 City of London Corporation coat of arms “Land back”, like anarchism a decade ago during Occupy Wall Street, is the latest refuge of what is always an infinitesimally tiny group of (very vocal) violence preaching dead enders who always (conveniently for capital) carbuncle their cancer onto American “leftism”. Like the Occupy anarchists, the term “working class” is gone from this leftism, in favor of festooning a new dead end slogan with woke idpol trappings calling for violence. (FYI - it always comes down to violence. Always.) For the uninitiated (i.e. nearly everyone), the “land back movement” (which just so happens to find favor with typically oligarchic NGO funders), demands all working class Americans be deemed “settlers” on “stolen land”, who must be removed from it, then the land be given “back” to indigenous tribes. Today’s “settlers”, all 300 million of us, must then be sent, well, somewhere else, or become tenants of our new kumbaya utopian indigenous landlords, whose untaxed “non-profit” casino corporations already exist on whatever indigenous land they do hold. So laughably facile, the FBI is most certainly already resident somewhere in the land back “movement”, as it was for months among Occupy Cleveland’s anarchists from October, 2011 until the FBI sprang their FBI conceived FBI funded “bridge bomb plot” April 30, 2012, waiting with the infinite patience only Joe Biden’s carefully crafted police state can possess. Layer upon layer of dialectical debunking can be had, so have at it. I will merely introduce here the corporate entity that created settler colonialism in America. That corporation still exists today, functioning exactly as it did when it created settler colonial imperialism, a diseased petri dish of capital still springing cancerous capitalist lesions, entirely unchanged from its birth, the date of which no one knows. If any “land back” folks live in London, they could quite literally walk to the spot settler colonialism was born, and have a go at it, instead of targeting working class Americans who’ve been exploited by the same corporation, and its endless progeny, their entire lives. Sadly, not even Jeremy Corbyn bothered with the black hole of capital known as the City of London Corporation. Neither will the land back “movement”. “Missed time”The literal spot where British settler colonial imperialism was born, and where the legal framework of the British empire remains today, is the deadest dead zone of capital in the world, a tiny square mile hugging the north shore of the Thames in London. Almost the moment one crosses an invisible border from the bustling boroughs around it, silence descends like a phantom, the only thing missing is tumbleweeds. Neither Marx nor Engels ever bothered much about this ghost town of capital, if at all. The terms “The City”, “The Corporation”, or “the Square Mile”[i], as most widely understood today refer to the British financial industry, just as “Wall Street” refers to the American financial industry. However, in addition to being the heart of British finance, today, as it has been for a millennium, this spot is in fact the “Corporation of the City of London”, a 1.2 square mile nominally municipal division permanently tucked into the heart of the London metropolis. Unlike any corporation or municipality on earth, there is no single document or paper trail creating the Corporation, let alone establishing its sovereignty. Its origins are totally unknown, according to the City’s own chief executive in 2002 who treated these murky origins quaintly thus. "The corporation emerged from a 'missed time' and there is no direct evidence of it coming into existence," he said. "There is no charter that constituted the corporation as a corporate body." City people joke that it dates its "modern period" from 1067, the year when William the Conqueror "came friendly" to the City and let it keep its ancient rights as he subdued the rest of the country.[ii] The City’s eastern boundary borders the Tower of London, where William the Conqueror built his Tower outside of the City’s walls; the first known objectively observable exercise of the Corporation’s international legal sovereignty, i.e. recognition, both by the Corporation and by the Conqueror who chose not to conquer the City itself. The location of the Tower outside of the Corporation predates the concept of Westphalian sovereignty by 600 years. By 1215 King John’s Magna Carta treated the City with the same sovereign recognition William did in 1066, granting the Corporation the right to elect its own Lord Mayor, beginning eight centuries of one hundred more royal charters[iii] that would embed the Corporation’s sovereignty into the Square Mile. Emerging during the reign of Elizabeth I was the office of the Remembrancer, whose title is explicitly crafted to remind the Crown who is boss; the official representative of the Corporation to Parliament. Current commentators call the Remembrancer a mere “lobbyist”, but the position more resembles an ambassador in all but name. Seated across from the Speaker in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the City itself says “The Remembrancer is charged with maintaining and enhancing the City's status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded."[iv] Capitalism’s First Refugees  As capitalism began to emerge under the watchful eye of the Remembrancer in the 17th century, feudal lords clearing peasants off land for profit created one of the first of capitalism’s grotesque side effects; vast numbers of unemployed English refugees, who took to the roads, the outskirts of towns and villages, becoming quite an unpleasantness. What to do? In 1637, the Corporation explicitly refused the Crown’s request to deal with London’s now teeming suburbs by incorporating the suburbs around the City into the City’s charter.[v] Known as “The Great Refusal”, instead, the City of London Corporation forcibly sent thousands of capitalism’s first refugees to England’s new colonies, themselves chartered by the City as subsidiary corporations, such as Northern Ireland. Instead of seeking to integrate the new arrivals, the Corporation put large resources into transferring its unwanted excess population to the Ulster Plantation and the Corporation of Londonderry, which were established for that purpose. The bowler hats and umbrellas of the Orange Orders derive from their sponsorship by the Corporation of London.[vi] This is precisely the same legal machinery that created the trans-Atlantic slave trade of British colonial imperialism, born in the exact same legal manner as the Orange Orders and bowler hats of the Great Refusal, at the very same time, the articles of incorporation even drafted by the very same people. During this period, every single corporate entity of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was chartered by the City of London Corporation; the Virginia Company, the Maryland Company, even beyond America to the East India Company, and so on. In the 2021 second edition of her book, Birth of a White Nation, Jacqueline Battalora traces the invention the “white” race, from whole cloth, solely to defend capital by dividing the working class of the new colonies into privileged and non-privileged racial groups under law. The very first appearance in law, in history, of the term “white,” is in the 1681 Maryland anti-miscegenation law responding to Bacon’s Rebellion, a “law” legislated by Maryland’s royally appointed barons, whose only legitimacy, if any at all, is traced to their legal creation by the City of London Corporation. Bacon’s Rebellion itself was populated by the City of London’s previous decades of industrial shipping of human beings for profit, ranging from indentured to lifetime slaves, the first of whom were by far mostly English men. These first refugees of clearing land for capital mixed in America with Africans brought both as slaves and freedman by other subsidiary corporations and indigenous tribes to become the first cross cultural working class revolt against capitalism in history. From 1607 to 1682, the City’s shipped humans were not just, nor in the first instance, Africans; they included tens of thousands of political trouble makers, prisoners of war, Catholics, Jews, Germans, Swiss, Quakers, Irish, petty thieves, even “vagrant” English children, whose going price the City of London Corporation negotiated with its subsidiary the Virginia Company to be £5 - a gigantic sum if given to the homeless child, a trifle to the City of London shipping that child to slavery[vii]. Capitalism’s global black hole Not just parliament, but no London governmental authority has, nor has ever had, any jurisdiction whatsoever over the spot where settler colonial imperialism was created, the Square Mile. The most recent claim to create a unified London government, New Labour’s 2002 “reforms” of London elections under Tony Blair, merely cemented the City’s sovereignty ever further. Elections for the Greater London Authority’s assembly and mayor are entirely separate from the City of London. The GLA and London mayor created in 2002 are subject to a voting process recognizable to all of us. In the City itself, corporations domiciled there control the show in precisely the same way slavery functioned in the City’s subsidiary corporations’ colonies three centuries ago. First, it established a legislative innovation unprecedented in English history. Clause Four of this new Act bases the size of a company’s vote, the number of votes it will be allocated in elections to the Corporation of London, on a human unit – the workforce – which has no civic status other than as a unit of calculation. The only comparable franchise which based the size of a voting entitlement on a human unit that had no civic personality and was entirely mute, was the voting rights accorded to the owners of chattel in the Antebellum American South at the time of the American Revolution.[viii] Called “the slavery franchise”[ix], which no sovereign state would allow in a municipality under its jurisdiction, the math of the 2002 New Labour London government “reforms” leave the few actual human beings living within the City’s boundaries, about 6,000, many of whom are in public housing, outvoted by tens of thousands of Corporation of the City of London registered companies’ “employees” who “vote” by proxy through their companies’ representative at the City’s elections, merely packing the ballot box to bursting with ever more financial industry power. Before 2002, the 17,000 business votes (only business partnerships and sole traders could take part) already swamped the 6,000-odd residents. Blair's reforms proposed to expand the business vote to about 32,000 and to give a say, based on the size of their workforce in the Square Mile, to international banks and other big players. Voting would reflect the wishes not of the City's 300,000 workers, but of corporate managements. So Goldman Sachs and the People's Bank of China would get to vote in what is arguably Britain's most important local election.[x] Worthy of an episode of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, these voting proxies packing the ballot box must also be members of one of the ancient associations within the Corporation. An incomplete list includes “the Worshipful Company of Broderers, dating from the 13th century, to the unfortunately named Worshipful Company of Launderers, to the more modern Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers,”[xi] …medieval guilds such as the worshipful company of costermongers, cutpurses and safecrackers. To become a sheriff, you must be elected from among the aldermen by the Livery. How do you join a livery company? Don't even ask.[xii] There is even a medieval succession announced years in advance for the Lord Mayor. Three months before the “election” of the 2014 Lord Mayor, then Lord Mayor Alan Yarrow, in “About Mayoral Appraisal process,” instructed … The Court's position on the Mayoralty for 2014/15 is, I think, already clear but I will recap. At the election of the Lord Mayor this year, if Alderman Alan Yarrow is one of the two Aldermen whose name is returned by the Livery to the Court, then he will be elected. Since Lord Mayor Alan Yarrow, the mayoral successions thus arranged included a member of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, the Worshipful Company of Bankers, to today’s Lord Mayor, stockbroker William Russell, a member of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers. The City’s capitalist cancer today By the 18th century, the City took on its current ideological political stand advocating Adam Smith, laissez faire, free market capitalism.[xiv] Today, the office of Lord Mayor is the self proclaimed “ambassador” for free market neoliberalism, “supporting and promoting the City as the world leader in international finance and business services, the Lord Mayor travels extensively… fostering goodwill and boosting British trade, particularly the markets and services of the City.”[xv] As the British Empire began to disintegrate in the 20th century, the Corporation still sat atop the entire financial legal infrastructure of the empire, globally. Slavery may have gone, the colonies too, but most of those colonies remained legal entities whose sovereignty is still traced today to the City of London Corporation. We know their names - the Caymans, Bermuda, Jersey, the Channel Islands, etc. A 2018 film, The Spider’s Web, Britain’s Second Empire, details how these legal remnants evolved from settler colonial imerialism’s creator to creator of the offshore tax haven financial system, resident in the nominally “British Commonwealth” former colonies, but legally within the Corporation. The sun never did set on the City’s empire. Susan Strange, in her prescient indictment of what in 1999 she called the “Westfailure system”, describes the first age of globalization, led by these legal tendrils of the City of London in the British Empire, thus; “the value of the pound sterling in terms of gold remained unchanged for a century, thus creating the first stable international money.”[xvi] Perfected as the telegraph, the steamship, and electricity first embedded the City’s offshore into world finance, The Corporation’s meticulously laid rent extracting miles of path dependence for the movement of this first stable international money remained quite intact once Britain emerged from World War II to assess the ruin. “Early telegraph links were progressively upgraded as new technologies emerged, first with telephone trunk lines and then fiber optic cables. As a result, financial firms looking to establish branches and subsidiaries outside the sovereign oversight of an onshore jurisdiction found that these locations already satisfied their communications requirements…the decisions made in the 19th century resulted a hundred years later in the emergence of offshore finance in these specific locations in the Caribbean rather than elsewhere.”[xvii] Ronan Palan wrote in 2010, “Formalities aside, we should treat the City of London, Jersey, Cayman Islands, BVI, Bermuda and the rest of the territories as one integrated global financial center that serves as the world’s largest tax haven and a conduit for money laundering.”[xviii] Predictably, this financial hall of mirrors set off a spectacular evolutionary reproduction of countless financial product life forms accelerating to this day. The “spider’s web” of offshore tax havens, centered in the City, today plays a central role in the now regular international monetary crises whose intensity increases with each iteration, including the most recent of 2008. “Tax havens are the underlying constant theme of the financial crisis of 2008-9.”[xix] Today, even China is getting in on the act, as efforts to internationalize the renminbi realized in the Corporation in October, 2014, with the UK the first non-Chinese state to issue bonds in RMB, the profits immediately destined for the offshore. It is the world’s first non-Chinese issuance of sovereign RMB debt and will be used to finance Britain’s reserves… In particular, the proceeds are expected to be reinvested in the renminbi offshore market.[xx] The scale of the recurring crises is now incomprehensible. The City of London Corporation’s offshore financial archipelago in 2021 likely dwarfs even the size of the entire world economy. Estimates of the money residing in the City’s offshore have ranged from Palan’s conservative 2010 estimate of $16 trillion, to the Tax Justice Network’s 2012 estimate of $32 trillion, both of which now seem laughably low balled after the post 2008 and Covid-19 era of loose monetary policy. Evolving within the seamless unseen financial remnants of the British Empire, this systemic risk to the international monetary system manifests repeatedly, with increasing intensity. The City had a fight to survive. Once.  The only real threat ever to concern this comically absurd medieval black hole of world finance was nonviolent. From 1875-1890 a bare knuckle, public relations campaign defeated repeated Parliamentary attempts to bring the City of London Corporation within London government. Centered on reviving the long dormant Lord Mayor’s Show parade, the City launched an all out media campaign, featuring meetings packed with City-paid rabble-rousers, ostentatious “charity”, secret slush funds, fraudulent signature campaigns, powered by a passive-aggressive dripping ironic message of “envy” that sounds eerily familiar to 21st century ears.[xxii] The City seems to have believed that the various, diverse reformers were united by two ambitions: greed, and a quest for “self-aggrandizement.” The City was not above launching personal attacks… “deluded dupes,” the City wrote, were merely interested in getting their hands on the City’s enormous wealth.” The pinnacle of the City’s Victorian fight for survival was the annual Lord Mayor’s Show; a parade, creating through ever more spectacular displays of royalty and ritual a shared sense of empire among the population, royal privilege as a shared glory from rich to poor, “a calculated attempt to use the past to justify the present in order not to face the future.”[xxiii] The robes, the scepters, the fuzzy hats of today’s tourist shows were in fact invented out of whole cloth, the parade’s costumes chosen strategically from each of the seven previous centuries of the City’s history, plus the then current empire’s camels from Egypt, and elephants from India… As for the extravagant Lord Mayor’s Show of 1884, the most original and significant innovation was the introduction of what The Times called the “historical element.” Two knights carried a banner bearing the inscription “The Charter, A.D. 1067”…a car drawn by four horses displayed a facsimile of the original charter in a gold box, guarded by “citizens”, their swords drawn. There followed a banner reminding all those present that the City had sent forty ships to defeat the Spanish Armada. The most prominent banner read: “London would not be London without the Lord Mayor’s Show.”[xxiv] Drawing hundreds of thousands, growing every November for a decade, the final triumph, after successively more spectacular Lord Mayor’s Parades finally defeated reform, was the 1889 show victory lap, drawing an estimated 2.5 million Londoners of every class to see the spectacle[xxv]; reform of the City was done in, for good. Sensing the real fight unfolding before them for years, the “stunt” or “PR trick” did not go unnoticed in The Standard. “It was impossible to witness the procession and the undiminished enthusiasm with which it was everywhere greeted…without feeling something more of a suspicion that the end of all this was a long way off yet, and that an amount of public feeling was enlisted on the side of the old civic constitution which would not be very readily overcome.”[xxvi] Today, both the Lord Mayor’s Show website[xxvii] and the Corporation’s website mention nothing of the life and death battle between 1875-1890 resulting in the extravaganza the Lord Mayor’s Show is today. And to this day, it is a royal event if the British sovereign visits the sovereign City. Queen Elizabeth II is invited into the City by the Lord Mayor after an elaborate ritual during which Her Majesty passes through a red rope at the Temple Bar entrance to the Square Mile. For tourists, the Queen passing through a red rope at Temple Bar is just another fancy royal spectacle. As the new tide of radical socialism across Europe in the early 20th century began to notice the City again, the newly formed Labour Party wrote the abolition of the Corporation of the City of London into its manifesto in its early history, calling the City “the home of the devilry of modern finance”. In 1917, Peter Mandelson's grandfather Herbert Morrison, a rising star in Labour ranks, put the party's antipathy plainly. "Is it not time London faced up to the pretentious buffoonery of the City of London Corporation and wipe it off the municipal map?" he asked. "The City is now a square mile of entrenched reaction, the home of the devilry of modern finance." Clement Attlee took up the baton in 1937. "Over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster," he said. "Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which has been decided by the people."[xxviii] Alas, Labour, and even the most radical British left, would flip in no time. Not one Labour candidate for London government at any level has ever once echoed the party’s early attempts to abolish the City. The first London mayor elected under Blair’s New Labour London municipal elections law in 2000, Ken Livingstone, himself a Labour defector otherwise so far left his nickname was “Red Ken”, never uttered a word about the City of London in his 2000 campaign, nor did Red Ken as mayor ever once attempt to exert any jurisdiction whatsoever over the Corporation, let alone the offshore. By 2008, Red Ken was replaced as London Mayor by current UK Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, a Tory so deliciously caricaturing the City’s essence his visage will likely reappear as a “historical element” representing the 21st century in a Lord Mayor’s Show parade a century from now. The GLA constituency which includes the City, City and East, is today represented by current Labour councilor Ummesh Desai, himself never speaking of the Corporation, despite being Labour’s London Assembly chair for Audit, police and crime. Not even the two Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party general election manifestos mentioned a single whisper of the City’s sovereignty, the Corporation, the Remembrancer, or the worshipful whatnots. Corbyn, twice, merely promised to abolish the non-domicile, and thus tax exempt status of certain British citizens[xxix]. Even the Occupy Wall Street movement’s London manifestation at St. Paul’s Cathedral within the City’s limits in 2011 meekly asked to see the City’s books[xxx], specifically the bluntly termed “City Cash”, representing the City’s own budget which has never seen the light of day, not in 1,000 years. Laughably, in December, 2012, the Corporation responded to this “pressure” by announcing the City Cash had accumulated over its 1,000 year history sitting atop the financial center of the world an absurdly tiny amount of £1.3 billion, 70% of it being property holdings in London, thus not even cash.[xxxi] For comparison, this amount would not crack the top ten American university endowments; if the Corporation is to be believed, it’s City Cash is dwarfed by Harvard’s endowment alone, estimated in 2015 at $32 billion.[xxxii] Do your homework, land backers The land back “movement” knows none of this rather brief introduction to the entity which created the harm they claim to address, an entity still lording (literally) over us today, functioning exactly as it did when it first shipped its wretched refuse across the seas. The American working class are not “settlers” to be targeted with rhetoric of violence from people calling themselves leftists. We are the heirs to the exploitation of centuries, first created by a medieval black hole these land backers could simply walk into, right now, and destroy with nonviolence. Let’s hope they figure that out. [i] This paper will use all three terms interchangeably, depending on the context, as is the custom. [ii] Shaxson, Nicholas, “The Tax Haven in the heart of Britain,” New Statesman, February 24, 2011 (http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporation-city) [iii] Smith, Timothy, “In Defense of Privilege: The City of London and the Challenge of Municipal Reform, 1875-1890”, Journal of Social History, George Mason University, Fall 1993, p. 60. [iv] Quinn, Ben, “Corporation of London; an ancient institution that favours big business”, The Guardian, October 31, 2011, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-institution-big-business [v] Doolittle, Ian, “The Great Refusal: Why does the City of London Corporation Only Govern the Square Mile?”, The London Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, March, 2014, p.24. [vi] Glasman, Maurice, “The City of London’s strange history”, Financial Times, September 29, 2014. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3WAGprjJO) [vii] Battalora, Jacqueline, Birth of a White Nation, Rutledge (2021) p. 17-18. [viii] Brown, Matthew, “A Tale of Two Cities” Independent Labour Publications, September 13, 2012, http://www.independentlabour.org.uk/main/2012/09/13/a-tale-of-two-cities/ [ix] Shaxson, New Statesman, 2011. [x] Ibid. [xi] Shaxson, Nicholas, “The Much-too Special Relationship”, The American Interest, March 19, 2014 http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/03/19/the-much-too-special-relationship/ [xii] Monbiot, George, “The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest”, The Guardian, October 31, 2011 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval [xiii] City of London, “About Mayoral Appraisal Process”, http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/the-lord-mayor/Pages/letter-to-the-livery-about-mayoral-appraisal-process.aspx [xiv] Glasman argues one early manifestation of this ideology was the City’s financial support for the American Revolution against the Crown, even sending men to fight with George Washington’s army. Glasman, 2014. [xv] City of London website, http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/the-lord-mayor/Pages/default.aspx [xvi] Strange, Susan, “The Westfailure system”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, 1999, pp. 345-354, p. 348. [xvii] Vleck, William, “Behind an Offshore Mask: sovereignty games in the global political economy,” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 8 (2009), pp. 1465-1481, p.1468. [xviii] Palan, p. 135. [xix] Palan, p.1. [xx] HM Treasury, “Britain issues western world’s first sovereign RMB bond, largest ever RMB bond by non-Chinese issuer” https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-issues-western-worlds-first-sovereign-rmb-bond-largest-ever-rmb-bond-by-non-chinese-issuer [xxii] Smith, p.68. [xxiii] Ibid, p.60. [xxiv] Ibid, p.68. [xxv] Ibid, p.71. [xxvi] Ibid, p.69 [xxvii] Lord Mayor’s Show Website, http://lordmayorsshow.london/history. The only mention of this period is on the page where a visitor can purchase a book of the history of the show, in which “Section 3 – Noteworthy Shows and Lord Mayors” mentions “The 1876 Show, with 13 elephants”. [xxviii] Shaxson, New Statesman, 2011. [xxix] Mason, Rowena, “Labour Manifesto 2015 – the key points”, The Guardian, April 13, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/labour-election-manifesto-key-points?CMP=mic-88 [xxx] Statement of Occupy London General Assembly, November 8, 2011, http://occupylondon.org.uk/occupy-london-gets-moving-on-policy-first-statement-of-the-city-of-london-policy-group/ [xxxi] Mathiason, Nick, “City of London Corporation reveals its secret £1.3bn bank account”, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, December 20, 2012 http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/12/20/city-of-london-corporation-reveals-its-secret-1-3bn-bank-account/ [xxxii] Snider, Susannah, “10 Universities With the Largest Financial Endowments”, US News & World Report, January 13, 2015, http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2015/01/13/10-universities-with-the-largest-financial-endowments Bibliography Brown, Matthew, “A Tale of Two Cities” Independent Labour Publications, September 13, 2012, http://www.independentlabour.org.uk/main/2012/09/13/a-tale-of-two-cities/ Burley, Anne-Marie, Regulating the World; Multilateralism, International Law, and the Projection of the New Deal Regulatory State, ed. Ruggie, J., Multilateralism Matters, Columbia University Press (1993) City of London website, http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk Cohan, John A., “Sovereignty in a Postsovereign World”, Florida Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, 2006 Crowley, Kevin & Choudhury, Ambereen, “Made-in-London Scandals Risk City Reputation as Money Center”, Bloomberg Business, July 5, 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-05/made-in-london-scandals-risk-city-s-reputation-as-finance-center Doolittle, Ian, “The Great Refusal: Why does the City of London Corporation Only Govern the Square Mile?” The London Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, March, 2014 Ferguson, Niall, The Ascent of Money, Penguin Books (2009) Glasman, Maurice, “The City of London’s strange history”, September 29, 2014. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3WAGprjJO) HM Treasury, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-issues-western-worlds-first-sovereign-rmb-bond-largest-ever-rmb-bond-by-non-chinese-issuer Henry, James S., “The Price of Offshore Revisited”, Tax Justice Network, July 2012 Krasner, Stephen D., Sovereignty; Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton University Press, (1999) Lord Mayor’s Show Website, http://lordmayorsshow.london/history Mason, Rowena, “Labour Manifesto 2015 – the key points”, The Guardian, April 13, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/labour-election-manifesto-key-points?CMP=mic-88 Mathiason, Nick, “City of London Corporation reveals its secret £1.3bn bank account”, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, December 20, 2012 http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/12/20/city-of-london-corporation-reveals-its-secret-1-3bn-bank-account/ Monbiot, George, “The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest”, The Guardian, October 31, 2011 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval Occupy London General Assembly Statement, November 8, 2011, http://occupylondon.org.uk/occupy-london-gets-moving-on-policy-first-statement-of-the-city-of-london-policy-group/ Palan, Ronen, Tax Havens: How Globalization Really Works, Cornell University Press, 2010. Quinn, Ben, “Corporation of London; an ancient institution that favours big business”, The Guardian, October 31, 2011, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-institution-big-business Schenk, Catherine, “The Origins of the Eurodollar Market in London: 1955-1963”, Explorations in Economic History, Vol. 35 (1998) Shaxson, Nicholas, “The Much-too Special Relationship”, The American Interest, March 19, 2014 http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/03/19/the-much-too-special-relationship/ Shaxson, Nicholas, “The Tax Haven in the heart of Britain,” New Statesman, February 24, 2011 (http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporation-city) Smith, Timothy, “In Defense of Privilege: The City of London and the Challenge of Municipal Reform, 1875-1890”, Journal of Social History, George Mason University, Fall 1993 Snider, Susannah, “10 Universities With the Largest Financial Endowments”, US News & World Report, January 13, 2015, http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2015/01/13/10-universities-with-the-largest-financial-endowments Strange, Susan, “The Westfailure system”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, (1999) Vleck, William, “Behind an Offshore Mask: sovereignty games in the global political economy,” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 8 (2009), pp. 1465-1481. AuthorTim Russo is author of Ghosts of Plum Run, an ongoing historical fiction series about the charge of the First Minnesota at Gettysburg. Tim's career as an attorney and international relations professional took him to two years living in the former soviet republics, work in Eastern Europe, the West Bank & Gaza, and with the British Labour Party. Tim has had a role in nearly every election cycle in Ohio since 1988, including Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020. Tim ran for local office in Cleveland twice, earned his 1993 JD from Case Western Reserve University, and a 2017 masters in international relations from Cleveland State University where he earned his undergraduate degree in political science in 1989. Currently interested in the intersection between Gramscian cultural hegemony and Gandhian nonviolence, Tim is a lifelong Clevelander. Archives October 2021
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
September 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed