Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

Ever since our governments perpetrated the Cyprus Steal roughly three weeks ago (the first of their “bail-ins”), I have been exploring the ramifications of this crime. My apologies to readers for any redundancy since then; however it has been necessary to cover this subject in a methodical manner in order to precisely and conclusively illustrate that:

-- The Cyprus Steal was a premeditated act, plotted (at least) 18 months in advance; which included warning the Big Money to move their wealth out of harm’s way

-- Many/most other Western regimes already have their own “bail-in” rules firmly in place

-- The entire premise of the “bail-in” (i.e. confiscating money from peoples’ accounts) is flawed and fraudulent; meaning there could never be any rational or legitimate reason for this policy – making it a simple act of theft

Having established each of these points in previous commentaries; it’s now time to bring this analysis (in general terms) to a culmination: pointing out that the “bail-in” rules already in place do not merely contemplate stealing from bank accounts, but rather stealing any/every kind of paper asset from “the financial system more widely.”

The language used is unequivocal, the intentions beyond doubt. Why is it so much easier in retrospect to point out a “crime” plotted (at least) 18 months in advance? Because the bankers put out “policy papers” the way most people pass wind. Few if any of us have the luxury of wading through the endless pages of these documents merely to separate “hot air” from more of their devious (and illegal) plans.

It is now clear that the “centerpiece” of this planning is a policy paper issued by the Financial Stability Board in October 2011, entitled Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions. The relevant language is spelled-out in Section 6:

6.3 Jurisdictions should have in place privately-financed deposit insurance or…a funding mechanism for ex post recovery from the industry of the costs of providing temporary financing to facilitate the resolution of the firm. [i.e. continuing to prop-up insolvent banks]

Obviously the only possible way in which deposit insurance could be a “mechanism for ex post recovery” is if these bankers/governments are stealing from peoples’ bank deposits. However, lest anyone holding bonds, pension funds, or other (paper) financial assets has been lulled into a false sense of security in thinking that only bank accounts are at risk, Section 6.5 should instantly torpedo that complacency:

6.5 As a last resort [the expression the Banksters began using back in 2008 when they began all this monetary insanity]…some countries may decide to have a power to…recover any losses incurred by the state from unsecured creditors or, if necessary, the financial system more widely. [emphasis mine]

The “financial system more widely” means any bank account, any bond, any pension, any equity; or more simply any paper one has in any financial institution.

Who/what is the “Financial Stability Board”? It is a very exclusive club. How exclusive? You can only join if you’re a Western Central Banker. It is the (official) voice of Western central banks, and thus it is above the mere “laws” enacted by our subordinate governments.

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

In condemning the open criminality of Western regimes as they planned (well in advance) and then executed the robbery of funds from peoples’ bank deposits in Cyprus; it’s important to understand that such condemnation is not based merely on sentimental/populist grounds. Rather, the entire premise of the “bail-in” (as it was perpetrated in Cyprus) is fundamentally flawed.

The bank-robbery committed in Cyprus was based upon blatantly fraudulent reasoning; and thus the Western regimes in Europe which have already carried out this crime, and the North American regimes which have already made it their own, official policy are being intentionally dishonest in “marketing” it to their own peoples.

Specifically, there is no possible basis (either in contract law or logic) where bank depositors should be expected to indemnify the reckless gambling of the banks in which they have stored their savings. There is a glaring and inexcusable fiction being pedaled by the mainstream media and our governments here: that bank shareholders (i.e bank investors) and bank depositors (i.e. savers) are somehow equivalent classes of Sheep to fleece in “bailing-in” the reckless gambling and gigantic losses produced by Western Big Banks. They are not.

There is a direct and legitimate basis in both logic and contract law for assigning losses to bank investors foolish enough to entrust their risk capital to the world’s most-notorious gamblers. When one “invests” in any company; one implicitly assumes the risk of some or all of their capital being consumed by claims against the company, in the event the company experiences serious losses.

There is absolutely no legal or factual parallel with respect to bank depositors, i.e. savers. By definition; savers are individuals who have chosen not to “invest” their wealth – meaning they have chosen not to expose it to risk. Indeed, these same, criminal Western regimes have all created laws which explicitly recognize this legal Principle: depositor’s insurance.

Why do our governments (supposedly) provide “100% insurance” of our bank deposits (up to a considerable level)? In recognition of the Principle that such wealth should be entirely immune from any risk/loss - other than being eaten up at a voracious rate by the “inflation” being created by these same Big Banks and governments.

Do bank shareholders received such protection? No. Has anyone ever suggested that bank shareholders should have such protection (other than bank shareholders)? No. Why not? Because it is explicitly understood they have chosen to expose themselves to such risks (in return for enormously greater potential to profit from their investment).

So why have our governments suddenly chosen to pretend (contradicting their own, earlier laws) that “bank shareholders” and “bank depositors” are now essentially two peas in a pod when it comes to stealing from them? Why are bank depositors getting 0% of the “gain” of being a shareholder, but 100% of the pain when it comes to stealing their wealth?

This becomes simple to understand the moment one proposes financing these “bail-ins” 100% through shareholder equity (as it should be). What would be the unanimous response of the gambling, thieving bankers and the lying politicians?

“There isn’t nearly enough shareholder equity we can squeeze out of these fraud-factories to come close to funding any bail-in.” Presumably the bankers and politicians would use somewhat different language to communicate this point.

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

The veils have been removed. The open criminality of Western regimes is now on display for all the world to see. Bank robbery is now official government policy across the West with no debate, and (of course) no voting.

As was noted in my original commentary on this government-perpetrated crime; it was immediately obvious that this was an entirely staged/scripted event. To fully comprehend the premeditated nature of this crime requires a detailed examination of the chronology.

December 10^th, 2012:

The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the UK Bank of England jointly release a “position paper” titled Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions. Sounds wonderful: “resolving.” They are finally coming up with a plan to put the “Too Big To Fail” fraud-factories out of our misery. Wrong.

This document is a blueprint for precisely the opposite: propping-up these TBTF monstrosities forever. This manifesto was simply coming up with new “proposals for financing” – i.e. feeding the Beast. And one of these proposals was the “bail-in.”

…[Item 19] The introduction of a statutory bail-in resolution tool (the power to write down or convert into equity the liabilities of a failing firm)… [emphasis mine]

Why was there no rioting in the streets of the U.S. and UK? Why were there no scathing condemnations from our wonderful “free press”? In fact, why did the Corporate Media not even mention that the “bail-in” was now government policy for the U.S. and UK?

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

There are many things which need to be said about the deliberately provocative move by European bankers to engage in a sovereign version of an “MF-Global” style bank-heist. Unfortunately none of these things are being said by anyone in the mainstream media.

To start with, this “plan” was intended to fail. It was simply another staged event. In this case, the goal was first to isolate Cyprus politically/economically, and then “make an example” out of it to other Western governments, and their peoples.

Regular readers will recall a previous commentary about how Iceland successfully stood up to the banksters, threw them out of their nation; and has since prospered economically. Since that time I have iterated the mantra of the Financial Oligarchs on many occasions “no more Icelands.”

Thus first these Oligarchs engage in a blatant act of theft which was intentionally intended to be as punitive as possible to the masses. This would ensure maximum outrage within the Cyprus population, and thus make it political suicide for any politician to support the measure. A Bloomberg article spells this out clearly:

…France’s Pierre Moscovici said he had wanted an exemption for accounts worth less than 100,000 euros ($129,500). Austria’s Maria Fekter said ECB demands made that impossible.

The central bank, Fekter said on Monday, wanted to lowball the tax on larger depositors, magnifying the hit on the smaller ones. [emphasis mine]

This is nothing less than a written confession. Individual European governments were pushing for the bank-robbery to at least be structured fairly – stealing the most from those who could most afford it. It was the ECB (the “front” organization for the Oligarchs) which vetoed those intentions, and insisted on “magnifying the hit” on ordinary people.

The final vote taken by the Cyprus government is ultimate, empirical proof of this staged event. Every member of the Opposition parties voted against the bank-robbery; every member of the government abstained. Obviously a proposal which fails to obtain the support of a single member of government was never a serious proposal to begin with.

Now (most likely) Cyprus will be driven out of the EU (i.e. separated from “the herd”), and then the jackals of the Western banking oligopoly will go to work. Forced to use its own currency (if it wants true, economic sovereignty); that currency will be manipulated to near-zero. Indeed with more than a decade of “competitive devaluation” under their belts, there is nothing that these banksters are better at than destroying the value of a currency.

Along with that will be more of the same fraudulent manipulation of interest rates on Cypriot debt (via the same credit-default swap fraud which Wall Street has used so successfully on the rest of Europe). With the capacity to drive those interest rates to any number they desire; they can totally freeze Cyprus out of international debt-markets.

With a virtually worthless currency, and no access to credit to help restructure its economy; the economic devastation of Cyprus will even dwarf what these same banksters had previously inflicted upon Greece. However, this is only one half of what is truly significant about this episode.

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

The economies of the West (with few exceptions) are all hopelessly insolvent. Globally, debt-levels have reached such an extreme, bloated magnitude that outside of the banksters’ derivatives casino this is our new “biggest bubble.” For reasons which will be made clear shortly; many readers are unaware of the severity of this global debt-crisis. Let’s review the facts.

Virtually all Western nations are sitting with their highest debt-loads in history, meaning their debt-to-GDP levels are their highest ever – and most are well past the level which constitutes an official “debt crisis.” Worse still, all of these debtors have debts which are increasing at a much, much faster rate than economic growth (and this gap continues to increase).

In other words, those nations which are already insolvent have no rational hope of ever becoming solvent again; while those nations which are merely “nearly insolvent” have no rational hope of avoiding insolvency. Yet we have this collection of debtors assuring us again and again and again that they are “bailing out” each other.

How is this possible? It’s not. As an elementary premise of arithmetic/logic; it is impossible for one debtor to ever “bail out” another – directly. In fact there are only two ways in which one debtor may attempt/claim/pretend to be “bailing out” another debtor:

a) Borrowing more money one’s self, and then giving (i.e. gifting) it to the other debtor

b) ‘Kiting’ a cheque, and then giving that (illusory) “money” to the debtor

However, our governments have never claimed/admitted doing either one of those things. Here is what our governments are telling us.

They claim to have “bailed out” these insolvent debtors (starting with Greece) by lending them more money. Again, as an elementary premise of arithmetic/logic it is impossible to “bail out” an insolvent debtor by lending that debtor more money.

Not only does it make the insolvent debtor even more insolvent; it instantly turns that debt-market into an open Ponzi-scheme. Only ever-increasing quantities of new loans can delay implosion, and the longer the Ponzi-scheme is perpetuated the more damaging/devastating the ultimate collapse must become.

The original rebuttal of our governments (and bankers and the media) to such obvious criticism was simple: none of these debtors “would ever default”; such as when Greece’s banker – EU “monetary chief” Olli Rehn – told reporters over and over (in 2010) that there was “no possibility” of a Greek default. Obviously these “leaders” were forced to stop making this inane assertion after Greece defaulted on its massive debt.