The Crown

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: bar

Postby StarmanSkye » Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:54 pm

Whew ...<br>My head reels ... A lot of this stuff re: the convoluted history of the Crown Templars as an agency of Rome which constitutes the basis for the legal/financial corporate-franchise of the City of London -- and alleged implications for the inherant subversion of American sovereignty and system of law and Order -- while fascinating, is also arduously tedious and more than a bit bewildering. I can understand the head-hurting unease many folks have when reading deep-politics and parapolitics -- <br><br>My intention in posting wasn't to disseminate false ideas, but to provide more of the backstory to this narrative re: how the Soverign Crown and City of London might relate to the New World Order agenda -- or how it can be bent towards that end.<br><br>I don't esp. want to get into 'defending' any of these claims, as I'm not particularly invested in them -- and because as I see it the significance isn't in whether any or all these claims are true and verifiable, but how this narrative can be opportunistically used to impose a One World Government, as under premise of the US's moral exceptionalism and the legal auspices of an American/UK-dominated UN-fronted ramrodded 'legitimacy', extending the Crown/City of London's original charter to oversee God's Kingdom on Earth. This thesis or story or myth (whatever it is) doesn't even need to be widely known or told to the public to have importance, meaning and power -- but for instance, to be appropriated as a closely-held 'secret', a compelling rationale which authorizes an army of bureaucrats and top officers of the law, corporations and military and political institutions to commit whatever deceptions and abuses and crimes that may be necessary in order to bring about an intended 'noble' and worthy goal -- imposition of a One World Government agenda as the fruition of a incredibly complex, many-century conspiracy.<br><br>This would be, after all, much as the neocons created the myth of WMD and Iraqi ties to AlQaeda and financing terrorism -- all certifiably false -- as 'reasons' to authorize the war and invasion and occupation, with hundreds of thousands of deaths and over 250 billion dollars (and counting) and untold horrors of maimings and US embrace of torture and the world's contempt at American hypocritical arrogance.<br>As QQ pointed out, "From their conclusion -- 'Our journey through the murky world of occult brotherhoods, religious intrigue and even spirit contact leads inexorably to the dark world of modern politics.' This is essentially the core of the book."<br><br>The Bush neocons haven't even hid their belief they can 'create' a new reality, which the democrats, liberals and the 'opposition' and others then have to analyze and deal with -- but this has been a counterintelligence/propaganda technique of perception management, taken to another level.<br>Following the lead of many previous despots, notably Hitler, the NWO fascists have shown they're perfectly willing and able to take advantage of and appropriate any superstition, myth, belief system -- or group rivalries, tribalism and sectarianism, crises and world-events, to aid their plans.<br><br>The thing that really strikes me is how the (false) thesis re: Crown Templar/City of London are agencies of God's Kingdom constitutes the theoretical basis for the world's leading systems -- economics via corporate charters, the IMF/World Banks/International Bank of Settlements c/o SAwitzerland, and the Federal Reserve, legal-Judicial (traditional practices and principles of law which were freely borrowed-from by the newly-independant America) is a recurrant theme that surfaces in bits and pieces throughout many aspects of history and deep/para-politics. Consider -- the powerful, hidden role the Vatican played, working with both Axis and Allied powers in the war and post-war world, it's deep links to European Monarchies and American/international politics -- and global economics, espionage, Gladio/P-2 networks and counterintelligence, banking dynasties and criminal syndicates.<br><br>Re: American Bar Associations linked to 'British Accreditation Regency' -- that's not a thesis the World Newstand Site makes -- from the context, I think they provided the link to show how insidious false information is and which people are readily misled by. The do claim the American Bar associations are all franchises of the Crown Templars -- I suppose this can only be construed as extending from the custom and early tradition of Attornies practicing British law -- and which, if not acknowledged or formalized, would seem not to have any REAL meaning or consequence -- other than what someone might read into it. The claim that all bankers and Bar attorneys owe allegiance to the Crown at Chancery -- apparently simply by swearing an oath to uphold the Federal and respective State constitutions -- is a *bit* of a leap. <br><br>--quote--<br>The U.S.A. is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal U.S. Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery - the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located at Chancery Lane - a manipulative body of elite bankers and attorners from the independent City of London who violate the law in America by imposing fraudulent "legal" - but totally unlawful - contracts on the American people. <br><br>The banks Rule the Temple Church and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim's judiciary. Since the first Chancel of the Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar, this is not a new ruling system by any means. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court was where King John was, in January 1215, when the English barons demanded that he confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta. <br><br>--unquote--<br><br>Like the above, the site's thesis goes towards establishing what the Biblical Revelations refers to as the False Church, false doctrine, and 'The Mystery Babylon' which is an attribute of the antichrist. While some of these ideas are questionable of not outright wacky, like the Crown having never renounced the charters and letters of patents for the American Colonies, despite the treaty of Paris which was effectively nullified by having been signed on both sides by Crown officials -- American attorney's Hamilton and Franklin (titled as per their training in British Law: Esq) and a representative of The Crown -- or that five Declaration of Independence signers having been Middle Templars.<br><br>--quote--<br>"To have this "Declaration" recognized by international treaty law, and in order to establish the new legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, Middle Templar King George III agreed to the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, "between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States". The Crown of Great Britain legally was, then and now, the Crown Temple. This formally gave international recognition to the corporate "United States", the new Crown Temple States (Colonies). <br><br>Most important is to know who the actual signatories to the Treaty of Paris were. Take particular note to the abbreviation "Esqr." following their names (see above definition for ESQUIRE) as this legally signifies "Officers of the King's Courts", which we now know were Templar Courts or Crown Courts. This is the same Crown Templar Title given to Alexander Hamilton (see above). <br><br>The Crown was represented in signature by "David Hartley, Esqr.", a Middle Templar of the King's Court. Representing the United States (a Crown franchise) by signature was "John Adams, Esqr", "Benjamin Franklin, Esqr." and "John Jay, Esqr." The signatories for the "United States" were also Middle Templars of the King's Court through Bar Association membership. <br><br>What is plainly written in history proves, once again, that the Crown Temple was representing both parties to the agreement.<br>--unquote--<br><br>As to what this all really 'means' --<br>Other than the theoretical basis for 'validating' a One World Government with a long, distinguished peerage extending from Rome and the Pope to the Crown Templars and the City of London, the World Newstand Site is promoting a rather novel critique of and moral faith-based opposition to NWO fascism via linking the history of Crown Templars to scripture. This site *seems* to have a Patriot-rightwing lean (its news-links to The Liberty Post and Liberty Forum), but also with a more alternative and 'liberal' sensibility -- also linking to Information Clearinghouse and Buzzflash and Common Dreams.<br><br>While I haven't seen any of the overt Patriot-movement baiting on this site as with (for example) arguments re: declaring oneself a nonaligned Sovereign Citizen to evade Income taxes, I was linked to a story on oil barons appearing before the Senate, correctly critiquing their racketeering and limited refinery-capacity scam but pooh-poohing Hubbert's peak oil thesis (confusing peak-oil with total depletion) and stating the 'strong' brand of abiotic-theory that oil is an abundant, perpetually replenishing resource (which there's no evidence for).<br><br>Hmmm ...<br>Maybe one thing in particular this controversy really helps show is the disadvantage anti-fascists have with making common-cause alliance with others since there's so much potential for disinfo and false-dogma and a range of contradictory opinions/beliefs compared with the on-point single-motive solidarity of fascists. I mean, cripes -- the so-called democrats can't even agree that one of their members should be free to call for censuring the Prez (sic).<br><br>Starman<br> <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

People ask for proof ?

Postby slimmouse » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:09 pm

<br><br> Starman, to my mind, only the blind are seeking "proof" at this point.<br><br> Either the blind, the decieved, or the complicit.<br><br> Go figure. <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

I probably forgot another category..

Postby slimmouse » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:39 pm

<br><br> I did of course forget another 2 categories ;<br><br> The Really wise and the afraid !<br><br> Time to say it as it is ?<br><br> I suppose you work out how it best works for you <br><br> The important thing being that you hold on to your soul.<br><br> The PTB hate that kind of person - Since ultimately, it contravenes everything these misguided people stand for.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

The Templars and The Crown

Postby antiaristo » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:55 pm

Starman,<br>It ALL goes to the Crusades, does it not?<br>Or more accurately to the Templars.<br><br>Who began as the Poor Knights of Christ.<br>Then went to Jerusalem, and apparently found something in the Temple of Solomon.<br><br>And re-named themselves Knights of the Temple of Solomon.<br>Then became the personal prelature of the Pope.<br>Something which has happened again with JPII and Opus Dei.<br><br>I've been looking at a book by Herbert W Armstrong called The United States and Britain in Prophecy.<br><br>Yes, I know Armstrond was a fraud, and since discredited. But the line he was pushing merits consideration.<br><br>He makes much of the separation of the Birthright and the Sceptre. His Biblical quotes are<br><br>"The Sceptre shall not depart from Judah..." (Gen 49:10)<br><br>"...But the Birthright was Joseph's" (I Chron. 5:")<br><br>His argument was that the Scepte represents SPIRITUAL authority, and culminated in Jesus Christ, who was of the House of David.<br><br>The Birthright represents WORLDLY authority, as granted by God to Abraham under the Covenant. And WORLDLY authority translates to the law<br><br>But that went to Joseph who, according to Armstrong, was NOT a Jew, being of the wrong tribe.<br><br>We can trace Joseph into Egypt, then out during the Exodus with Moses, then into the Promised Land.<br><br>So the thought strikes, could what you are calling The Crown actually be related to this "Birthright"?<br><br>Yes, I know Armstrong has been discredited. But is there any EVIDENCE against this speculation? <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I probably forgot another category..

Postby Dreams End » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:06 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Yes, I know Armstrong has been discredited. But is there any EVIDENCE against this speculation?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think this may explain a lot about the thinking process around here. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: The Templars and The Crown

Postby antiaristo » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:41 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think this may explain a lot about the thinking process around here.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Dreams End,<br><br>Is this yet another of your attempts to censor others?<br>I think you ought to back up your snide remarks with some LOGICAL thinking.<br>Not your personal prejudices.<br><br>Anyway, I thought you'd given up on us? <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I probably forgot another category..

Postby Dreams End » Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:07 am

It's logic I'm looking for. Asking for proof AGAINST a supposition is not logical. I can't really provide any evidence that George W. Bush is not secretly Prince Charles in disguise. Well, maybe the ears...but still, makeup effects are amazing these days.<br><br>One cannot prove a negative. <br><br>A further problem is that if there is something of substance to a thesis, then appealing to a known discredited source makes no sense. Why Armstrong, of all people, if the thesis has any merit?<br><br>Don't get me wrong...this is a fascinating area. And there's plenty of solid ground. To oversimplify a bit, we know that the Knight's templar existed. We know that the Cathars did. We know the Freemasons still do. Ditto the Illuminati and Rosicrucians. <br><br>I could go on and on. And there's lots of scholarship out there on all this sort of thing. But appealing to a source, even when qualifying it as discredited and then asking if there is evidence against the speculation...well, I don't even know how to explain it if I should, in fact, have to explain it.<br><br>In general, I think it's a good idea to find sources of information that tell you where that information comes from. Sometimes, evidence is missing...then rock solid logic and analysis, or else clearly labeled speculation is in order. I understand that secret societies are called secret societies for a reason and don't go around advertising their members and their agenda. <br><br>But there simply have to be some sorts of standards for us to judge the merits of an idea. Simple text on a web page somewhere is not enough...after all MY OWN words are on this page, and you give them little credibility....someone else may credit mine but not yours, etc.<br><br>In my real posts...when I had a little more time for research, I tried to link to my sources when possible. And you, Anti, do this all the time when you are talking about more contemporary affairs. In fact, with so little knowledge of English politics and personalities, I find those posts dizzying...though English readers probably find much to digest. <br><br>So why shirk on the Templars? Why Armstrong? It's simply sloppy...that's all. <br><br>And I didn't mean to get drawn into this thread...but the subject is really interesting...and I know you won't believe me but I get just as annoyed when I find misinformation in areas that I might actually give some credence to as I do when I find misinformation that runs counter to my own views. In fact, more so. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: The Templars and The Crown

Postby StarmanSkye » Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:12 am

"It all goes back to the Crusades."<br><br>Looking into the role of God's authority as the basis of Britains' (well, the whole UK) governing and legal system, as a way to understand the historical and modern relevance of the Crown Templar and the City of London, I came across this article discussing the many ways in which UK's governance violates human rights -- AND pointing out that it's essentially non-democratic.<br><br>Like, WOT? How incredibly absurd -- WHY do the British people stand for this? And what an irony -- the UK is in Iraq supposedly promoting 'democracy' and a democratic constitution -- but the Brits themselves have not had their OWN revolution throwing-out the feudal-era monarchy and declaring true equal rights, leveling the playing field that is littered with classist inequalities and unearned priveleges.. I never before realized what an inherantly unjust, inequitable system the Brits had. American 'news', magazines and documentaries and articles don't discuss such absolutely relevant, important and vitally-intersting 'foreign' issues. And truth tell -- I was never motivated before to specifically research such a topic. What I DO know is bits and pieces gleaned from reading widely on a range of topics and scattered pieces of war and sundry social, anthropological and science histories.<br><br>This is Amazing.<br><br>I don't know (or recall) anything about Herbert Armstrong or the Birthright and the Sceptre; How might this be related to the Crusades and the Holy Grail? Certainly, as an (the) embodiment of Worldy Authority, the Birthright could be the basis for establishing the Crown Templar as the embodiment of God's Law on earth. Britain's history and that of its rulers is keenly linked to the Crusades and 'service' to the Christian God -- To a degree little-understood by Americans and the 'rest' of the West. Likewise, adminstration of Palestine and the Middle East are important parts of the puzzle. Key here (and not to be ignored) is that we are talking about beliefs and values that inform Britain's 'leadership', and the system of laws and economy by which powerful and wealthy interests rule over an increasingly large part of the world. <br><br>I dunno if this is the best place to post this, but it DOES link to the Crown c/o its monarchy.<br>Starman<br>**********<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon_rights.html">www.centreforcitizenship....ights.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>--quote--<br>How Britain’s Monarchy Denies Civil Rights<br>A talk to the Eton College Shelley Society, 9 September 2002 <br><br>Introduction <br><br>I thank the Shelley Society for inviting me to speak this evening. <br><br>I must give particular thanks because I have been invited here, so close to the home of the British monarchy, with the specific intention of breaking the law <br><br>The Treason Felony Act 1848 says that if any person --<br>"intend to deprive (our most gracious Lady) the Queen from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom" -- that person is guilty of treason. <br><br>That’s what I want to do - to deprive Liz Windsor and her successors of the job of monarch. I know that the police will not be called and that I won’t be executed or even serve time because of what I say. This is a democracy after all - a country that values freedom of expression, and that tolerates dissent. <br><br>But the fact remains that the law says that it is treasonous to argue that every citizen of this nation should be eligible for consideration for our chief public office, the office of head of state. <br><br>In Britain free speech can be treasonous. The advocacy of democratic public institutions can be treasonous. <br><br>You may say it does not matter what the law says if its not enforced. No one is inhibited by archaic laws. <br><br>But if we are to have a government of laws and not of men - as the Americans say - we should not be dependent on the good will of the police and judiciary. We must know what our rights are, know without doubt what’s legal and what’s illegal. <br><br>When it comes to the monarchy, however, we have free speech, not by right but as a privilege - and privileges cannot be relied on. <br><br>It there’s is anything more detrimental to the rights of the people than not having a written constitution, it is having laws say one thing when the practice is another. <br><br>That, in itself, infringes a right that a citizen should have in a democracy - to know clearly what he or she may do or say without breaking the law. <br><br>What can be the purpose of keeping pre-democratic laws in the statute book? Does it not have, at least, an inhibiting effect. Does not the outlawing of the expression of a belief brand that belief as beyond the pale, even when the law is not enforced? <br><br>Theme <br><br>My theme tonight is that the British monarchy infringes civil rights. <br><br>Not just that monarchy is unnecessary, out of date, or a bad idea - I say that it denies the human rights of those who are not monarchists. <br><br>My argument is also about who or what should be at the centre of our democracy. And about the source from which the authority of the state should flow. <br><br>If the idea of republican government as a human right seems far fetched - look at the US Constitution, written more than 200 years ago.. <br><br>Article 4, Section 4 states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." <br><br>Republican government is guaranteed - it’s a civil right set down by the people 200 years before Europe governments got around to telling us what they think our human rights are. <br><br>Let me be more specific about how monarchy violates human rights. <br><br>The head of state <br><br>I’ve mentioned already that it is against the law for anyone to advocate that we abolish the monarchy. Even MPs are not permitted to freely debate this institution. <br><br>The way we find our head of state - the holder of our highest public office - violates the principles of equal opportunity, of racial & religious equality, and of democracy. It is in breach of the principle that in a democracy we are all created equal in the eyes of the law. <br><br>Everybody in this country understands that unless they are a Windsor they are barred from our highest public office. <br><br>That’s as ingrained into our thinking as the idea that every child may one day be President is ingrained into the thinking of Americans. <br><br>In Britain there can be no Abe Lincolns or Bill Clintons overcoming disadvantage to be chosen for our highest office. <br><br>If an employer selects staff on the basis of family membership - if for example a firm fills it vacancies through the family contacts of its current staff - it exposes itself to investigation by Commission for Racial Equality. <br><br>This is what the Court of Appeal said last year about an appointment to a public position made from a "circle of family, friends and personal acquaintances." <br><br>It said "It will often be open to objection for a number of reasons. It may not produce the best candidate for the post. It may be likely to result in the appointee being of a particular gender or racial group. It may infringe the principle of equal opportunities." <br><br>But we appoint our head of state - our chief public official - from an even more restricted circle. The point should not need labouring - if I am denied a public position, an honour, a benefit for any reason that is not to do with my suitability, I am the victim of unfair discrimination. <br><br>Imagine the reaction if it was proposed in the US that the head of state must be of a particular religious belief and must be white. There would be international outrage. It would be seen as evidence of America’s eradicable racism. But that’s exactly what our unwritten Constitution requires and it’s generally accepted without question. <br><br>Religious discrimination is part and parcel of our system for selecting our head of state. She must be an Anglican - the 1710 Act of Settlement requires this. It hardly matters that only a minority of the population are Anglicans. Jews, atheists, Muslims, Catholics, Methodists - we are all deemed, by our constitution unfit to be head of state because of our beliefs. <br><br>And because this office is on perpetual lease to the Windsor family, the office of head of state is effectively the preserve of white people. <br><br>It’s hard to think what could be a more blatant denial of the rights of those of us who are not Anglican or white. <br><br>At the apex of British public life we have an institution that might define institutional racism <br><br>You might perhaps respond to my comments so far by saying that the monarch is a ceremonial figure with little or no real power. That it does not matter if she is not elected. <br><br>I would disagree - I would say that even if that were so, the symbolism of monarchy is in itself detrimental to a democratic society. <br><br>However, the pernicious effects of monarchy, its denial of civil rights, go far beyond the actual position of monarch. <br><br>Let us look at the legislature. <br><br>The Legislature - The House of Commons <br><br>Do you think that Parliament is open to all who can win a parliamentary election? It’s not so. Republicans legislators are banned by law from sitting in Parliament. <br><br>The Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 (note how relatively recent these laws are - 19th century, not 15th) - requires that legislators declare their loyalty to a hereditary ruler - not to the people, the nation or the Constitution. <br><br>Here is the oath that our legislators must recite : "I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and her successors, according to law, so help me God." <br><br>They must declare their loyalty to an unelected, unaccountable individual with no democratic legitimacy, and to any and all members of her family! <br><br>That means that the law, in its effects, disenfranchises republicans in Britain - it says people of my beliefs are not fit to sit in Parliament. That is that people of strongly democratic persuasion are not fit to sit in the British parliament because they cannot accept the legitimacy of monarchy. <br><br>Unlike the law on treason this one is enforced. Sinn Fein members of parliament, duly elected, cannot take their seats. Not because of their association with terrorists - but because they will not swear allegiance to a monarch. <br><br>You may say "there are republicans in parliament" - that’s how my MP, the Minister for Sport, a Labour Party member, Tessa Jowell, dismissed me when I wrote to her. She said in effect that if I wanted to sit in Parliament my first act should be to lie and to humble myself before the Windsors. This democrat found nothing to object to in that. <br><br>Some MPs do lie by taking an oath they do not believe. Some engage apparently in a childish superstition of crossing their fingers while taking the oath. Is that supposed to make it all right? It does not. It reduces democracy to a farce. What kind of democracy requires that the first act of a legislator should be to lie, to deny their true beliefs, to put an hereditary ruler before the people who elected them? <br><br>If you think that I make too much of this I ask you whether it would it be acceptable to bar Jews and then tell them they could pretend not to be Jewish? Or to require a religious oath and then tell atheists that they should pretend a belief in God? <br><br>In fact atheists used to be barred from Parliament in a way similar to the present ban on republicans. I guess that some may have lied or crossed their fingers as apologists for the royal oath would no doubt have had them do. But Charles Bradlaugh was elected twice and twice refused to swear "by God." He did not believe in a God. Eventually the law was changed after Prime Minister William Gladstone declared that he had no fear of atheists in the House of Commons. It seems though that the fear of republicans remains. <br><br>This oath is in fact twofold in its denial of civil rights. <br><br>It discriminates against the holders of a particular political belief - republicans. <br><br>But it also denies freedom of expression. <br><br>For freedom of expression requires not only that citizens should be able to say what they believe. But also that they should not be required to say what they do not believe - free speech includes the right not to speak. <br><br>As long ago as 1943 the US Supreme Court said this: <br><br>"Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. <br><br>"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." <br><br>The Court held that a school student who objected for religious reasons need not recite the Pledge of Allegiance. <br><br>Note that last phrase of that judgement. No official should be able to force a citizen to express a belief they do not hold. Yet my Member of Parliament says that I should be happy if required to do just that. <br><br>And If you still think that the oath is unimportant listen to this quote from a Liberal Democrat MP, Norman Baker. <br><br>"We take an oath of allegiance to the queen personally. It becomes difficult to ask questions about her finances thereafter." He confesses that he puts a felt duty to the Windsor family above his duty to the people. In a democracy we have a right to expect our legislators to put the people first, not an hereditary ruler. <br><br>Taxes <br><br>In connection with the ban on republicans we might recall the rallying cry of the American revolutionaries - No taxation without representation. But it’s barely heard. In a monarchy it would seem eccentric. In Britain the law denies me representation in Parliament and declares me unfit to hold our highest public office, yet expects me to pay taxes nonetheless. <br><br>Oaths <br><br>It is important to note that the effects of royal oaths go far beyond Parliament. <br><br>Judges, military officers and police officers must also swear allegiance to the monarch. This also makes of republicans second class citizens, or liars. <br><br>There is an international aspect to this also. In Canada, republicans working for the state can lose their livelihoods because of their beliefs. There is a truck driver for a provincial government that was sacked for refusing to take the oath. And a French Canadian, a man who could hardly be expected to have a loyalty to Britain or to the British queen, cannot practice law because he will not swear loyalty to the Windsor family. <br><br>The Legislature - The House of Lords <br><br>Let’s move on to the other place, the House of Lords. <br><br>The same oath is required of the legislators in the Lords. But the Lords is much more of an affront to our rights than that. <br><br>Article 3 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights says that: <br><br>"The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature." <br><br>There you have it - the House of Lords breaches the human rights granted to us by the European Convention of Human Rights - none of those legislators have been elected. <br><br>You might ask what this has to do with monarchy. <br><br>The answer is that if you have an unelected head of state for life at the pinnacle of your system of government the principle of government by the people and for the people is seriously undermined. Why not have legislators -for-life if you have a head of state-for-life? If the people need not choose a head of state who is accountable to them - why do they need to choose legislators who are accountable? <br><br>The House of Lords is an organic part of the monarchical and feudal system from which are constitution grew - it is based on hereditary right, respect for birth, government from above, government by our "betters," deference, respect for privilege, contempt for the people as their own governors. <br><br>This is clear from the fact that until the end of the twentieth century every hereditary Lord had a right to be a legislator-for -life - unelected, unaccountable. That’s extraordinary. <br><br>Even now there are still some hereditaries there, who got their position in the same way as the queen got hers. The rest are unelected - cronies, hacks and people who bought a place for £1M <br><br>How is it possible that we tolerate this? <br><br>How is it possible that our democratic government is able to propose that this stay much the same in the 21st century? How is it possible that the Labour party could find it conceivable in 2002 that they could get away with proposals that legislators should not be elected? <br><br>Our tolerance of the monarchical system makes it possible. The monarchical system provides the historical grounding, the organisational background, the cover. As long as we deny the primacy of the people in our government by accepting a hereditary head of state, we leave the door open to undemocratic institutions and practices everywhere. <br><br>If you think I’m being at all radical listen to what the Economist magazine said earlier this year about the proposition that the second chamber should be elected: <br><br>"Of course it should be. Direct elections are how democratic countries get their legislatures. Legislatures are reckoned to work better if they have second chambers. Ergo, Britain should have an elected second chamber. Hard, wasn't it?" <br><br>What’s hard, in a nation imbued with monarchical values, is for many to grasp this simple concept. <br><br>The Church of England <br><br>Twenty-six of our legislators in the House of Lords are Church of England appointees. <br><br>The majority of us - from the age of 18 - can vote for one representative in Parliament . But those of you who belong to the Church of England get two bites at the democratic cherry. Your Church has 26 legislators by right, unaccountable to the electorate, unremovable by the electorate. When the government proposed that in the reformed House, the Church should have six fewer legislators, the Church complained about its treatment. What arrogance is possible when feudal privilege is given house room! <br><br>It is impossible to find any credible defence for this privilege - this discrimination against the majority of us who are not Anglicans. <br><br>These privileges for the Church of England make rest of us second class citizens when measured against Anglicans. <br><br>How is such an undemocratic, such an offensive state of affairs possible? It is, of course, very much tied in with the monarchy. The CoE is the state church, it’s headed by the monarch. The monarch must be an Anglican. The monarch must be the defender of the Anglican faith. And politicians shy away from correcting this abuse because the Church is a part of the monarchical system. Earlier I quoted a Liberal Democrat MP who confessed that he did not like to question the royal finances. You can bet that he’s equally reluctant to question the royal church. <br><br>A decent regard for human rights demands that Church and State be separate - that no citizen be obliged to do any business with a religious organisation in the course of their relations with the state. <br><br>But as well as having a right to seats in our legislature, the Church of England also as the right to put its hands into the pockets of those who do not belong to its church. <br><br>Because the separation of Church and state that is essential in a democracy has never existed in this country we find ourselves obliged to give financial support to the CoE and by extension to other religions as well. <br><br>The Judiciary <br><br>An independent judiciary is another requirement in a democratic nation. It is wrong for the same people to write the laws and then sit in judgement on them. That was recognised by the American Founders 200 years ago. <br><br>In Britain’s monarchical system, however, there has been no perceived need for such separation for there is little perceived need to limit the power of state. Where monarchical attitudes have sway the people are still subjects to be ruled in one way or another and checks on state power are weak. <br><br>So senior judges sit in House of Lords as legislators and the head of judiciary is a government minister <br><br>In short the British people are denied their right to a truly independent judiciary. <br><br>The Honours System & Aristocracy <br><br>My namesake, Richard Pratt, has suggested in his plug for this meeting that when one is examining the monarchy the honours system is a trivial consideration. On this I have to disagree. <br><br>Britain is obsessed with class - perhaps more so than any comparable society. The honours system and the aristocracy are key elements of this. Through these systems the state not only endorses inequality, it calibrates it. <br><br>That’s why they are more than just disagreeable vestiges of feudalism. The honours system and the state’s endorsement of aristocracy violate our right to be seen by the state as essentially equal. Not equal in intelligence, wealth, athletic prowess or in many other respects, perhaps. But as equal citizens in our relations with the state. <br><br>In a lecture to Tony Blair and his friends at Downing Street on Britishness in the 21st Century the academic Linda Colley, said: <br><br>"Titles suggestive of rank, as America’s Founding Fathers recognised, are incompatible with a Citizen Nation pledged to equality." <br><br>She was right. It’s not possible for a nation that has an hereditary head of state, that privileges one family in this fundamental way, to properly acknowledge the equality of its citizens. <br><br>Honours, of course, are awarded by the monarch. They are very much a part of the hierarchical system she heads. <br><br>In Bring Home The Revolution, Jonathan Freedland’s popular statement of the case for a British republic, he wrote that to refer to someone by a title such as Lord was to bow to them. In a democratic society, one with democratic values, as well as institutions, one equal citizen does not bow to another. <br><br>The British state actually encourages stratification and hierarchy by handing out titles and other honours. <br><br>I don’t have time to go into the effects of this but I would like to recommend a book to you. It’s Democracy in Europe, by Larry Siedentop. This book is as valuable for the way it illuminates some of the pernicious consequences of Britain’s class system as for what it says about Europe. <br><br>I would like to give you a couple of quotations: <br><br>"It is no accident that American products and modes have made the least profound impact on the country in which upper-and lower-class manners have survived most markedly, the United Kingdom." <br><br>"Their (the upper reaches of the middle class) manners and accents set them apart from the rest of society, and contributed to their developing a point of view which could not become general because it implied the permanent subordination of another section of society." <br><br>"Being someone rather than doing something became uppermost, with sad results for innovation and competition in Britain. . . . the even sadder result was that many able people from working-class and lower middle-class backgrounds came to feel intrinsically unable to aspire - excluded from full competition because they were not the right sort." <br><br>The best of the "right sort", of course, have titles. <br><br>Finally - The Constitution <br><br>Our unwritten, constitution has grown out of our undemocratic, monarchical, feudal past. It has not been agreed by the people. For those reasons it does not offer us the guarantees of our rights that a democratic constitution should. <br><br>There seems to be a contradiction, to say the least, between the recognition of monarchical right and a people’s constitution such as the Americans have. A constitution that protects the rights of the people has to come from the people. But a monarchy compromises the idea of the people as the supreme power. How can you recognise the right of one family to possess the chief public office and at the same time be fully committed to the principle of the sovereignty of the people? <br><br>So in practice we have failed to exercise our right to determine our own constitution - to lay down what our rights are, and what the duties of the government to us are. And a monarchical system hardly encourages us to exercise that right. <br><br>Without a written constitution whatever rights I may have may been given may be taken away at any time. And if my rights may be taken away I have no solid rights at all. <br><br>But how could we have a written constitution, a people’s constitution like the American one, as long as we acknowledge the feudal rights of one family, as long as the state looks up to the Crown for its authority and as long as we look up for our national symbols, instead of looking out to the people? <br><br>Conclusion <br><br>I feel obliged, as I finish, to state for the record that I do not believe that the abolition of the monarchy will end all this country’s ills or usher in a paradise. But it is a prerequisite for a society that recognises the people as the supreme authority and is democratic both in its institutions of government and in its values. <br><br>For what would benefit us most in Britain is that spirit of democracy that can never be fully realised while we pay homage to a particular family or to the values of a pre-democratic time. <br><br>Thank you for giving your time this evening. I hope that you have found at least some of what I had to say of interest. <br><br>I would like to hear now what you think and to try to answer any questions you may have. <br><br>John Pratt - The Centre for Citizenship<br>A slightly extended and edited version of a lecture to the Shelley Society at Eton College on 11 September 2002 <br><br>*****<br>All monarchies have a tradition of ruling by the authority of God -- none less than GB;<br>The following is a 'modern' critique of Britain's decline traced to the increasing perversion of Protestantism under assault by the Catholic Pope. American's probably overlook the role of Protestant influence in Britian's major governing institutions, as well as in its laws and economics.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=void">www.ianpaisley.org/articl...rtKey=void</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>--quote--<br>It is seldom appreciated today that the Constitution of the United Kingdom is specifically Christian and totally in accord with Biblical law. Every British Monarch since Alfred the Great (849-899) has acknowledged Almighty God as sovereign over the Realm, and every British Monarch since Edgar (959-975) has been anointed by God to rule in the Name of Christ. It was King Alfred who appended the Ten Commandments to the Statute Book of the Realm: there they still remain today; and the history of Britain demonstrates that there is a definite correlation between the measure of her prosperity and safety on the one hand and the extent to which she respected and adhered to those divine Laws on the other.<br><br>(NOTE: This is, of course, willful ignorance and duplicity -- for during this period of 'prosperity' GB was committing terrible atrocities and injustices in its colonial ambition, shamelessly appropriating property and resources, enslaving whole regions for indentured servants or forced-labor in dangerous mines and building projects or farm-works or as menial domestics and civil servants -- smuggling rum and opium, guns and slaves, waging brutal wars of conquest on behalf of corporations, trampling on human rights and ignoring God's laws re: murder and violance and theft and adultry (rape). It's a testimony of how grotesquely uninformed and/or inconsiderate the developed-world public are, how oblivious they are to the source or cause of their wealth and material privelege, or the incredible suffering and crimes their nations' have caused. This is a damnable quality which I find utterly contemptable -- the same blase disregard with which American and British troops follow transparently illegal 'orders' to inflict unconscionable brutalities -- because they lack the self-dignity to question an illigitimate 'leadership', they lack the courage of their convictions and honor to refuse to be party to a war-profiteer's wet-dream -- they travel 7000 miles to become bullies for an empire led by murderous gangsters. I shudder to think of the karmic 'lesson' the US and UK are in-line to learn)<br><br>For a long time prior to the sixteenth century England was in a state of gross darkness as to the knowledge of God and His Word, languishing under the dominion of the Church of Rome, which proscribed the Bible, and under the assumed power and authority of the Pope; but God in His sovereign purposes had designs of mercy towards this Nation in delivering her from that grievous ignorance and bondage. In His providence He raised up men enlightened by the Holy Spirit to perceive, expose and resist the evils of Popery – men who saw the necessity for the people to have the Scriptures in their own language; men who laboured, suffered and were martyred to have the Bible translated into English.<br><br>When Britain became Protestant at the time of the Reformation and took the Word of God as her guide, allowing the principles of the Bible to regulate all her actions and legislation, she enjoyed the favour of Heaven, and became great; her arms prevailed, and the British Constitution and British laws were the admiration and praise of all the earth.<br><br>By means of the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) Britain built ramparts around her freedom from Romanism and its hatred of Biblical law. That legislation pronounced it "inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince, or any King or Queen marrying a Papist" and required that every English Sovereign, on coming to the Throne, proclaim the Romish mass to be "superstitious and idolatrous".<br><br>On June 2, 1953, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was not simply 'crowned' but also 'anointed' as Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She was asked to make certain solemn promises to God and the people that she would "maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel". She also undertook "to maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law", and "to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to their respective laws and customs". She received, as a reinforcement of that promise, the Holy Bible as "the rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes". It was understood through this ceremony that the laws and customs of the United Kingdom were to be found in the Holy Bible, and that they were not to be changed, but that the people were to be governed by them alone. At one point during the ceremony, the Orb from the Crown Jewels was presented to the Queen, accompanied by the words: "Receive this Orb set under the Cross, and remember that the whole world is subject to the Power and Empire of Christ our Redeemer."<br><br>The Re-advancement of Popery in the United Kingdom<br><br>Nevertheless, Her Majesty's successive Governments did not execute justice and mercy in accordance with the Laws of God, and the principal reason for their default lies, as throughout British history, in their increasing appeasement of Popery.<br><br>From the Decrees of the Council of Trent to the Syllabus of Pius IX and beyond, it is the Popes who, of all tyrants and despots, have continuously sought to change times and laws. Rev. Robert Gault put it succinctly in his Prize Essay of the Evangelical Alliance: "Has not Rome set herself above all law, whether proceeding from God or man? Every verse of Scripture must remain mute until Rome grants it liberty of speech; and every rule, laid down by either prince or people, is invalid, unless it exactly square[s] with Popish views, and harmonize[s] with Popish traditions."1<br><br>Popery is the grossest form of idolatry, and the more closely a nation embraces Popery, the further it distances itself from the Laws of God; for Rome is the enemy of the Bible, the extinguisher of Gospel light, the slave-master of the human mind and the usurper of the sovereignty of Almighty God. It is therefore to be expected that communion with Rome is both the major catalyst in the decline of any Biblical Christian nation and the major sin by which God judges that nation.<br><br>--unquote--<br><br><br>The damning-critique above is as self-righteously zealous in its way as any American moral-majority televangelist in the tradition of Falwell, Baker, Robertson or ?<br><br>When the Subject peoples say, "God Bless the Queen!", they must really, really, I mean really MEAN it, eh?<br><br>From, the Queen's Coronation Oath, Novermber 4, 1952:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page926.asp">www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page926.asp</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>--quote--<br>Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?<br><br>Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.<br><br>Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?<br><br>Queen. I will.<br><br>Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?<br><br>Queen. All this I promise to do.<br><br>Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:<br><br>The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.<br><br>Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath. <br><br>The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.<br><br>*****<br>From statement by Christian Voice's Stephen Green over alleged 'blasphemy' of Jerry Springer and the Opera shown by BBC2 on Jan 8, from a program taped at London's Cambridge Theater in December::<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/springer12.html">www.christianvoice.org.uk...ger12.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--quote--<br><br>Our judges sit under the authority of God Himself<br>Some people may object to our bringing a case for blasphemy in what they see as the ‘secular courts’. The truth is our Queen was anointed at her coronation to rule under the authority of God as a Christian monarch. She promised to ‘maintain the laws of God’ in her courts. She was given the Holy Bible as the rule for her whole life and government. Whether they like it or not, the judges she appoints through her Lord Chancellor sit in judgment in her name. That means their judgment is from the Lord of hosts. Our courts are not ‘secular’ at all. And no-one should fall for the line that ‘we are not to judge.’ We won’t. That’s for the judge and jury!<br> *****<br>--S <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Well, Wadayaknow!

Postby antiaristo » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:53 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">Vatican change of heart over 'barbaric' Crusades</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--><br><br>From Richard Owen in Rome<br> <br>THE Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity. <br><br>The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since. Followers of Osama bin Laden claim to be taking part in a latter-day “jihad against the Jews and Crusaders”. <br><br>The late Pope John Paul II sought to achieve Muslim- Christian reconciliation by asking “pardon” for the Crusades during the 2000 Millennium celebrations. But John Paul’s apologies for the past “errors of the Church” — including the Inquisition and anti-Semitism — irritated some Vatican conservatives. According to Vatican insiders, the dissenters included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. <br><br>Pope Benedict reached out to Muslims and Jews after his election and called for dialogue. However, the Pope, who is due to visit Turkey in November, has in the past suggested that Turkey’s Muslim culture is at variance with Europe’s Christian roots. <br><br>At the conference, held at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, Roberto De Mattei, an Italian historian, recalled that the Crusades were “a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian lands and the Muslim devastation of the Holy Places”. <br><br>“The debate has been reopened,” La Stampa said. Professor De Mattei noted that the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Muslim forces in 1009 had helped to provoke the First Crusade at the end of the 11th century, called by Pope Urban II. <br><br>He said that the Crusaders were “martyrs” who had “sacrificed their lives for the faith”. He was backed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, who said that those who sought forgiveness for the Crusades “do not know their history”. Professor Riley-Smith has attacked Sir Ridley Scott’s recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as “utter nonsense”. <br><br>Professor Riley-Smith said that the script, like much writing on the Crusades, was “historically inaccurate. It depicts the Muslims as civilised and the Crusaders as barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.” It fuels Islamic fundamentalism by propagating “Osama bin Laden’s version of history”. <br><br>He said that the Crusaders were sometimes undisciplined and capable of acts of great cruelty. But the same was true of Muslims and of troops in “all ideological wars”. Some of the Crusaders’ worst excesses were against Orthodox Christians or heretics — as in the sack of Constantinople in 1204. <br><br>The American writer Robert Spencer, author of A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, told the conference that the mistaken view had taken hold in the West as well as the Arab world that the Crusades were “an unprovoked attack by Europe on the Islamic world”. In reality, however, Christians had been persecuted after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2093921,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...21,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Templars and The Crown

Postby Dreams End » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:11 pm

Look! Anti and I are agreeing on the (implied at least) condemnation of this attempt to whitewash the crusades. <br><br>Happy days. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Well, Wadayaknow!

Postby antiaristo » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:10 am

Dreams End,<br>If you think this is a whitewash, you misunderstand.<br><br>This is a makeover. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Templars and The Crown

Postby Dreams End » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:12 am

Oh. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

The New Crusade

Postby antiaristo » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:33 pm

Right on cue, the new, improved, re-branded Crusade.<br><br>The Good Guys.<br><br>Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">PM calls for worldwide terror war</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br><br>Press Association <br>Tuesday March 21, 2006 2:08 PM<br><br>Prime Minister Tony Blair is to call for a worldwide battle of "values and ideas" to combat the global threat of terrorism.<br><br>He will defend Britain and America's intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and criticise those opposed to his vision of an "activist" foreign policy.<br><br>Mr Blair, in the first of a series of three major speeches outlining his approach to foreign policy, will also warn: "This is not a clash between civilisations, it is a clash about civilisation."<br><br>He says terrorism must be confronted both in Britain and abroad, whether in Lebanon or Palestine, or Madrid or Paris.<br><br>He will attack the terrorist ideology for its "absurd" anti-Americanism, its pre-feudal approach to government and its approach to the role of women and intolerance of other faiths.<br><br>In his speech, Mr Blair will seek to explain what links the Government's approach to issues such as Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change and poverty in Africa.<br><br>According to a resume and extracts released by the premier's official spokesman, Mr Blair will in particular underline his belief in an activist approach to foreign policy based on values as well as interests. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>He will say such an interventionist approach is an essential pre-condition to our future prosperity and stability.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Mr Blair will argue that Britain and the world needs to develop "the politics of globalisation" to match the economics of globalisation.<br><br>And he will contrast that approach with what he labels "the doctrine of benign inactivity", which he says views America's response to September 11, 2001 as a gross over-reaction and each setback in Iraq and Afghanistan as a reason why Saddam Hussein and the Taliban should have been left in power.<br><br>The Prime Minister will say such an approach ignores the "life choices" each country faces between completing the transformation to democracy or returning to misery for millions.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5700962,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uklate...62,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

London's Cayman Islands: The Empire of the Hedge Funds

Postby madeupname452 » Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:50 pm

from http://www.globalresearch.ca/

On Feb. 27, the world's hedge funds, through their manipulation and miscalculation of the yen carry-trade, led to a violent unwinding of that carry-trade, which triggered disintegration of the world financial structure. Stock exchanges fell, from the Dow Jones exchange in the United States, to China's Shanghai composite index, to Brazil's Bovespa index, shedding more than $1.5 trillion in paper losses...

And where are those hedge funds? Though they may have offices in locations like Greenwich, Connecticut, or New York City, 8,282 out of the total of 9,800 hedge funds operating at the end of the third quarter 2006 worldwide, were registered in the Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory, run like a dictatorship by a Royal Governor appointed by Queen Elizabeth II, with a total population of 57,000 people.

There is good reason for this. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) is supposed to "regulate" the hedge funds, but instead runs a protection racket for their derivatives trading and tax sheltering. The CIMA gives each hedge fund, at registration, a 100-year exemption from any taxes; shelters the fund's activity behind a wall of official secrecy; allows the fund to self-regulate; and prevents other nations from regulating the funds by insisting on first and final authority in this area.

And the remainder of the world's hedge funds, not registered in the Cayman Islands? Most are registered in other British Overseas Territories and satrapies, such as the Bahamas, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, and the Isle of Man.
...
Though under British rule for centuries, the Caymans officially became a British Crown Colony in 1971, though later the term was changed to the euphemistic moniker British Overseas Territory; then as now, Queen Elizabeth II rules firmly, appointing the Islands' Governor, etc.

In 1993, the decision was made to turn this tourist trap into a major financial power, through the adoption of a Mutual Funds Law, to enable the easy incorporation and/or registration of hedge funds in a deregulated system. (Technically, a hedge fund is a type of mutual fund, but not your grandfather's type.*) According to a firm that incorporates hedge funds, "The Mutual Fund Law was established ... to position the Cayman Islands as a hub in the financial industry."


read the whole article http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Caveat about article source :for background to Executive Intelligence Review ,Larouche and http://www.globalresearch.ca see this thread
madeupname452
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests