The protesters from the anti-establishment Attac movement, who hung a banner over the stock exchange’s big board displaying a graph of Germany’s benchmark DAX index, were inside for a few minutes, a Reuters photographer on the scene said.

He said there were about 15 protesters and that three security guards escorted them from the building in the heart of Frankfurt’s banking district.

Stock exchange operator Deutsche Boerse (DB1Gn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) said nobody had been injured and that trading had not been halted.

The group had registered as visitors and launched the action from the visitors’ gallery, Deutsche Boerse said in a statement, adding that security measures for visitors would be tightened.

“Disarm the financial markets,” read one Attac banner. “Put people and the environment above shareholder value.”

A trader on the stock exchange floor said the protesters had time to throw around “thousands” of leaflets.

“The financial crisis is a symptom of a deeper rooted sickness: of an economic system that even when it is performing correctly subordinates all social goals to shareholder value and the profits of investors at the expense of jobs, social equality and environmental protection. It has to end. The casino should be closed,” Attac said in a statement about the protest in which it said 25 activists had taken part.

Attac recently staged a protest outside the Frankfurt stock exchange demanding an end to “casino” capitalism. (Additional reporting by Tyler Sitte and Peter Starck) (Reporting by Kai Pfaffenbach; writing by Peter Starck)

The Rise Of The American Oligarch Class By Robert Wenzel

29/09/08 “ICH‘ – – The word oligarchy dates back at least to the time of Aristotle and comes from the Greek words for “few” (ὀλίγον olígon) and “rule” (ἄρχω arkho). An oligarchy is generally considered any form of government where a small elite segment of society, be they from royalty, wealth, family or military, rule. The most current day popular meaning associates an oligarch with an extremely wealthy person who acquires his wealth, or increases it significantly, by incorporating the use of government influence. Oligarchs are not the only ones who become rich, but their success and secretive influence over governments put them into a separate class.

A recent example of a major grab of power and wealth in this type of oligarch fashion comes from the period of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the confusion during the collapse, and the rise of Boris Yeltsin as president of Russia, the oligarchs made their move. With relatives or close associates as government officials, sometimes even government officials themselves, they achieved vast wealth by acquiring state assets very cheaply during the so-called “privatization” process controlled by the Yeltsin government.

The current $700 billion Paulson bailout plan has brought to the forefront a new class of what must be called American Oligarchs and oligarch wannabes. Some may have originally earned their wealth by supplying consumers with desired goods, but at some point they crossed over to the dark side to use government as a vehicle to take from the poor and the middle class to give to themselves. Others, never produced an honest product and have been career long parasites on the working classes.

It is instructive that outside of this small group of oligarchs and wannabe oligarchs, few appear to have been in favor of the Paulson “bailout”. (Note: The use of the word “bailout” to describe the Paulson Plan is a misnomer, see my column: THE BIG LIE: The Supposed Paulson ‘Bailout’ Plan).

A letter circulated and signed by many academic economists was sent to Congressional leaders objecting to the plan. The Austrian economists, who are the only ones who understand the business cycle, as would be expected also objected to the plan (See Rockwell: Stop the Bailout and Murphy: The Government Is Not Promoting Stability ).

Even some bankers have objected:

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s proposed $700 billion bank rescue aims to help “poorly run” companies and the primary beneficiaries would be Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, said BB&T Corp. Chief Executive Officer John Allison in a critique of the plan.

Treasury “is totally dominated by Wall Street investment bankers” and “cannot be relied on to objectively assess” the impact of government policy on the financial industry, Allison wrote in a Sept. 23 letter to Congress…

Allison, 60, said Congress should “hear from well-run financial institutions” as lawmakers consider the plan, which seeks to ease the credit crunch by buying troubled mortgage- related assets. Under Allison, Winston-Salem, North Carolina- based BB&T avoided the subprime mortgage market, whose collapse led to the credit crisis. BB&T has risen 26 percent this year, the best showing in the 24-company KBW Bank Index.

From the right, Newt Gingrich has called the plan “stupid.” From the left, Paul Krugman opposed the plan, calling it “Cash for trash.”

Most noteworthy is the fact that the notoriously pro-Bush FOX television network carried this AP report:

There is scant public support for President Bush’s $700 billion federal rescue plan for the U.S. financial industry and little expectation it would solve the crisis that has roiled the markets and hobbled some of the country’s largest investment firms, according to a poll released Friday.

Just 30 percent of Americans say they support Bush’s package, according to an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll released as White House and congressional leaders struggled to rescue the plan after House Republicans rebelled against it. Despite the president’s pleas that the package is urgently needed to prevent an economic meltdown, 45 percent say they oppose Bush’s proposal while 25 percent said they are undecided.

Yet, despite the extremely limited support for the plan, the Oligarchs prevailed and Paulson’s Plan will become law. Indeed, the Oligarchs were out in full force to support the legislation. As I have pointed out before, Paulson with his Goldman Sachs connections must be considered an oligarch, but there are others.

Billionaire David Rubenstein, co-founder of the politically connected Carlyle Group, has come out in favor of Paulson’s Plan. Rubenstein told CNBC that he hopes Congress will move quickly to approve the rescue of the U.S. financial system.

Carlyle Group almost has too many ways to benifit from Paulson’s Plan to count. They ran a mortgage securities firm that went under. Those securities will be coming up for sale under a reorganization, just in time for purchase by the Treasury.

The Federal Reserve has changed regulations which will allow them to buy larger stakes in bank stocks. And Rubenstein wants to buy some of the paper the Treasury acquires. “Private equity can help by buying these assets,” he told CNBC. “Private equity can be among the most significant buyers of assets.”

Billionaire Warren Buffett is in favor of the plan, and he just bought, through Berkshire Hathaway, a $5 billion stake in Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs just received approval from the Fed to become a bank holding company, so that they can buy up troubled banks (And then sell the troubled mortgages of the banks to the Treasury?). Buffett called Paulson’s plan “absolutely necessary” and said that “I am betting on the Congress doing the right thing for the American public and passing this bill,”

Billionaire Wilbur Ross , through a firm controlled by Ross, bid $435 million last September to buy the service unit of American Home Mortgage, which collects payments from homeowners. He is in favor of Paulson’s Plan and penned a column published at the New York Post to say so, “…we need this passed, and passed quickly…,”wrote Ross.

There are likely other oligarchs who maintain a low profile and keep their names out of the headlines, and there are oligarch wannabes like former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani . Giuliani has put out a press release advising that his firm has formed a “task force” to “guide financial institutions, private investment funds, institutional investors and other market participants through the legislative, regulatory and enforcement challenges posed by the” Paulson Plan.

Clearly, the new oligarchs have arrived in America. It will mean a lower standard of living for the rest of us as it is clear by the Paulson Plan that they are not afraid to think big when grabbing money from the populous at large. Further, they have the political skill and influence to get the legislation passed that will benefit themselves even when there is virtually non-existent popular support. Be scared, very scared. The new American Oligarchs now rule financial America and there is no such thing as enough with them. They will be back for another big bite from our wallets and income streams, all too soon.

Update: Word has reached me (HTrpm) that snuck into Paulson’s plan are changes that will make it easier for the Fed to inflate the money supply. So is the play for the Oligarchs to grab the banks, the assets and the mortgages and then inflate the money supply boosting the value of all these assets by trillions, while the rest of us simply get to deal with the price inflation as higher prices at the grocery store, the gas pump and everywhere else?

Four years into the Iraq war public opinion is dead-set against it.
Yet does the antiwar movement really deserve the credit? Some of the movement’s discontents say that it is “toothless behemoth”, a farce of spectacle actions and ineffectiveness, racked with the baggage of
party politics and isolated-issue activism. Others suggest that the
movement’s preference for tightly scripted and permitted marches and top-down organizing has come at the expense of youth self-empowerment, diversity of tactics, decentralization, participatory democracy or
other successful models of mass actions and movements.
The purpose of this reader is to stimulate a discussion on movement
theory and practice because a better movement is possible. We
 especially want to hear the voices of activists on the front lines as
we combine theory, politics, analysis, and stories of experience and
application of various movement principles to form a body of work that
can move us foreword.

We are calling for articles on any of the following:

1. Centralization vs. de-centralization in social movement organizing.
2. Transparency, openness and accountability in coalitions and networks.
3. Bureaucracy and hierarchy in national coalitions.
4. The antiwar movement’s relationship to socialist and communist
parties and vice-versa.
5. The effect the mainstream antiwar movement has had on the global
justice movement and vice-versa.
6. The meaning of “mass” and its implications.
7. Movement strategy and tactics, as well as antiwar stories and experiences.

Other related topics are welcome.
Deadline: June 1, 2007
Submissions should be between 1,000 and 4,000 words and include a
brief bio (around 75-100 words). Send your submissions to
antiwarmovement@ gmail.com

Here are our efforts.

‘Strategies for Peace: Locations Theory’

1. Centralization vs. de-centralization in social movement organizing

Regional groups are to be formally created which will be dedicated to local and international peace initiatives and opposed to any movement that infringes upon the basic human rights of any person as those rights are defined in the charter of the U.N. The regional groups are to be gathered in a supra-regional assembly where each and every component will have exactly the same rights and obligations in accordance with the final conclusions mutually created and incorporated in a definitive wording by the various proponents.

2. Transparency, openness and accountability in coalitions and networks.

‘Transparency and Openness’ are the concepts to highlight as keystones of an organization’s mandate. Accountability pre-supposes corrupt leadership. If there is equal and participatory membership in a de-centralized coalition, in theory, there should be no person or group that would exercise a lack of accountability.
The ideal organization is one with clear motives and objectives in which all subject matter is discussed and debated in an open and transparent manner. All topical information is ‘public’ to all members of the organization in a spirit of honesty and full disclosure so as to be an advantage for the whole of the movement and its objectives.
The ’spirit’ of the the peace movement is to promote honesty and open discussion. Without transparency and openness of objectives and theories within this movement there is no hope to realize cohesion and strong solidarity.

3. Bureaucracy and hierarchy in national coalitions.

Fair and balanced hierarchy is to be administered through an elected ‘cyber’ round table and a rotating moderator post. The whole concentrated in a forum which will hold the archives and where the discussions will take place. All members are free to intervene in the discussions. Bureaucracy is to be assumed by all the components of the round table, depending on the issues being discussed and agreed upon by them. A copy of everything is to be kept at one or two other forums.

4. The antiwar movement’s relationship to socialist and communist
parties and vice-versa.

Peace is the plan, a plan that can be incorporated and encouraged by all stripes equally.
There are as many variations on the theme of the socialist and communist party as there are variations on Goldberg’s theme by Bach. Promote one agenda of peace and non-violence that will inspire cohesion between all parties and spin offs, sign the Declaration of Peace and Humphrey’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and pledge to uphold the objectives stated there in and ALL are united.

We must stress that it is peace, not pacifism, that must be pursued.

5. The effect the mainstream antiwar movement has had on the global justice movement and vice-versa.

A massive and united citizen anti-war movement with focused and explicit criteria which demands of international justice organizations such as the U.N. to effectively uphold its charter language and spirit must be developed. Not surprisingly the separate public anti-war movements all across the world have a difficult time perceiving tangible solidarity support from large justice organizations such as the U.N. but that doesn’t mean that support is not there.

The challenge for today’s broad and disjunct peace movement is multi-layered. How does the anti-war movement persuade bodies like the U.N. to enforce its charter’s language effectively and demand that it hold western leaders to the same standards as third world leaders? And, how do the representatives of justice organizations effectively communicate with the greater anti-war movement? The solution is to create a powerful and legitimate and formalized public peace movement with elected representatives that can put real pressure on bodies like the U.N. when they don’t hold up their end of the deal.

Large organizations such as the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First and Human Rights Watch offer legal support and guidance for anti-war protesters and victims of human rights violations however when we have peaceful dissidents all over the world being plucked out of demonstrations by riot police and hauled off to jail and held without access to counsel it creates nothing but disillusionment in the mind of the average peaceful citizen wanting to make a difference through non-viloent protest and puts into question the actual effectiveness and objectives of the groups such as the ACLU.

The goal is to successfully establish fluid networking and accessibility between all these different groups and organizations which hold similar desires and fight for similar causes so as to promote fair and peaceful foreign policy measures and demand stronger multi-lateral negotiation. It should be clearly understood that there are many groups and individuals that work tirelessly to disrupt these connections and these groups and individuals must be brought out into the spotlight with more regularity.

6. The meaning of “mass” and its implications.

Easy, nothing to do with wine and wafers, matter and energy, and everything to do with you, you and me and our grandkids’ grandkids.
If the great unwashed, rabble, mass of humanity, and citizens of all stripes can’t come together under a common anti-war banner in, I dare say, today’s age of reason, enlightenment and globalization through technologies like the internet there will be no “mass” to speak of in 100 years.
“Mass” implies, in this instance, humanity and its salvation.

7. Movement strategy and tactics, as well as antiwar stories and experiences.

In regard to practical strategy and tactics which promote the ambitions of the anti-war movement’s ethos; nothing can be left off of the table. It is necessary to clearly state that all options, from demonstrations/protests of all sorts to boycotts to withholding taxes to occupying the halls of government to support of conscientious objection to general abstinence of local and federal elections, must be ready to be performed to achieve the goal of a world without war. Mandela never thought violence was necessary but he also never ruled it out.

The more elusive and most important strategy is the one which develops a “better anti-war movement” and unites all people who oppose those who support and promote the concept of war. That strategy is pragmatic communication and open discussion in the mainstream media outlets of the topics discussed here in this reader.

This effort was created by a group of multi-national citizens concerned with the state of the global anti-war movement.
While working on these topics this Declaration Against Violence was also created.

I distinctly remember sitting in a darkened movie theatre in the 80′s with my mom and having her lean over and whisper in my ear “one day in the not too distant future” [this is well before the term CGI was part of the common vernacular] “one watching a movie will be unable to tell the difference between what is real and what is not real, then what?”.

That day has pretty much come and gone me thinks. Now what?

When things are not what they seem, close your eyes and kiss your ass goodbye.