A decade ago, in the last year of the twentieth century, thousands gathered under the banner of Anti-Globalisation and marched through the streets of London in an attempt to reclaim their birth right. The protest (dubbed J18)1, took place in tandem with the 25th G8 Summit in Cologne, Germany.
While many conferences of the G82, meeting have occurred in the past, only in recent years has its aims, agenda and motives been accompanied by general activism on the streets of those nations involved.
In tandem with these G8 meetings, other meetings involving the WTO (World Trade Organisation)3, and IMF (International Monetary Fund)4, have also been accompanied by major protests as they have taken place.
For many, the protests surrounding the development of the agenda of the G8, the WTO and the IMF has been largely ineffective and has simply served to publicise and normalise the agenda of these institutions at a time when the member nations of those meetings are attempting to coagulate into a single trading entity under the banner of globalisation, itself a blueprint for major and serious inequality to develop widely throughout the national trading systems of the world. For many more, globalisation is the only serving mechanism available to prevent internal economic protectionism and conflict developing between nations. Perceptual 'inter-dependence' forms the structural basis of globalisation in both arena's and it is this 'inter-dependence' which also forms the backbone of injustice once it is acquired.
Over the course of these meetings, and protests, little headway has been made in terms of integrating economic national systems and only moderate headway has been made in furthering the agenda of each institution in terms of its formal and informal remit. In 2011, after a decade of structural protest and activism, the public discourse is only moderately more informed about the conceptual framework of globalisation and its inherent benefits and failures.
In 2001, and in the midst of the most sensitive part of the building of the agenda of these institutions, the United States saw concerted, synchronised and decisive attacks on its civil and military systems at a number of locations within its territory and immediately sought to deploy its forces into territories around the Middle-East region. In each of these territories, substantial oil5, reserves and gas transit6, strategy were present in copious amounts. Almost immediately, the United States encountered serious and lasting damage to its aims, agenda and reputation on the international stage and withered under a lasting state of chronic guerrilla warfare which it chose to identify as 'insurgency'.
In 2008, the United States, the UK and other national partners involved in this 'insurgency' experienced widespread collapse of its internal banking and financial institutions. In each economy in which this collapse occurred, lasting stasis remains despite all efforts at recovery. In all economies where damage has been felt, serious structural problems remain.
Post financial collapse of industrial Globalisation.
Just over three years after global money markets descended into chaos with the loss of much of the western world's sovereign wealth, disparate groups have assembled under the 'Occupy' banner in New York7, Madrid8, and London9, to protest particracy, unemployment, austerity, unrepresentative democracy, bipartisanism and currency hoarding. The 'Occupy' protests take place while the US remains mired in a serious and persistent financial crisis and in tandem with a now resolved economic default of the Greek economy, a European Union member state. The crisis emerged after a long period of hostility between the two major trading bloc's and indicate that the United States and the European Union have just engaged in a serious bloc-skirmish, one of potentially many more to come.
The 'Occupy London' movement in the UK initially attempted to occupy the London stock exchange but was repelled by city police who then herded them to a position outside St Paul's Cathedral. The movement has assembled in opposition to chronic debt, the excessive involvement of private corporations in the business of government and the UK governments foreign policy. The economy of the United Kingdom is the sixth largest in the world and third largest in Europe.
The United Kingdom operates an economic system based on structural and ideological Globalisation with many industries, especially banking, very heavily exposed to the globalist regime. As a result, the UK is at close quarters to US war policy and is therefore now trading with chronic debt. London, the capital, is the worlds centre for foreign exchange trading.
In London, policing of the 'Occupy' movement protest has been based on a contrived form in which local authorities have been at pains to avoid the charge of acting politically. While the economic environment is lost on few involved, policing continues to be exercised on the basis of contrived consent in which local business, media, local authority and now church are encouraged to be present.
In and around the protest at St Paul's, police have engaged in soliciting consensus to remove the 'Occupy' movement protest from its current position by approaching local businesses in order to seek out complaints.
This contra behaviour has taken place in large part due to the current protest at St Pauls being physically forced into its current position by the police themselves. Initially, the London 'Occupy' movement protest attempted to assemble in and around the LSE (London Stock Exchange) but were forcibly repelled.
At the same time, media both in print, broadcast and online form have been used to disseminate policing policy.
On 27th October 2011, a police operation was conducted in which a small political protest group of Kurd origin was isolated and used as motivation to insert a number of armed officers10, onto the
Initially, 'Occupy' protesters had gathered at Bank, the site of London's Bank of England but had been subject to police action preventing the protest from taking place in realistic form. The protest was moved on and eventually finished at the base of St Pauls Cathedral were it remained despite continuous police action. Over the course of the coming weeks, police have sought every opportunity to close the encampment and have enlisted anti-democratic voices within business, media and local authorities while adopting a pro-democracy posture. This policy has continued and will end with petty law being used to violate the principle terms of democratic enactment through protest ending with the forced and violent removal of the protest camp at a time when this type of action has become a critical component of the nation's narrative. As a result, the British people are in the process of being robbed of the tools they need to enlist support among the general populace and, consequently, the nation no longer exercises control in meaningful form over the impending financial chaos about to sweep the western world as the dollar lapses on the international stage away from reserve status.
The policing strategy takes place in an environment in which London's Metropolitan Police 'service' are currently exposed to two further investigations11, conducted by the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) into police officers found to have infiltrated protest groups. This brings the number of investigations into policing of protest to eleven. Two officers have been called to give evidence before a sitting court in the trial of activists engaged with protest and gave evidence under false names, thereby rendering their entire testimony dishonest. In the United Kingdom, it is a central tenet of the law to expect testimony to be given under oath and central to this is a requirement that an oath is given under a responsibility to tell the truth, and the whole truth. Any oath given under the auspice of a false identity, as done in the case of this individual officer, renders not only his testimony false, but renders him liable to an accusation of perjury and contempt before the law and the interests of British justice itself.
In defence, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe has stated that the Metropolitan Police 'service' are seeking legal advice over the matter, leaving many of those involved incredulous that London policing authority should need advice on such a basic principle of the law and giving evidence before the law. A number of 'undercover' police officers in the past have been exposed within protest groups in some cases involving officers who have undertaken sexual relations with protesters and in one case marrying the woman involved.
With contrived consent among the civilian population garnered by the police toward a policy of hostility toward protesters, and a standard policy of infiltration of protest groups by officers willing and advised to commit false testimony before the courts, alongside excessive policing, it is clearly the case that modern policing in the UK has gone on with the structural economic problems the UK is now facing and has breached not only the interests of British justice, but has strangled protest and the desire of the British populace to move into a position in which they are able to determine their own future. In this regard, it is impossible to see any coherent movement toward a resolving of this crisis on the basis of common consent. Instead, policing is acting to undermine the motivation of the British people toward protest and in this environment, policing acts to arrest any further progress made outside the confines of the British Parliamentary system. Itself, failing to understand the basic nature of the problems faced.
War policy and economic collapse.
In 1999, scene of the J18 protests that took place in London as the G8 assembled in Cologne, Germany Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Globalist protesters assemble in opposition to the policy of Globalisation. The protests take place regularly whenever the G8, WTO and IMF meet to oppose the policy of Globalisation and the spread of free trade along with international tariff setting at the expense of most of the worlds smaller nations. At the time, and before the War on Terror began, common themes running throughout this movement, unlike the current 'Occupy' movements, were opposition to controlled poverty in Africa and the causing of serious hardship to much of the undeveloped world by forcing them to take loans from western nations via the IMF at heavily inflated rates of interest.
In the simplest of terms, the bank bail-outs involve public funds being spent directly toward those industries where returnable assets can be guaranteed. This ordinarily entails transferring large quantity of currency over toward the banks, in order that the currency may be delivered back into the economy in the form of loans, investments and the trading of bonds and treasuries. In reality, the amounts claimed as spent have largely been exaggerated. In order to re-finance the banking industry at the point of their collapse, it proved necessary to offer substantially more than was available in order to arrest further collapse. The practice of bailing out institutions that are about to fail has been undertaken regularly throughout the world primarily when that industry has been considered 'too big to fail'.
Over the course of the past decade both the United States and the United Kingdom have been in a state of warfare where no realistic chance of victory in any conventional sense exists. In addition, both nations have been faced with excessive spending in both public and private sectors to facilitate the engagements. In the United Kingdom, that spending has been primarily borne by the tax-payer and has been limited to some degree by the size of the deployment. In the United States, public spending in concert with the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan has risen steadily throughout the period of engagement. By 2006, directional spending on both conflicts stood at 0 Billion12. At the end of 2008, war spending of the United States rose to Trillion13, and by end of 2011, is estimated to be between Trillion and Trillion dollars14.
Over the course of the last decade, the United States has encountered a period of spending above and beyond anything it has seen in its previous history. As a result, the American government throughout this period has been heavily engaged in wringing all available additional funding from the private sector. With much of the United States war effort being undertaken by private contractors such as Halliburton, Aegis, DynCorp, Washington Group International, International American Products, Fluor, Perini, URS Corporation, Parsons, Armor Holdings and many others, complex exposure to the private sector environment and trading arena is a matter of course. As a result, the US Government is in close proximity to its own domestic markets and is able to effect financial instruments used. For a fully capitalised economy such as the United States, realistic funding of war is a curious mix of public and private investments mixed together. In this environment, United States Government policy can easily influence the private trading arena.
Structural collapse of international monetary markets in late 2008.
As the wars stretched out into a period of time the United States was strategically unprepared for16,17,18,19,20. so the cost of the deployments increased over time. As a result, the American government along with its largest industrial capitalists looked for further opportunities to wring extra funding capital from the private sector and this came in the form of an accelerated re-appraisal of conceptual debt. Ordinarily, the fundamental principle of debt is to serve as an exhaust by-product of capitalism and is usually written off, or given over to debt recovery agencies under the auspice of asset recovery. About the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, conceptual debt was reformulated by intervention of government in order to assist in the funding of its foreign policy and to prosecute its wars. This led directly to 'debt-trading' in multiple forms on the open markets in a vain attempt to further capitalise the debt for the purpose of obtaining further profits. Once the 'debt-trading' had begun, US style free-market capitalism was doomed.
The fundamental purpose of debt in a fully capitalised model economy is to exhaust bad capital, with debt in all its forms serving as a 'vented' or 'exhaust' product. If debt is re-introduced back into the system as a tradable commodity, the system is poisoned by its own waste and becomes terminal.
After a period in which warnings21, had revealed themselves steadily after that period in which 'debt-trading' had begun, financial markets around the world experienced large-scale collapse as the debt burden finally swamped the system. Within days, US and UK markets had plummeted and threatened to fall into a state of general dereliction. Almost immediately, both the US and UK governments took the only course of action open to them, injecting capital back into the system in order to rescue its banking sector from the effects of the United States policy mistake. For the past three years, further injections of capital have been needed to continue to prop up the system in order to keep it afloat.
The wars under which Capitalism had profited, caused an ad-hoc shift in monetary policy which in turn led to the collapse of the international banking system. Fundamentally, the United States government had placed too much faith in the rigid brutality of Capitalism and had gone 'a lever too far' in attempting to wring extra profit from it. The financial disruption which followed, revealed that Capitalism's propensity to consumption could be disastrous if left unchecked, or become catastrophic if subject to external intervention by government to fund its wars. The nadir of Capitalism has been reached as a result of excessive deregulation, government intervention and irresponsible management. The end result has been severe disruption to most developed economies around the world, chronic defenestration of public wealth from the public sector and major and long lasting damage to international relations. Globalisation has comprehensively failed almost exclusively as a result of one nation being left as steward to the wealth of nations and having taken upon itself the role of international police force.
The Occupy movement protests, trading blows.
The 'Occupy' movement protests sprung up in Spain in the early part of 2011. For many in the 'Indignados' movement, widespread mistrust at economic policy enacted by their government has taken the form of objections to using public funds to 'bail out' international banking institutions which in turn has led to the drawing down of the public sectors. In addition, the 'Occupy' movement also formed to protest Unemployment, economic conditions, welfare cuts, political corruption, particracy, unrepresentative bipartisanism with its goals stated as to upgrade democracy, and reduce influence of economic powers in the political arena. In New York, others have gathered at the scene of much of the US's misfortune at the Wall Street 'Occupy' movement occupation protesting against wealth inequality, corporate influence of government, social Democracy, and Capitalism while in London at St Paul's Cathedral another encampment has sprung into life protesting against the rise of economic inequality and corporate influence over government.
Consistency across the 'Occupy' movements has been subject to criticism by many on the periphery of the political spectrum with groups on both the left and right arguing over the lack of a clear consensus shown by each of the territorial 'Occupy' movements. Common to the 'Occupy' movements in Spain, the US and UK are defenestration of the public wealth away from the public sector and toward the private sector, inequality in society as a result of lack of public representation in this policy of defenestration and the role corporations and private business play in lobbying government to legislate and adopt policy excessively geared toward its material aims at the expense of the tax-payer. And not least, the policy of war and occupation of foreign sovereign territory as practiced by government, itself the fundamental cause of the financial chaos which has spread throughout the world and which now threatens major economies operating on all continents.
The 'Occupy' protests are taking place in a time in which the aftershocks of the financial collapse are still on-going with the European Union still reeling at the inclusion of Greece as a member state to the EU. On 27th October 2011, French President Nicolas Sarkozy illustrated the scale of the shock by revealing the nature of the Greek application for EU member status on the back of national economic accounting irregularities22. For Greece, struggling with heavy problems in its domestic economy brought about by rising utility prices and high unemployment, the possibility of defaulting on loans given to it by the EU along with the possibility of being expelled from the EU is itself likely to bring about further major disruption to its economy and national welfare.
The total cost so far in the main economies where bail-outs have accrued of various institutions is Trillion USD in the US23, a further £1,161,088,000,000 (1 trillion, three hundred and sixty one billion, eighty eight million pounds) GBP in the UK24, and as much as €99 Billion Euro in Ireland25. According to the World Bank26, worldwide GDP currently stands at ,044,067,870,273 (Sixty three trillion, and forty four billion, sixty seven million, eight hundred and seventy thousand, two hundred and seventy three dollars. 1st November 2011) indicating that the total cost to the worldwide economy has not been less that 19% of worldwide GDP.
The total cost over time of bailing out financial institutions as a result of the war posture of the US, UK and coalition partners along with the subsequent financial disruption which followed has constituted around a fifth of the wealth of all nations, as of November 2011. In large part, these institutions exist and trade within the western hemisphere and the bulk of all rescue attempts have been made in this area.
'Lobbying' and the rise of special interests.
In the United States, and increasingly throughout the world in dependent economies, the rise of the lobbyist has gone hand in hand with the special interests inherent in a system in which commerce, not politics is the dominant force. Lobbyists, or more properly 'Political Advocacy Groups' exist in the US to place their own special interests in a position of dominance in order to affect government policy or acts of legislation as passed by the legislative body.
According to the CRP (Center for Responsive Politics) there are a total of 12,193 lobbyists currently working in Washington with a combined spending budget of .44 Billion27. These range from environmental groups to foreign policy think tanks, from advocates of religious organisations through to foreign government representatives. On any given day, legislative representatives will be constantly exposed to meetings and pressure from lobbyists each with their own agenda and each with funds available to pursue this agenda.
In addition, lobbyists are able to spend budgets on media awareness initiatives often filling local and national newspapers, websites and broadcast publishing with stories advocating their own specific agenda.
This situation may lead from time to time to democratic representatives being used to pursue the agenda of a lobby group at the expense of national cohesion and fair representation of the wider populace. In the United States, lobbyists are forbidden by law to actively pursue paying congressmen to promote acts of legislation, however, large-scale spending by lobbyists indicate that payments are made to pursue favourable results and are regularly involved in scandals and acts which clearly run counter to the national interest.28,29,30,31.
For many in the United States, the democratic system has become a paid business in which representation in the houses of state has been overtaken and undermined by a cartel of opportunists building profitable careers in service to the lobbying industry. In an age in which astronomical quantities of public funds have been removed from the public purse and placed into the banking and financial services industry, many Americans now believe that the United States has split into two social hemispheres demarcated by the lobbying industry itself. It is here that democracy itself is breaking down and becoming inverted against itself.
In the United Kingdom, which is always inclined to see itself as eventually becoming subject to the systems that are in place in the US, substantial alarm has been raised in expectation that the British Parliamentary system itself has become sub-divided in the same way. In the early part of 2010, Conservative leader David Cameron stated32, that the UK was heading toward this division when he warned that the UK political system was becoming subject to the influence of lobbyists, including former Labour ministers Geoff Hoon, Patricia Hewitt, Stephen Byers and Margaret Moran33. However, in October 2011, Mr Cameron became exposed as conceding to the concept of a British lobbying industry34.
The collapse of Industrial Globalisation.
Over the past decade, the United States and allied nations have experienced concerted attacks against its material welfare and political systems under the context of its collective policy of international Globalisation. This appeared in the form of major anti-globalisation protests around the world. In short order, the US was then attacked in September 2001 and applied itself to an over-ambitious military deployment around the world into two arena's that have history of regular invasion and can be classified as Field Defence Specialists skilled enough to maintain a compelling reputation for slaughtering empire. As this engagement carried on over a period of time the United States and her allies were unable to financially manage, further assaults on its economic systems took place from within national government and this led in record time to a collapse of its economic systems. In order to arrest and detain this inverted assault, the United States and allied nations embarked on a course of action which formally inverted conceptual Globalism in policy form inward, where it chewed hungrily on the structural underpinnings of the western political and economic order.
The concept of industrial Globalisation has now returned once again to a position of collapse in almost identical manner to the collapse of every other incarnation it has attempted in history. Along with it, conceptual and idealistic Capitalism has now revealed that it is unable to maintain the credo of deregulation due in large part to its tendency to seek rescue at the public expense should its key institutions fail on the open market. The concept of 'market knows best' has withered and died and along with it the structural underpinnings of Globalism itself. Fundamentally, in light of its failures, Globalism can no longer demand credibility as an enactor of international wealth lest its weaknesses act to subvert other economies around the world and cause major and serious hardship, poverty and conflict.
Over the coming period, the United States will continue to wither under an economic system it is unable to control in an environment in which it has failed to offer convincing evidence of its good intentions. With much of its economy in turmoil, and much of its political systems dispersed in haphazard fashion, the United States is now unable to manage its monetary policy and is now struggling to keep its internationalised currency in secure form in reserve status. As many trading corporations around the world quietly continue the process of diversifying currency arrangements in order to limit exposure to the US dollar, and as many nations reposition their own domestic economies toward localised trading arrangements, the US will continue to experience an environment it is unable to control, steer or manipulate toward its material and political aims.