in many cases.
William Cecil is the elder one, he’s basically around during the time of Elizabeth.
He helps to bring Elizabeth in and he becomes Lord Burghley. So William Cecil, Lord Burghley.
If you know any Shakespeare you know who this guy is.
Remember Shakespeare was a Catholic activist, he hates the Cecil family, he goes to tremendous lengths, risking his own neck to put propaganda attacks on the Cecil family into his play.
If you know Hamlet you know Pollonius, the guy who gets stabbed by Hamlet, that’s William Cecil. That’s Lord Burghley. He’s a lecher, he’s a windbag, but he’s devious, he uses his family as an asset, uses his daughter, this kind of stuff.

L. Webster, so they didn’t discriminate against Shakespeare, because they made him famous, you said he was a Catholic.

W. This was an underground operation. He had powerful Catholic backers, that were too powerful for them to just get rid of.
But he was eventually driven out of playwriting, he was driven off the stage around 1610. He was simply driven out of business by this Cecil intelligence establishment.
So the older Cecil is William and his basic maxim was, and he wrote it up, this is all documented:
Whenever the Catholics become too popular, the government has to fix some odious design upon them, which would never fail to be believed by the generality of the common people. And then you can put the penal laws into execution. So their basic method is that of provocation.
Now the one we’re going to be concerned with more today is the Robert Cecil, the younger one, he’s the one who does the Gunpowder Plot, he’s the mastermind of the Gunpowder Plot. He starts off as Robert Cecil, he becomes Vicomte Cranborn in the middle of his career, and then when he really makes it to the top thanks to the Gunpowder Plot, he becomes Lord Salisbury.
The Cecil block is a permanent feature of English politics – and it’s there today, the Conservative Party is the Cecil block to a large extent. There was a Lord Salisbury who was prime minister in the late 19th century. These people are very much around.
Lord Balfour, right – Balfour declaration, he’s a Cecil.
Francis Bacon, Cecil’s cousin, he’s also very important, a little bit later than where we are now.

L. Clarify for the listeners and for me, the Cecils plotted against the Catholics to blame them falsely for the Gunpowder Plot.

W. Absolutely, that’s the whole thing. To set up a fake plot, stock it full of Catholics, fanatics, dupes, and their own double agents, and then pin that on the Vatican, pin it on the Pope, pin it on the Jesuits. And use that to get decades of absolute hysteria. And of course, allow them to cement their police state in the middle of a population that had very little use for them, in other words, they were something of a foreign body. Again the mythology on this stuff is miles deep – that England was this stout Protestant power with Good Queen Beth – this was a horrible nightmare of religious persecution
The Venetian ambassador at one point says to Lord Cecil, You know, I can understand that you’ve outlawed the Catholics, but do you have to persecute them so much? You persecute the Catholics more than any minority religion is persecuted anywhere in Europe, and that’s approximately accurate.
Now Cecil had a reputation of being plentiful in plots. Another portrait in Shakespeare, now we’re talking about Robert Cecil, the younger Cecil – this is Richard III, Shakespeare’s Richard III, that is another figure of Robert Cecil. Of course, Shakespeare always has plausible deniability. They say, You’re attacking Robert Cecil. – No, I’m just writing Richard III.
What did he say. Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, by drunken prophecies, libels and dreams.
That’s Shakespeare putting Robert Cecil on the stage.
Now the third figure in this group we have Cecil the Elder, Cecil the Younger, prime ministers in effect, and Sir Francis Walsingham. This is a guy with a Venetian pedigree a mile long, this is the one who is absolutely linked to Venice.
During the reign of bloody Mary – who was a Catholic persecutor, we had her too – in the 1550’s we had five years when the Catholics got back in power and killed two or three hundred people in their own reign of terror, because this was mutual to a significant degree.
Sir Francis Walsingham was driven out of the country. Where did he go? He went to Padua, meaning Venice, where he became president of the foreign students’ society.
So Sir Francis Walsingham is the founder of the British secret intelligence service – the MI-6 today. So this goes from the 1570’s and 1580’s all the way down to the present time, this is another reminder why the British intelligence is the most powerful and the most formidable in the world, because they have centuries old networks that other people can only dream of. Walsingham recruited John Dee, a famous kook, and also Christopher Marlowe, the playwright, and it looks like Christopher Marlowe was liquidated, he was murdered when he began to pull away from Walsingham. Walsingham has got Venice written all over him.
Now under Elizabeth, the elder Cecil always had plots, we won’t go into these plots, but the Gunpowder Plot was just one of a long, long series. The Ridolfi plot, the Babbington plot, the Throckmorton plot. The Throckmorton plot is the most important because it leads to the execution of Mary Queen of Scots and then the Spanish Armada.
Now there was a rebellion against the Cecils led by the Earl of Essex in 1601 but it failed, and he was executed, so at this point you got the Cecils in power, and when James comes in, they had a couple more plots, the Main and the Bye. The pattern of these plots is always you have agents provocateurs sent out by the Cecils, they gather up a bunch of patsies, get them involved in conspiracies. The Cecils observe the conspiracy as it goes along, The Cecils then make sure that they can implicate key important people, the political enemies of the Cecils, in the plot. Then they discover the plot at the last minute, and then they execute their political enemies. So this is the setting.
Now when James I first came into power, he promised that he would give toleration for the Catholics, because he didn’t have the beef with the Vatican that Elizabeth had had. But once he got into power James decided that he was happier fining the Catholics and expropriating them to get money, so there was a tremendous backlash of hatred and resentment against James among the Catholics, but it was not enough to cause this entire thing [the Gunpowder Plot].
So what we have is a group of double agents, and we’ll just talk about a couple of them.
Guy Fawkes is really not the most important, he is the one who has been demonized, but the important ones are two guys called Catesby and Winter, and they meet in the early months of 1604, and they begin discussing some kind of a plot to take revenge on James I.
Now you have to look at these people, where did these guys come from, Catesby and Winter, the original nucleus of the plot. They had all been involved in the rebellion of the Earl of Essex. In other words, these people all could have been executed by the Cecils as a result of this attempted coup by Essex against them which failed.
So you have to look at these two guys as essentially being part of the federal witness protection program. These were stooges, these were people that the government could essentially chop their heads off any time they wanted. They were fined and reserved to her Majesty’s use was the word used at the time.
So you got two police informants, essentially, meeting to create a plot. Now what did they talk about. They talk about first of all, renting a room in a basement across from the House of Lords and digging a tunnel. And they start trying to dig this tunnel, but it turns out they can’t do it, because they have to go through a wall, they also have to get a guy called Sir Dudley Carlton to come in, who is later on one of Cecil’s big diplomats, to help them rent this room.
So it’s like you’re going to have Henry Kissinger come in and help you rent the room – the safehouse – that you’ re going to try to use to tunnel under the House of Lords.
Eventually they find that they can’t tunnel so what they simply do is go and rent the basement under the House of Lords, and they stock this up with what looks to be gunpowder. We’re gonna see in a minute that it’s not.
They eventually recruit some other plotters, they recruit a guy called Thomas Percy, okay – Thomas Percy is one of the leading plotters. So we’ve got Catesby, we’ve got Winter, we’ve got Percy.
Here’s a story about Percy. One of the people at the time in the Autumn of 1605 is going home at 2 in the morning and he meets Percy the plotter, and he’s coming out of Cecil’s house. Get it? The main plotter is reporting to Robert Cecil about what’s going on. So he’s a double agent.
It looks also like this guy Catesby is a double agent, and we’ve got Sir Dudley Carlton who has helped them who is one of Cecil’s main diplomats, who helps them rent the first basement that they try to tunnel from. Now there are other people, we can’t go into all of them, but you’ve got this group of ex-cons in effect, in the witness protection program, you’ve got double agents, you’ve also got a couple of fanatics. You’ve probably got Guy Fawkes as a fanatic, a dupe, a patsy in that sense.
Now a couple of weeks before November 5th when the Parliament is supposed to meet, this Catholic nobleman Lord Mounteagle comes forward and he says to Cecil, “I just got a letter that says I shouldn’t go to the opening of Parliament because it might be dangerous,” and he shows him the letter. This is called the famous Mounteagle Letter. So Cecil waits four or five days until he can meet the King. Cecil shows it to the King, and says, “Your Majesty, I got this strange letter from Lord Mounteagle, what could it mean, that we shouldn’t go to the opening of Parliament? I really can’t figure this out.”
And James said, “My God, they’re going to blow up the Parliament.” Now it turns out that James I, when he was in Scotland he was very unpopular, there were numerous attempts to kill him. And one of the attempts to kill him was allegedly a gunpowder plot. They tried to blow up James and his father, so he’s used to this. Now, what you have here of course is, Cecil wrote the letter himself, whether with his own hand, or through some agent, he had agents who could duplicate handwriting, so he gets the letter sent to Mounteagle, Mounteagle delivers it back to Cecil, Cecil takes it to the King, and he lets the King think that the King is a genius, that he is the Solomon of England, that he’s the only one who could figure out such a deep dark mystery. Alright, so then they wait a few more days, and they send somebody over and they discover that it’s – Guy Fawkes.
I have a collection of prints here which are very interesting, and they all show the same thing: Guy Fawkes with his lantern is about to go into the basement of the House of Lords to prepare the last details of the gunpowder train that he is going to use to blow up the House of Lords. He is then set upon by this night watch of loyal servants to His Majesty the King.
So if you think about 9/11 in terms of memes, in terms of the elements of the myth, you got to have the House of Lords, you got to have Guy Fawkes – Guy Fawkes is carrying a lantern, the lantern is preserved in a museum, and then he’s taken; and often there’s a light coming down from the holy spirit, or some magical agency – a light that cuts through the darkness like a spotlight that gets onto Guy Fawkes, that helps these guys find who he is.
And this theme, these memes were repeated again and again and again in the prints of the time.
Now the problem is then, these other guys Catesby and Winter run off towards Stratford on Avon pretty much, and they get killed. So it looks like some of these people were liquidated, in other words these were double agents working for Cecil, but Cecil doesn’t hesitate to kill some of his own double agents. He gets rid of them so that they’ll never testify.
And instead what goes on is you have the torture of Guy Fawkes, he’s put on the rack, and then you have the torture of Winter. And if you look at the signature of Guy Fawkes, you can see his signature before he was tortured and after he was tortured, and you can see what they did to this guy.
The Thomas Winter confession is written in a different handwriting, and the official confession has the guy’s name spelled wrong, so they didn’t exactly do a perfect job.

L. Webster, now you’re discussing the details, I’m looking at the story on Encyclopedia Britannica online – that’s a pro-British printing service that’s been printing encyclopedias for many years. So your position. is Britannica most likely is lying about the whole thing, is that right?

W. Well you have to look at what they say, but obviously, it is very polarized, the official British stuff. There is a book from the 1990’s which defends pretty much the official version of the Gunpowder Plot, the Cecil version, and it’s written by a guy who works at the British Army Museum. So it’s the British establishment continuing to defend its own story.

Sherman. There’s two other historic things that relate to this. Number one, most historic reports about Queen Elizabeth I state that the only reason she wasn’t assassinated was that where there were numerous plots against her was that she had such a wonderful intelligence service.

W. Sherman, that leaves out the fact that most of these plots were organized by Cecil himself, Cecil the Elder.

S. That was designed to put the suspicion somewhere else, right?

L. That was designed to prove to Elizabeth every day that without Burghley, she’d be lost, that she needed Cecil the Elder more than life itself, so she dare not dump him.

S. Look at this statement I’m going to read to you from Britannica and tell me what you think about it.
Quote, “The plot bitterly intensified Protestant suspicions of Catholics and led to the rigorous enforcement of the recusancy law, which fined those who refused to attend Anglican services.” So in other words, they used this to persecute Catholics and force people to go to Protestant services, is that the long and short of it?

W. What it meant was that you get decades and decades, you could get a century more of religious oppression, and a pretext for a police state. Remember, in France at this time, under Henry IV, if you were a French Protestant, a Huguenot, you were tolerated, because there was the Edict of Nantes, in the 1590’s, which said that Protestants have certain rights, and they can’t be just crushed.
But in England, if you were a Catholic, you had no rights, you could be fined, you could be executed, if you even tried to leave the country, they’d confiscate your stuff. If you sent your kid to a Jesuit school in Belgium, which is what Shakespeare’s father did, Shakespeare’s father sent Shakespeare to a Jesuit school in Belgium. If that had become known, if that had been established by Cecil’s spies, Shakespeare’s father could have been expropriated of every penny that he had, every farthing. So again –

S. Wait, the effort over the years, to claim that Shakespeare didn’t write most of the things he put his name on, that it was written by Francis Bacon, is that an effort to discredit Shakespeare?

W. What it simply reflects is the British hatred of Shakespeare, because he is not what they say. He is not the guy who celebrates Queen Elizabeth. I’ll give you an example. Queen Elizabeth died in 1603. Every poet who wanted to make progress at the court, to make money, wrote a great praise of the Queen. From Shakespeare, zero, he absolutely will not take part in it.
Now just to finish up some of the details on this. The show trials were run by this guy Coke – he was the attorney general, he was the Ashcroft or the Gonzales, he’s a torturer. So what he does, he gets a confession from Guy Fawkes that says, “We plotters had a mass that was conducted by Father Garnet, but we never told Garnet about the details of our plot.”
What Coke wrote on the papers, and you can see these papers today in the public record office, Coke writes in Latin, Huc usque, in other words, Stop here and leave the rest out – when you make your harangue at the trial, don’t tell the part about we never told Father Garnet anything about any plot.

S. Can I add something about Justice Coke?

W. Sure.

S. A lot of the law in the United States is based on his decisions which are called the Coke Reports. And when they want to reach way back to support something that they haven’t got a good American precedent on, the US Supreme Court occasionally over the last two centuries would refer to him. Coke Reports.

W. It’s a travesty, it’s an absolute travesty

S. Let me see if I understand it. You’re saying that he was a counter-plotter of some kind.

W. No, he was the Andrei Vyshinsky, remember Andrei Vyshinsky ran the show trials for Stalin. Coke is the guy who ran the show trials first of all of Fawkes and Winter, and then they were all executed, and then they have a second round of show trials for Garnet, and then they kill him.
It’s worthwhile to note that the Vatican had been informed by some of these English Jesuits that a plot was in the works, and it was essentially Garnet that was writing to Rome to say look, I’m trying to stop these guys, but I don’t know what to do. So he gets a message back from Claudio Acquaviva, of the Jesuit Order, the Jesuit General in Rome, who says, The pope, and I join with it, I command you to stop any violent activity, because this will get us nowhere. In other words these people were not fools, they could see what would happen. Even if the plot had succeeded there is very little way that the plotters ever could have taken over England, it would have been other…

S. In the last couple decades a story came out supposedly supporting the British view that Guy Fawkes indeed was part of a plot, they alleged that they belatedly almost 400 years later found something. Do you know anything about that?

W. I’ll tell you what was found. Here’s what was found. The big question was, for many years, what happened to this gunpowder, where did the gunpowder go, thirty hogsheads, thirty big barrels. So what you find now is in the London Daily Telegraph, May 4th 1978, they found in the public record office, a receipt of the war office dated November 7th, 1605, two days after the discovery of the so-called plot, they found first of all that it was not gunpowder, but corn-powder, corn-powder was an inferior version of gun-powder, it had bigger grains, it didn’t give you that much bang for the buck. It’s a little bit like these home made fertilizer bombs, something more like that.
And the receipt says, corn-powder, decayed, meaning inert, it wouldn’t go off. So Cecil had the brains, if he was going to have this stage managed plot, he made sure that the props were not live gunpowder but decayed corn-powder, in other words these patsies and dupes were rolling barrels of inert gunpowder, corn-powder, that wouldn’t go off into the basement, because Cecil didn’t really want to blow up –
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

S. You know what’s interesting is that in 1993 the FBI using informants, they told them that it was an inert powder that they wanted these characters to use, these Islamists, in the basement of the World Trade Center, but they fooled them and they put real gunpowder, and it caused quite a bit of black smoke, and several people were killed. It went up into the building in 1993, this seems to me it’s sort of like a take off in some way about this Gunpowder Plot.

W. That’s it exactly Sherman, that’s very good, what is so uncanny about the Gunpowder Plot is that the whole repertoire of things that you find in this stage-managed terrorism, the state-sponsored terrorism of our time, you see the whole repertoire of tricks is already there in 1605, conducted by these Englishmen, who in their turn have been trained by the all-time experts and superpower, the Venetians. So we’ve got a bunch of Anglo-Venetian operatives running around. Let me just say, Why do I say Venetians? First of all let me say that back in the 1580’s you had this Throckmorton plot which led to the killing of Mary Stuart, Mary Queen of Scots, and therefore led to war with Spain and the Spanish Armada. That was carried out by a Venetian agent, Giordano Bruno. Giordano Bruno, the philosopher and playwright, quite a famous guy in his own right, was working for Venice and came over and became the secretary of the French ambassador in London, and did underground operations to get this Throckmorton plot going. He worked closely with Walsingham, and so therefore there’s a Venetian angle there that you can see. Venetians operating in London under Elizabeth, and then we’ve also got the famous playwright Ben Johnson, right, the main rival of Shakespeare, I think a rather unsavory character to be sure.
A couple of days after the plot, Cecil gave Ben Johnson the task of getting in touch with a certain priest. This is very mysterious stuff, never explained. Cecil goes to Ben Johnson and says, I want you to contact a certain priest. So Johnson writes back to Cecil saying Yeah, I tried it, I took the most obvious course, I went to the chaplain of the Venetian ambassador, but we couldn’t get the priest to come out of hiding. So it means somehow the Venetian ambassador is sitting in the middle of Robert Cecil’s plotting; therefore it’s an Anglo-Venetian plot, and this is not idle speculation, this can be documented. And the role of Ben Johnson in the whole thing is very strange because he would have met some of these conspirators in taverns that they frequented, and Shakespeare also.

S. What do you make of the stories – I’m not saying that I accept them, I’m just repeating them – that currently Queen Elizabeth II is sort of a closet Catholic – is there anything to that?

W. I don’t know, I think she’s a pagan, I think she worships power like the rest of them.
Let me just say, the other very important piece of proof we have, is a report of intelligence from one of Cecil’s spies, this guy’s name is Henry Rice, and in April 1604, a year and a half before the big event in November 1605, Henry Rice sends a report to Cecil, saying, I have a subagent working for me, the subagents name is Davies, he is engaged in working a Catholic treason plot, the goal of which is to incriminate priests, in other words, we got a sting operation going, we want to set these priests in, so we can execute them and get the publicity that we want. And he says, I can give you up to 60 priests. So the answer comes back from Cecil’s office, We don’t need 60, we need fewer, but they should be top-level Jesuits and top-level seminary priests. And then they say to Davies, Well, what’s the treason you’re working. And Davies, like a good agent, like Salem in the 1993 case that Sherman just referred to, Davies writes back, I will not declare the treason until you give me a pardon, I need a written pardon for what I’m doing so that I’m covered. So it’s official, the pardon was granted on the 25th of April 1604. So here it is, Cecil is running the plot a year and a half before the thing comes to the surface.

S. The other interesting thing is, in your book 9/11 Synthetic terror, inside the front cover, you refer to this Gunpowder Plot, so in other words, 400 years later they still have so-called rulers or whatever you want to call George W Bush, doing this provocateur trick of blaming high-level politics or whatever you want to call it on some group that they want to demonize.

W. Absolutely.

S. In the case of 911 they want to demonize Islam, so they said that 19 Moslems did it and many believe that the Moslems were simply patsies.

W. Exactly.

S. So we’re on a parallel track while there was a high-level plot that piggybacked onto 3 or more mock drills that same morning of September 11, 2001, and I think your book goes into that. So in a way your book is a latter-day explanation of how a plot can be faked.

W. Exactly, and I think the importance of this, the methods of this faction – we’re talking again about the English Venetian faction, which in our own day is the Anglo- American financier faction, the city of London, Wall Street, and Washington, the methods are largely the same methods and you can see that from this example from 4 centuries ago, and then again, if you look at somebody like Shakespeare, you’ll see that he was opposed to all this. For example the play Othello would seem to be Othello as a figure for King James who is torn between Iago representing Cecil and Venice, on the one hand, and Cassio, the Florentine, representing actual Renaissance values. And you see the way Iago tricks Othello, he isolates him, he gets rid of Cassio, he gets rid of Desdemona, he distorts everything, he tells stories about the handkerchief and all of this other stuff. That’s one figure of it.
Measure for Measure, Lord Angelo, right? The hypocrite who takes over the government and he wants to enforce the morality laws, but he also demands that women yield to him, right, Angelo is another figure of Robert Cecil. And then in…

S. How did Shakespeare in England get away with this?

W. He did it because it’s all in a coded language. In other words, none of it is [explicit], he’s got plausible deniability at every point.
And for a certain time he has backers, for a certain time he’s actually writing these plays for Elizabeth, he’s writing them for James to try to influence them, and ultimately he’s writing it for James’ son Prince Henry who unfortunately died, and then he’s driven out of business. So you could also see this – the Shakespeare play that is most dedicated to the Gunpowder Plot is Macbeth, right, the killing of a Scottish king. But there, the thing with Macbeth is, what we have as Macbeth is the shortest of all Shakespeare plays. It looks like important parts have been cut out. King Lear comes from the same period, and it also seems to be a similar kind of argument.

S. You know what’s interesting, Webster, you have just supplied a piece of legal history. And frankly, your interpretation of history would see to it that you could never be a law professor because they’d run you out, because too much of American law is common law based on England, what they call the Lord Chief Judge Coke Reports.
From what you said, I gather that Lord Coke is a tremendous faker, and whitewasher and cover-up type.

W. He was the Ashcroft and Gonzales because he was presiding over this torture, and the harangue that he made, the speech that he made at the trial was full of lies. About a 100 years ago there was a debate about the historical interpretation of the Gunpowder Plot, and one of the main Oxford historians Gardiner came forward saying, “How can you say that all of these wonderful noblemen of England who signed as witnesses to the confession of Fawkes and confession of Winter – how can you say that they would sign onto something that was full of lies?”
And the answer came back from one of the Jesuits at the time: Because that is what they did at the trial. Because this guy Coke got up and in his speech he made wild fabrications, distortions, omissions – it was basically you know the Kean-Hamilton Commission. And none of these noblemen, who had been witnesses to the actual torture allegedly, stood up and said but wait a minute, read the rest of it, like read the part that Gerard was there but you never told Gerard about the plot.

S. In the very period that you talk about the Court of Star Chamber – this infamous creature which continued in operation up until 1642 – and if you were to go to a big law school building, like the University of Chicago Law School, you know what’s interesting – they honor the judges of the Court of Star Chamber – which if you didn’t testify to their liking, they had no 5th amendment, you know what I mean – and they would chop your hand off. And there in the law school is a golden-framed picture of Lord Jeffreys, about the period that you’re talking about, and what I’m saying is, that there is a great defect in American law, and you just pointed it out, because they base too much of their background on what they call the Coke Reports. You know what I mean, if they want to reach back to some precedent in common law, they refer to that. And you just torpedoed –

W. Judge Jeffreys of the Bloody Assizes is a little bit later, I think by that time we’re in the 1660’s, it’s the Rebellion of Monmouth, who’s one of the bastard sons of the King.

S. Well, history claims that the Court of Star Chamber ended in 1642, believe it or don’t believe it. But what I’m getting at is the Coke Reports, I’ve always been suspicious of it, and you sort of supply the detail that more Americans should know about – hopefully those that are going to listen to this program, because we don’t have iconoclasts to point out the harsh truth and reality of situations, you know what I mean, they go along with the common lie, the Big Lie. In other words you don’t wish to go along with the Big Lie about the Gunpowder Plot, right.

W. Because what we’re identifying here is a permanent weakness of the English- speaking culture everywhere, because if you’ve had this fabrication, this orchestrated, manipulated, stage-managed stunt of the Gunpowder Plot, and you’ve had that made into a religion, that got into the Anglican book of common prayer, and it says in there, and this was up until 1859-1860, every 5th of November, the priest has got to preach on the Gunpowder Plot, you’ve got to read the Act of Parliament, you’ve got to go through this whole prayer routine about Gunpowder Treason and Guy Fawkes and the rest of it – it becomes a civic religion. Now when you look at 9/11, there’s an attempt to make 9/11 into a civic religion, an ersatz religion, a fake religion, and force people to believe it.

S. Yeah, but Webster, you know because you’re a profound historian, you properly pronounce words in foreign languages, so evidently you know a lot about these foreign languages – did anybody in the papacy from 1605 to whatever date you know about, did they ever try to roll back what you feel is the Big Lie, did they try to educate people and inform people that this Gunpowder Plot was a fake, or did they leave it alone?

W. The entire English Catholic community repudiated the Gunpowder Plot. As a matter of fact they even repudiated it before it happened. There was a woman called Fortesquieu, who lived in a famous building in London called Blackfriar’s Gatehouse, that was a safehouse for priests. Later it was bought and endowed by Shakespeare as a safehouse for priests.

S. Is that connected with Blackfriars Bridge?

W. Well, it’s the same neighborhood. Blackfriars was the old Dominican monastery, Black friars, white friars.

S. But what about my question.

W. Well wait, let me just get through this. The plotters tried to come to this safehouse for priests and say, let us in here and let us use this as a base of operations. And Ellen Fortesquieu said no, you guys are a bunch of low-lives, one of you is a bigamist – Percy. You’re not really Catholics, you’re a bunch of sleazy adventurers. I don’t trust you, I’m not letting you in. So later on also after the plot, the whole English Catholic community said we weren’t a part of it, we had nothing to do with it. Now the problem was Paul V, Borghese, this was a very doctrinaire, pedantic pope, he repudiated it in private correspondence, but the big problem with the papacy was they needed to come out with an encyclical letter saying the Gunpowder Plot is a fraud: here’s how it was done, we didn’t do it, Cecil did it. And for various reasons Paul V Borghese couldn’t pull himself or didn’t pull himself together to do this. And this was another betrayal of English Catholics. So this is one of the things that Shakespeare was bitter about.

L. And the date here once again for people who are trying to follow this now, what date was it when all this transpired.

W. The big date was November 5th 1605.

L. So this is many years after the act of supremacy, the act of submission, Henry VIII, that separated the Church in 1534. So my question to you is this: since attempts to obtain a divorce through pressure on the papacy failed, Cromwell turned to parliament using its powers to decide the issue. The result was this serious series of acts cutting back the papal power and influence in England. What if any actions other than legislative do you feel the papacy took that are not recorded – were there actions they took that are not recorded in history against the Church of England? Or were they all legislative in your view.

W. This is a very complicated question. Let me just say, when you go back to Henry VIII, which you’ve done, right, and the seizure of the monasteries, this is virtually a massive robbery, saying, all the property of the holy orders, and the monks, and the nuns, this is all going to be robbed by Henry VIII to create a new nobility that would be bound to him, because they would be expropriated if the Catholics came back.
The guy that you’ve mentioned is Thomas Cromwell, and Thomas Cromwell is the guy who convinced Henry VIII to do the seizure of the Church properties, right. That guy is a Venetian agent. Thomas Cromwell is somebody who had worked in Venetian counting houses and he of course is a fairly close relative of Oliver Cromwell, later on. Oliver Cromwell, being the dictator, the military dictator of Britain, generally between about 1650 and 1660, right – the Lord Protector.
You also had, just to keep the historical accounting, you had this Bloody Mary period that I mentioned in the 1550’s. Here you have Queen Mary, daughter of Henry VIII coming in and reimposing Catholicism, and in this case the Venetian agent on the scene is Cardinal Pole, Cardinal Pole is from the Plantagenet family, the older royal house of England that had been kicked out a hundred years before. Cardinal Pole is a Plantagenet who had been groomed in Venice for many years by Gasparo Contarini. In the period that we’ve been talking about here on the Gunpowder Plot, Paolo Sarpi is the head of Venetian intelligence. We go back 100 years, to the early 1500’s, Gasparo Contarini was the head of Venetian intelligence.
And these are the master manipulators, the master game orchestrators in Europe, and nobody could come near them in their ability to manipulate. So what you always have is at key moments which you’ve got to see is the constant thing is, the Venetians don’t care which side is which. They are always in there to cause religious strife and above all make sure that you get an anti-Spanish government out of the entire process.

S. But Webster, what about, is there a simple answer to my question, from that time 1605 to now has there been a record of any papacy, any pope, who wanted to straighten out the historic record of the Gunpowder Plot that the Catholics were not involved.

W. Well, the popes have not done this themselves. I’ll point to two people, two leading Jesuits that people can read, because these books are available
The first Jesuit is about 100 years ago, you have the guy called Father Gerard. He was a good polemicist and wrote some well-documented stuff on the Gunpowder Plot. He got into a fight with this guy Gardiner that I mentioned, so it’s the Jesuits against Oxford, the two lines. So Father Gerard 100 years ago.
Currently the dean of skeptics of the Gunpowder Plot is Francis Edwards who’s alive and well and living in London. He’s a Jesuit, and he wrote a book about it 1969. He’s written articles about it. He’s written a study of all of those Elizabethan plots that I’ve talked about, he’s written about the early Jacobean plots in the early reign of King James, The Main and the Bye as they’re called.
And Francis Edwards is working on a masterful sort of magnum opus study of the Gunpowder Plot which is not going to be available this year but it’ll be available sometime in the future. But if you want to read something about it, Francis Edwards, he’s got some articles in the early 1990’s, but above all his 1969 book on the plot, I think it’s got Guy Fawkes in the title. So if you want to google Francis Edwards and Guy Fawkes, then you’ll see. So essentially what the papacy has done, they don’t speak directly, they delegate it to various Jesuit scholars who do the work for them.

S. If I remember history correctly, some time after this, Parliament shut down for 35 years. Was that a consequence of the alleged Gunpowder Plot, or something unrelated?

W. I think it’s a consequence of Oliver Cromwell whose hobby was dissolving Parliament. So you know these famous quotes from Cromwell saying, You are no Parliament, Go with God but go, get out of here, you’re dissolved, scram, beat it.

S. Was that a consequence of the so-called Gunpowder Plot?

W. This is a little bit distant, because we’re going from 1605 to the 1640’s and 1650’s. But I would like to stay this, If you have a state religion that is based on this fantastic lying story, and you incorporate that into the book of common prayer – For some people, if you believe in religion, this is blasphemy!
How can you incorporate an event like this into your Book of Common Prayer? In other words, the words of Coke are not the Word of God. The word of James I or of Robert Cecil cannot be the Word of God. This is nuts.
So what you do with this is you politicize religion to such an extent that then in the 1640’s you get this backlash which is led by Puritans, yeah, Congregationalists for sure, but then, the Diggers, the Seekers, the Ranters, the Muggletonians, the Fifth Monarchists, the Gindletonians, this wild zoo of sects that came up in England in the 1640’s and 1650’s. The diggers are Communists, the Revellers are Communists in their own way, the Ranters want free love, the alehouse is the center of religion.
What you got is a qualitative decay of religion when you try to incorporate these events into religion. This is sort of what’s going on today, if you look at the Christian fundamentalists you’ll probably find that they observe 9/11 as some kind of religious apocalyptic event.

S. The other thing is a broad question. Maybe you could make a simple answer. Could this be an excuse why over all the years England never had a written or organic law like the US Constitution.

W. Yes, very good.

S. They had a common law which was accepted from the time of Lord Coke, but they never wrote anything down – is that a consequence of all this?

W. I think it has a lot to do with it. The problem that Sherman is addressing for those who don’t know is that in England there’s no written constitution – we have a written constitution, they have none. You’ll say, Where’s the constitution, and they’ll say, it’s the King, the Lords, and the Commons. Yeah, but –

L. No, no, no, that’s not totally true. As a Canadian, I can tell you that their constitution is very much in the oral tradition of common law and tort law. It’s an oral constitution.

W. Yeah, I know, but what’s an oral constitution?

L. Americans who are visually biased will have a problem understanding that, but there’s a strong oral constitution because the oral constitution is the heart of our written constitution here in Canada.

W. The English constitution is like the Tao, it’s everywhere and it’s nowhere. You say, where is it, I want to read it. They’ll say, Well, it’s a body of precedents that define the relation among king, lords and commons. Fine, so let me see at least an unofficial collection of those precedents. Well, they say, You can’t even have that. And the reason why, is a lot of those precedents are secret precedents that you’re not allowed to know. And as Sherman has pointed out, you have the Star Chamber, you have these secret courts, they have them all the time, we have them here, too, in the US. Probably it will turn out that a lot of the relations among king, lords and commons, when the archives are finally opened after the revolution, that they are determined by those secret decisions back in the Star Chamber, and back in the Bloody Assizes, which Sherman has been talking about. So that you have a constitution which has no – It’s anything you want it to be. The other thing about it is, in the English system, there’s absolutely no distinction between a constitutional amendment and a statute law. In other words, as soon as you have a Parliament, you have a Prime Minister with a majority, they can pass anything they want by majority vote, and that changes the constitution – and that’s wild. There’s no distinction between constitutional amendment and just a statute law that they ram through from time to time.

S. I’m interested in the subject because I once years ago wrote an appeal brief about secret courts.

L. Sherman, we’re running out of time, let’s get back to the Gunpowder Plot and sum it up.

S. Yes, sum it up, Webster.

W. Who can we quote, we can quote perhaps from Godfrey Goodman, let’s see if we find him, Godfrey Goodman was the Anglican bishop of Gloucester, and he was contemporary of these events, and his finding is, Cecil knew about Catholic resentment of James I, and “because he would show his service to the state, he first contrived and then discovered a treason, and the more odious and hateful the treason was the more his service would be greater, and the more acceptable.” Another one, Short View of English History, “Some have affirmed that this design was first hammered out in the forge of Cecil, who had originally intended to produce this plot in the time of Elizabeth, and to this end, by his secret emissaries, he enticed some hot-headed men of the Catholic persuasion, who, ignorant whence the design first came, heartily engaged in this execrable treason plot.” So, he acted in the double spirit of his predecessor Walsingham and basically everybody in this plot had his role assigned by Cecil. Some were conscious double agents who thought they were going to be spared, but they were liquidated, and a lot of them were just fanatics, dupes and patsies, and it’s a clear example of state-sponsored, false-flag terrorism 400 years ago.

L. Thanks so much for updating us on that, it’s just tremendous to have you.

W. Happy Guy Fawkes Day to all.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
The G20 is probably going to announce a carbon tax in this meeting.

And then these useful idiots will be like "yeah, we made them do it!"

By the way, this is the flyer I was given:

It sounds very reasonable. But then the crap about climate change and abolishing borders smells like a CFR Hollywood script.


  • Guest
There most likely will be a riots at G20.

Think about it, the elite WANT the riots to happen, so they picked London for the G20 meeting.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: British plan to execute protestors at G20 -- CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2009, 09:15:03 am »
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: British plan to execute protestors at G20 -- CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2009, 09:36:30 am »
Judicial Background for Re-introduction of Death Penalty in the EU


On Apr.18, 2008, a post was published on this blog: "The Lisbon Treaty Legalizes EU-Dictatorship with Death Penalty, wherein Helga Zepp-Larouche quoted Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider as saying the Lisbon Treaty would mean the re-introduction of death penalty in the EU. Now a dicussion is taking place as for whether this statement is legally correct or not, e.g. on the well-informed “Gates of Vienna” blog.

Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna wrote this very concise and relevant question to me: "
"The issue is this: "…And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty, we accept also the European Union Charter, which says that there is no death penalty, and then it has a footnote, which says, "except in the case of war, riots, upheaval"- then the death penalty is possible. Schachtschneider points to the fact that
this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote, and you have to read it, really like a super-expert to find out!"
I want to know where this "footnote" is. I can't find it, and nobody else has found it so far".

Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider was Professor at the Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nuremberg - previous Chair of Public Law

Professor Schachtschneider has repeated his statement on March 26, 2007, in the "Welt Online". Considering the the weighty consequences of the re-introduction of death penalty through the Lisbon Treaty I started searching and with the help of BüSo, Germany, I found the   Explanation of Prof.  Karl Albrecht  Schachtschneider´s statement on the re-inroduction of death penalty.
Unfortunately, I have to admit that this explanation occurs tenable to a layman like me, which is to say with the Lisbon Treaty death penalty will be re-introduced in Europe. For Union law takes precedence over national law!!

Texts about death penalty .
As for the links: Some refer to the official texts in German, where I have not been able to find the corresponding text in English. The quoted references seem to be correct.

*The Treaty of Lisbon .
The position of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is declared in ARTICLE 6 (1) of the Lisbon Treaty. "The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties."

*Charter of Fundamental Rights
Quotation from the preamble  of the Charter of  Fundamental Rights as for the position of the clarifying explanations (Dec. 14, 2007): "In this context the Charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and
the Member States with due regard to the explanations prepared under the authority of the Praesidium
of the Convention which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of
the European Convention."

Clarifying Explanations to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Source: Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union (official German)
3. The decisions of article 2 of the Charter correspond to the decisions of the mentioned article of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950)  and the supplementary protocol . They have according to article 52 passage 3 of the Charter the same meaning  and significance/reach . So the "negative definitions" of the ECHR 1950 must also be considered  part of the Charter:
a) Article 2 passage 2 ECHR 1950:
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Right: Hanging in iran. Under special circumstances this is also possible in the EU.

b) Article 2 of protocol nr.6 of the ECHR 1950:
"*A state can in its legal system provide for death penalty for offences committed in time of war or on immediate danger of war. *; This penalty is only allowed in cases provided in the penal code and in accordance with its provisions…"

The Treaty has precedence over the legal system of member states
Here the relevant passages from the declarations of the supplementary protocol of the Treaties of Lisbon: 17. Declaration on Precedence: The Conference refers to the fact that the Treaties and the legal system laid down by the Union on the basis of the treaties in accordance with the permanent jurisdiction of the EU Court of Justice under the conditions laid down in this juridiction take precedence over the legal system of the member states.
Furthermore, the Conference has decided that the report of the Judicial Service of the Council on Precedence is to be attached to this final act in the edition of the Document 11197/07 (JUR 260):

Report of the Judicial Service of the Council as of June 22, 2007
After the jurisdiction of the (EU) Court of Justice the precedence of EC legal system is one of the pillars of  the legal system of the Community. According to the Court of Justice this principle ensues from the special character of the European Community. At the time of the first verdict within the framework of this permanent jurisdiction (Rechtssache 6/64, Costa versus ENEL, 15 Juli, 1964 (1) this precedence was not mentioned in the Treaty. Nor is it today. The fact that the principle of this precedence has not been admitted to the future Treaty changes nothing at its existence and the existing jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. 
  From(…) ensues that no internal national regulations - no matter how they are composed  - can have precedence over the legal system created by the Treaty, a system which, so to speak, flows from an autonomous (= self-made) source of justice, because of this autonomy, unless its character of Community justice is taken away and unless the legal basis of the Community itself is questioned.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline robertcalm

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 807
The Head of the Snake
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2009, 06:50:00 pm »
 The G20 Summit...
Labour Party Convention
The Republican Convention

Where ever we target we are just venting anger at the quasi minions of the whole corrupt regime.

We know whose at the head of the illuminati Food Chain


So if people made their lives a misery, like they make ours, then you will have some kind of victory..

If you directly protest and harress the head of the snake you will begin to make them fear their wrongdoing and bring the attention of their involvement more into the mainstream...

Summits like the G20, held in the Capitol of the UK are designed to deflect attention from the real criminals..


  • Guest
Re: The Head of the Snake
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2009, 07:13:30 pm »
We know whose at the head of the illuminati Food Chain


Personally I have serious doubts that even with those names you have, what you call, the head of the snake. High up, possibly, but certainly not the wellspring of all this misery. Although I must admit as to having no clue to who (or what) realy is the source, my gut feeling tells me those mentioned above are just another part of the vast operational branche of the organisation, not the executive one.


  • Guest
Re: The Head of the Snake
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2009, 07:28:28 pm »
Personally I have serious doubts that even with those names you have, what you call, the head of the snake. High up, possibly, but certainly not the wellspring of all this misery. Although I must admit as to having no clue to who (or what) realy is the source, my gut feeling tells me those mentioned above are just another part of the vast operational branche of the organisation, not the executive one.

I tend to agree, at least with Kissinger.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: The Head of the Snake
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2009, 07:43:41 pm »
I tend to agree, at least with Kissinger.

kissinger is a messenger, always was.  add beatrix and we are getting somewhere.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Revolt426

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,190
Re: British plan to execute protestors at G20 -- CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2009, 08:59:58 pm »
They are going to cause complete chaos if the G-20 Summit does not go along with their plans. The Nations would be intelligent to do what Franklin Roosevelt did in a very similar situation, BOYCOTT the SUMMIT .

As i've said before, if the Crown does not get their way they are going to take the Chessboard and throw it on the floor. That means a False Flag. That means Agent Provocatuers to sabatoge the summit if say perhaps, one brave soul gets up and says something like "For the sake of humanity, we have to re-structure the world monetary system by putting it into bankruptcy and wiping out all Derivatives".

They do not want that. They need the circus to continue because the United Kingdom makes all of it's wealth from the Privatized Empire, the actual country does not produce anything.

It is like an Oligarch saying, if i dont get my way, then i will make sure no one else does............
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
Re: British plan to execute protestors at G20 -- CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2009, 06:08:40 am »
I would just like to point out. I did not write the title, "British plan to execute protesters at G20". It was edited by a moderator.

I was simply pointing out that the protest group mentioned is controlled opposition/do-gooder idiocy. I don't even remotely believe there is any plan to execute any protesters any time soon.

Offline cog

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: British plan to execute protestors at G20 -- CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2009, 06:14:11 am »
I'd say just deluded leftists. I mean take a look around, its not like theres a shortage of them, especially in the lead up to a meeting like G20.

Its very likely that the demonstration will be hijacked but think about how little resources it would take, these meetings and protests have been taking place for years now, itd all be pretty standard procedure for the authorities, they'd need one or a maximum of two people in the planning committee.
The man power would be needed on the day of the protest, where theyd only need a few people to start to smash things up and encourage the others. Although that was barely even needed as we saw in Seattle it was still actual anarchists doing it, the authorities just gave them a place to live for it.

I believe the EU  was passing laws to give rioters the death penalty. The G20 will most likely be the first big event which could end up in a riot since the passing of the laws, so they could use it to show off the power.


  • Guest
Re: British plan to execute protestors at G20 -- CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2009, 06:24:07 am »
Saw this website a few days ago, just ignored it.

Does seem like a bunch of confused folk who haven't done any homework and want global socialism to reign supreme..

ok then. next.

Offline Revolt426

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,190
Re: British plan to execute protestors at G20 -- CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2009, 01:11:01 pm »
It is not just a website, the London Flagship press is putting out constant articles saying London will be in complete chaos during the G-20 Summit.
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.

Offline Flur

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 594
Anyone up for some G20 speculations?
« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2009, 02:05:10 pm »
I know speculating on what might come about from the upcoming G20 meeting doesn't really do any good, but the board is filled with religious threads this morning and this might be a nice change.

new currency?  SDR?  global carbon tax??  hot air?

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  - 1 John 2:15


  • Guest
Re: Anyone up for some G20 speculations?
« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2009, 02:09:41 pm »
I can't see anything major occuring. I can see them announcing more regulations for bigger banks and they may touch on the carbon issue.

I don't think they'll announce a global currency for a good few years.

Offline IridiumKEPfactor

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,668
Re: Anyone up for some G20 speculations?
« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2009, 02:35:08 pm »
The globalist are probably going to hire and ship in some Anarchist and are going to televise them heavily. It will be like Seattle 1999 version 2.0. They will demonize legitamate protesting. They will cut to G20 members eating dinner together and scenes of them looking like they are working hard to find a solution. Their "Solution" has already been created. They will go along with the scripting.

 If I were to make a guess. I think it will come in 3 majors steps. Obama will speak this coming week talking about the fanacial issues tying in with the G20 meeting in April. The next hit will come in August/September just in time for the governments fiscal year to end.

America's growing season is about to start. This might be the last year we see farming the way that we have known it. It will be different from last year and next you will be very different from this year. I think that we are going to see more foreign countries buy up our food for cheap and there will shortages and anti hoarding laws or purchase restrictions/ rationing put into place.

"The U.S. government's fiscal year begins on October 1 of the previous calendar year and ends on September 30 of the year with which it is numbered."

Remember the banker bailout was the end or September and passed Oct 3rd. Think the next big move I see is Early Jan 2010 to June 2010. The real ID act and Codex Alimentarius comes up Dec 31 2009.

Codex Alimentarius = Food and Nutrient control
Real ID = Nation ID card, tracking ID ect.
G20, second meeting regarding the creation of a world central bank, global bank, and discarding the U.S. dollar as the worlds reserve currency
AngloAmericanAustralian demonization of Freedom and truth movements

I'm not sure about were World War 3  or a gernerate military comes into play but they have many options. Israel and Netanyahu is a wild card. They can go at Iran any day now. It might be tonight or it might be a year from now.

If I were a betting man, I would guess August and especially September looks like a prime period for fanacial troubles to really get bad. You have to look at last year because financial numbers were coming in. It could come sooner if the G20 decides on what to do with the dollar, a military crisis, or if other nations halt the purchanse of our debt.

Just my thoughts.

Offline Revolt426

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,190
Re: Anyone up for some G20 speculations?
« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2009, 03:02:23 pm »
My speculation is utter chaos.

My speculation is based on current events as follows;

1) Obama does not appear to agree with Gordon Brown (there is a whole thread on this in the phd section)

2) Germany Does not agree with Britain (British wishes for Germany and the US to bail the world out because we are the powerhouse nations

3) BRIC is opposed to any IMF funding (now with the exception of the idiots in Russia who just fell right into the London Trap via Kudrin)

4) The British have dispatched Prince Charles and Tony Blair on Global Warming "GREEN Revolution" Brainwashing tours of BRIC and other Nations (including the US) to convince the world the UK is leading the charge to tackle the fraud of "Climate Change".

5) After the rifts of the past week and the consiquent watering down of expectations of the G-20 Summit, the British Press have began releasing de-facto threats to G-20 Representatives saying "London will be brought to a standstill" , "Protesters will invade Foreign Nationals hotel rooms" , "There will be complete chaos". This to me is the British saying, Agree with our method or we will destroy everything.

6) The Obama Administration in particular, of which the UK needs 100% support in order to ram down the "Global New Deal" (which is the complete opposite of the original new deal),  is infighting as highlighted by none other then Paul Volcker, who is quoted in a Bloomberg article as blaming Larry Summers for the Economic Recovery mess and advocating the re-enacting of Glass/Steagall, which would isolate the Derivative issue to investment houses rather then Commercial Banks. There is no telling what Obama is going to do, however the Queen of England appearently thought this issue was quite importent because she demanded a "getting to know you" meeting with Obama at buckingham palace 2 nights prior to the G-20 Summit after the Gordon Brown disaster.
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.

Offline Doctor No NWO

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,397
  • I WiLL StiCK ThaT VaCCinE in YoUr EyeBaLL NWO!
Re: Anyone up for some G20 speculations?
« Reply #38 on: March 22, 2009, 03:52:16 pm »
The G20 is a bit like an Illegal blackjack card game, only members aloud behind closed doors & the house always wins if you know what I'm saying...;-)

Ever watched the Wrestling, you see the Wrestlers fighting in the ring, crowds going nut's for their favorite to win, but the Wrestlers are all working for the same Org & you know the fights are scripted & they play the script out

What is there to speculate?
No good will come form the G20, as always, its  Club NWO right

G20 is a get together of the elite's Reps & discussions on how best to f#$! the world population over & how to better safeguard their evil NWO masters & them selves.

Don't be fooled by the G20 NWO show, its all scripted by the NWO 
Nothing to Speculate;)

DEATH to the NWO!

Offline Revolt426

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,190
Re: Anyone up for some G20 speculations?
« Reply #39 on: March 22, 2009, 03:59:22 pm »
I disagree, nothing is scripted when leaders realize their countries are collapsing. Why is London dispatching Prince Charles and Tony Blair if everything is already settled upon?. Why are they using Think Tanks to spew utter horse shit telling numerous countries what they "Must do" such as the Heritage Foundation and Margaret Thatcher Freedom Institute (AKA go along with Gordon Browns Grand Bargain)?. Why did they appoint Lord Malloch Brown to organize and head up the summit (which means he will be moderating it and deciding which issues are addressed)?

Germany is being asked to bailout all of Eastern Europe and has refused, the U.S. is being asked to bailout the world and has not announced any plan, and BRIC is vehemently opposed to the pumping up of IMF Funding with the POSSIBLE exception of Russia from recent developements involving Minister Kudrin and his idiocy of invoking a Global Maastricht.

How do you not see utter chaos when no one agrees on anything?.
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.