May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Financial Sector Induced Systemic Instability of Economy
While I believe in usefulness of capital markets, it is clear that they are double edge sword and
that banks "in a long run" tend to behave like
Mr. Capone may have something to say about danger of banks :-).That means that growth of
financial sector represents a direct threat to the stability of the society. Positive feedback loops
creates one financial crisis after another with the increasing magnitude leading up to a collapse of
financial system like happened in 1927 and 2008.
"Minsky's financial instability hypothesis depends critically on what amounts to a sociological
insight. People change their minds about taking risks. They don't make a one-time rational
judgment about debt use and stock market exposure and stick to it. Instead, they change their
minds over time. And history is quite clear about how they change their minds. The
longer the good times endure, the more people begin to see wisdom in risky strategies."
The Cost of Capitalism: Understanding Market Mayhem and Stabilizing our
Economic Future, by Robert Barbera
The flaw with Capitalism is that it creates its own positive feedback loop, snowballing to
the point where the accumulation of wealth and power hurts people — eventually even those at the
top of the food chain. ”
Banks are a clear case of market failure and their employees at the senior level have
basically become the biggest bank robbers of all time. As for basing pay on current revenues
and not profits over extended periods of time, then that is a clear case of market failure --
The banksters have been able to sell the “talent” myth to justify their outsized pay
because they are the only ones able to deliver the type of GDP growth the U.S. economy needs in
the short term, even if that kills the U.S. economy in the long term. You’ll be gone, I’ll be
Unfortunately, many countries go broke pursuing war, if not financially, then morally (are
the two different? – this post suggests otherwise).
I occurs to me that the U.S. is also in
that flock; interventions justified by grand cause built on fallacy, the alpha and omega of failure.
Is the financial apparatchik (or Nomenklatura, a term I like which, as many from the Soviet era,
succinctly describes aspects of our situation today) fated also to the trash heap, despite the
best efforts of the Man of the hour, Ben Bernanke?
Financialization is a Damocles sword hanging over the neoliberal society
While I believe in usefulness of capital markets, it is clear that they are double edge sword and
that banks "in a long run" tend to behave like
Mr. Capone may have something to say about danger of banks :-).That means that growth of financial
sector represents a direct threat to the stability of the society (Keynesianism
and the Great Recession )
Without adult supervision, as it were, a financial sector that was already inherently unstable
went wild. When the subprime assets were found to be toxic since they were based on mortgages on
which borrowers had defaulted, highly indebted or leveraged banks that had bought these now
valueless securities had little equity to repay their creditors or depositors who now came after
them. This quickly led to their bankruptcy, as in the case of Lehman Brothers, or to their being
bailed out by government, as was the case with most of the biggest banks. The finance sector
froze up, resulting in a recession—a big one—in the real economy.
Neoliberal revolution, or, as Simon Johnson called it after "quite coup" (Atlantic),
brought political power to the financial oligarchy deposed after the New Deal. Deregulation
naturally followed, with especially big role played by corrupt Clinton administration. Positive feedback loops creates one financial crisis after another with the
increasing magnitude. "Saving and loans" crisis followed by dot-com crisis of 2000, which in
turn followed by the collapse of financial system in 2008, which looks somewhat similar to what
happened in 1927. No prominent financial honcho, who was instrumental in creating "subprime
crisis" was jailed. Most remained filthy rich.
Unless the society puts severe limits on their actions like was done during New Deal,
financial firms successfully
subvert the regulation mechanisms and take the society hostage. But periodic purges with relocation
of the most active promoters of "freedom for banks" (aka free market fundamentalism) under the smoke
screen of "free market" promotion does not solve the problem of positive feedback loops that banks create
by mere existence. That's difficult to do while neoliberal ideology and related neoclassical economy
dominates the society thinking (via brainwashing), with universities playing especially negative
role -- most of economics departments are captured by neoliberals who censor any heretics. So year
after year brainwashing students enter the society without understanding real dangers that
neoliberalism brought for them. Including lack of meaningful employment opportunities.
Of course, most of high level officers of leading finance institutions which caused the crisis of
2008-2009 as a psychological type are as close to gangsters as one can get. But there is
something in their actions that does not depend on individual traits (although many of them
definitely can be classified as psychopaths), and is more related to their social position.
This situation is somewhat similar to Bolsheviks coup d'état of 1917 which resulted in capturing
Russia by this ideological sect. And in this sense quite coupe of 1980 is also irreversible in
the same sense as Bolsheviks revolution was irreversible: the "occupation" of the country by a
fanatical sect lasts until the population rejects the ideology with its (now apparent) utopian
Bolshevism which lasted
75 years, spend in such zombie state the last two decades (if we assume 1991 as the year of death of
Bolshevism, its ideology was dead much earlier -- the grave flaws in it were visible from late 60th,
if not after the WWII). But only when their ideology was destroyed both by inability to raise the standard of living
of the population and by the growing neoliberal ideology as an alternative (and a new, more powerful then Marxism high-demand
cult) Bolsheviks started to lose the grip on their power in the country. As a result Bolsheviks lost the power
only in 1991, or more correctly switched camps and privatized the country. If not inaptness of their
last General Secretary, they probably could last more. In any case after the ideology collapsed, the
USSR disintegrated (or more correctly turn by national elites, each of which wanted their peace of
The sad truth is that the mere growth of financial sector creates additional positive feedback loops
and increases structural instability within both the financial sector itself and the society at large.
Dynamic systems with strong positive feedback loops not compensated by negative feedback loops are unstable.
As a result banks and other financial institution periodically generate a deep, devastating crisis.
This is the meaning of famous Hyman Minsky phrase "stability is destabilizing".
In other words, financial apparatchiks (or Financial Nomenklatura, a term from the Soviet era, which
succinctly describes aspects of our situation today) drive the country off the cliff because they do
not have any countervailing forces, by the strength of their political influence and unsaturable
greed. Although the following
analogy in weaker then analogy with dynamic systems with positive feedback loops, outsized financial
sector can be viewed in biological terms as cancer.
known medically as a malignantneoplasm, is a broad group of
diseases involving unregulated
cell growth. In cancer,
cells divide and grow
uncontrollably, forming malignant tumors, and invading nearby parts of the body. The cancer may also
spread to more distant parts
of the body through the lymphatic system
or bloodstream. Not all tumors
are cancerous; benign tumors
do not invade neighboring tissues and do not spread throughout the body. There are over 200 different
known cancers that affect humans.
Like certain types of cancer they depend of weakening "tumor suppressor genes" (via "Quiet
coup" mechanism of acquiring dominant political power) which allow then to engage in uncontrolled growth, destroying
healthy cells (and first of all local manufacturing).
The other suspicion is the unchecked financialization always goes too far and the last N
percent of financial activity absorbs much more resources (especially intellectual resources) and
creates more potential instability than its additional efficiency-benefits (often zero or negative) can justify. It is hard
to imagine that a Hedge Fund Operator of the Year does anything that is even remotely socially useful to justify his
enormous (and lightly taxed) compensation. It is pure wealth redistribution up based on political domination
of financial oligarchy. Significant vulnerabilities within the shadow banking system and
derivatives are plain vanilla socially destructive. Yet they persist due to inevitable political power
grab by financial oligarchy (Quiet coup).
Again, I would like to stress that this problem of the oversized financial sector which produces
one devastating crisis after another
is closely related to the problem of a positive feedback loops. And the society in which banks are given
free hand inevitably degrades into "socialism for banks" or "casino
capitalism" -- a type of
neoliberalism with huge
inequality and huge criminality of top banking officers.
Whether we can do without private banks is unclear, but there is sound evidence that unlike growth
of manufacturing, private financial sector growth is dangerous for the society health and perverts society
goals. Like cult groups the financial world does a terrific job of "shunning" the principled individuals
and suppressing dissent (by capturing and cultivating neoliberal stooges in all major university
departments and press),
so self-destructing tendencies after they arise can't be stopped within the framework of
neoliberalism. In a way financial
firm is like sociopath inevitable produces its trail of victims (and sociopaths might be useful in battles exactly due
to the qualities such as ability to remain cool in dangerous situation, that make them dangerous in the normal course of events).
This tendency of society with unregulated or lightly regulated financial sector toward self-destruction
was first formulated as "Minsky instability hypothesis" --
and outstanding intellectual achievement of American economic Hyman Minsky (September 23, 1919 –
October 24, 1996). Who BTW was pretty much underappreciated (if not suppressed) during his lifetime because his views
were different from orthodox (and false) neoclassic economic theory which dominates US universities,
Like flat Earth theory was enforce by Catholic church before, it is fiercely enforced by an army of well paid neoliberal economics, those
Jesuits of modern era. Who prosecute heretics who question flat Earth theory even more efficiently then
their medieval counterparts; the only difference is that they do not burn the literally, only
Former Washington University in St. Louis economics professor Hyman P. Minsky had predicted the
Great Recession decades before it happened. Hyman Minsky was a real student of the Great
Depression, while Bernanke who widely is viewed as a scholar who studied the Great Depression, in
reality was a charlatan, who just tried to explain the Great Depression from the positions of
neo-classical economy. That's a big difference.
Minsky instability hypothesis ("stability is destabilizing" under capitalism) that emerged from
his analysis of the Great Depression was based on intellectual heritage of three great thinkers in
economics (my presentation is partially based on an outstanding lecture by Steve Keen Lecture 6 on Minsky, Financial
Instability, the Great Depression & the Global Financial Crisis). We can talk about
three source of influence, there authors writing of which touched the same subject from similar
positions and were the base of Hyman Minsky great advance in understanding of mechanics of
development of financial crisis under capitalism and the critical role of financial system in it
(neoclassical economics ignores the existence of financial system in its analysis):
Minsky didn't follow the conventional version of Marxism . And it was dangerous for him to
do so due to McCarthysm. Even mentioning of Marx might lead to strakism fromthe academy those years.
McCarthy and his followers in academy did not understand the difference between Marx great analysis
of capitalism and his utopian vision of the future. Impliedly this witch hunt helped to establish
hegemony of neoclassical economy in economic departments in the USA.
While Minsky did not cited Marx in his writings and did use Marx's Labor Theory of Value his
thinking was definitely influenced by Marx’s critique of finance. We now know that he read and
admired the Capital. And that not accidental due to the fact that his parents were Mensheviks -- a
suppressed after Bolshevik revolution more moderate wing of Russian Social Democratic Party that
rejected the idea of launching the socialist revolution in Russia -- in their opinion Russia
needed first to became a capitalist country and get rid of remnants of feudalism. They escaped from
Soviet Russia when Mensheviks started to be prosecuted by Bolsheviks.
And probably the main influence on Minsky was not Marx's discussion of finance in Volume I of Capital
with a "commodity" model of money, but critical remarks scattered in Volumes II & III
(which were not edited by Marx by compiled posthumously by Engels), where he was really critical of
big banks as well as Marx's earlier works (Grundrisse,
Theories of Surplus Value) where Marx was scathing about finance:
"A high rate of interest can also indicate, as it did in 1857, that the country is undermined
by the roving cavaliers of credit who can afford to pay a high interest because they pay it out
of other people's pocket* (whereby, however, they help to determine the rate of interest
for all) and meanwhile they live in grand style on anticipated profits.
The second source on which Minsky based his insights was Irving Fisher. Irving Fisher’s
reputation destroyed by wrong predictions on stock market prices. In aftermath, developed theory to
explain the crash and published it in his book "The Debt Deflation Theory of Great
Depressions". His main points are:
Neoclassical theory assumed equilibrium but any real world equilibrium will be short-lived
"New disturbances are, humanly speaking, sure to occur, so that, in actual fact, any
variable is almost always above or below the ideal equilibrium."
Theoretically... there must be—over-or under-production, over- or under-consumption,..., and
over or under everything else.
It is as absurd to assume that, for any long period of time, the variables in the economic
organization, or any part of them, will "stay put," in perfect equilibrium, as to assume that the
Atlantic Ocean can ever be without a wave." (1933:339)
According to Fisher two key disequilibrium forces that push economic into the next economic
crisis are debt and subsequent deflation
The "two dominant factors" which cause depressions are "over-indebtedness to start with and
deflation following soon after"
"Thus over-investment and over-speculation are often important; but they would have far less
serious results were they not conducted with borrowed money.
That is, over-indebtedness may lend importance to over-investment or to over-speculation. The
same is true as to over-confidence.
I fancy that over-confidence seldom does any great harm except when, as, and if, it beguiles
its victims into debt." (Fisher 1933: 341; emphasis added!)
A chain reaction when overconfidence leads to over-indebtedness: Debt liquidation leads to
Joseph Schumpeter was Joseph Schumpeter has more positive view of capitalism than the other two. He authored the theory
of creative destruction as a path by which capitalism achieves higher and higher productivity.
He capitalism as necessarily unstable, but for him this was a positive feature --
instability of capitalism the source of its creativity. His view of capitalism was highly dynamic
and somewhat resembles the view of Marx (who also thought that capitalism destroys all previous
order and create a new one):
Entrepreneurs profit by disrupting "equilibrium" of system
Finance plays essential role here by enabling entrepreneurs
To Schumpeter, entrepreneurs are people with good ideas but no money
To turn ideas into disruptive products or processes they resort to borrowing from banks
Boom caused by investment phase of entrepreneurs. New entrepreneurs undermine old or rival
products. Successful entrepreneurs repay debt, reducing money supply
In this sense the success (boom) carry the seeds of the subsequet bust because with the
success of "pioneers" draw other into thi same market and banks are more willing to finance them
seeing the success of pioneers. But when too many similar products are financed and hit the
market they create the glut and entrepreneurs who ere late to the party are unable to pay the
debts and go bankrupt desire the fact that might have superiors products (but not superior
enough). Slump caused when excessive products hit the market and there are not enough buyers.
Debt deflation follows.
Unlike Marx, who thought that the periodic crisis of overproduction is the source of
instability (as well as gradual absolute impoverishment of workers), Minsky assumed that the
key source of that instability of capitalist system is connected with the cycles of business
borrowing and fractional bank lending, when "good times" lead to excessive borrowing leading to high
leverage and overproduction and thus to eventual debt crisis (The
Alternative To Neoliberalism ):
Minsky on capitalism:
He followed Marx stating that "capitalism is inherently flawed, being prone to booms, crises
This instability is due to characteristics the financial system must possess and will
inevitably acquire, if it is to be consistent with full-blown capitalism.
Such a financial system will be capable of both generating signals that induce an accelerating
desire to invest and of financing that accelerating investment." (Minsky 1969b: 224)
“The natural starting place for analyzing the relation between debt and income is to take
an economy with a cyclical past that is now doing well.
The inherited debt reflects the history of the economy, which includes a period in the not
too distant past in which the economy did not do well.
Acceptable liability structures are based upon some margin of safety so that expected cash
flows, even in periods when the economy is not doing well, will cover contractual debt payments.
As the period over which the economy does well lengthens, two things become evident in board
rooms. Existing debts are easily validated and units that were heavily in debt prospered; it paid
to lever." (65)
It becomes apparent that the margins of safety built into debt structures were too great.
ans should be reduced...
As a result, over a period in which the economy does well, views about acceptable debt
structure change. In the dealmaking that goes on between banks, investment bankers, and businessmen,
the acceptable amount of debt to use in financing various types of activity and positions increases.
This increase in the weight of debt financing raises the market pnce of capital assets and
increases investment. As this continues the economy is transformed into a boom economy... ” (65)
This transforms a period of tranquil growth into a period of speculative excess
“Stable growth is inconsistent with the manner in which investment is determined in an economy
in which debt-financed ownership of capital assets exists, and the extent to which such debt financing
can be carried is market determined.
It follows that the fundamental instability of a capitalist economy is upward.
The tendency to transform doing well into a speculative investment boom is the basic instability
in a capitalist economy." (65)
The idea of Minsky moment is related to the fact that the fractional reserve banking periodically
causes credit collapse when the leveraged credit expansion goes into reverse. And mainstream economists
do not want to talk about the fact that increasing confidence breeds increased leverage. So financial
stability breeds instability and subsequent financial crisis. All actions to guarantee a market rise,
ultimately guarantee it's destruction because greed will always take advantage of a "sure thing" and
push it beyond reasonable boundaries. In other words, marker players are no rational and assume
that it would be foolish not to maximize leverage in a market which is going up. So the fractional
reserve banking mechanisms ultimately and ironically lead to over lending and guarantee the subsequent
crisis and the market's destruction. Stability breed instability.
That means that fractional reserve banking based economic system with private players (aka capitalism)
is inherently unstable. And first of all because fractional reserve banking is debt based. In
order to have growth it must create debt. Eventually the pyramid of debt crushes and crisis hit. When
the credit expansion fuels asset price bubbles, the dangers for the financial sector and the real economy
are substantial because this way the credit boom bubble is inflated which eventually burst. The damage
done to the economy by the bursting of credit boom bubbles is significant and long lasting.
«When credit growth fuels asset price bubbles, the dangers for the financial sector and
the real economy are much more substantial.»
So M Minsky 50 years ago and M Pettis 15 years ago (in his "The volatility machine") had it
right? Who could have imagined! :-)
«In the past decades, central banks typically have taken a hands-off approach to asset
price bubbles and credit booms.»
If only! They have been feeding credit-based asset price bubbles by at the same time weakening
regulations to push up allowed capital-leverage ratios, and boosting the quantity of credit as
high as possible, but specifically most for leveraged speculation on assets, by allowing vast-overvaluations
on those assets.
Central banks have worked hard in most Anglo-American countries to redistribute income and
wealth from "inflationary" worker incomes to "non-inflationary" rentier incomes via hyper-subsidizing
with endless cheap credit the excesses of financial speculation in driving up asset prices.
John Kay in his January 5 2010 FT column very aptly explained the systemic instability of financial
The credit crunch of 2007-08 was the third phase of a larger and longer financial crisis. The
first phase was the emerging market defaults of the 1990s. The second was the new economy boom and
bust at the turn of the century. The third was the collapse of markets for structured debt products,
which had grown so rapidly in the five years up to 2007.
The manifestation of the problem in each phase was different – first emerging markets, then
stock markets, then debt. But the mechanics were essentially the same. Financial institutions
identified a genuine economic change – the assimilation of some poor countries into the global economy,
the opportunities offered to business by new information technology, and the development of opportunities
to manage risk and maturity mismatch more effectively through markets. Competition to sell
products led to wild exaggeration of the pace and scope of these trends. The resulting herd enthusiasm
led to mispricing – particularly in asset markets, which yielded large, and largely illusory, profits,
of which a substantial fraction was paid to employees.
Eventually, at the end of each phase, reality impinged. The activities that once seemed so profitable
– funding the financial systems of emerging economies, promoting start-up internet businesses, trading
in structured debt products – turned out, in fact, to have been a source of losses. Lenders had to
make write-offs, most of the new economy stocks proved valueless and many structured products became
unmarketable. Governments, and particularly the US government, reacted on each occasion by
pumping money into the financial system in the hope of staving off wider collapse, with some degree
of success. At the end of each phase, regulators and financial institutions declared that
lessons had been learnt. While measures were implemented which, if they had been introduced five
years earlier, might have prevented the most recent crisis from taking the particular form it did,
these responses addressed the particular problem that had just occurred, rather than the underlying
generic problems of skewed incentives and dysfunctional institutional structures.
The public support of markets provided on each occasion the fuel needed to stoke the next crisis.
Each boom and bust is larger than the last. Since the alleviating action is also larger, the pattern
is one of cycles of increasing amplitude.
I do not know what the epicenter of the next crisis will be, except that it is unlikely to involve
structured debt products. I do know that unless human nature changes or there is fundamental change
in the structure of the financial services industry – equally improbable – there will be another
manifestation once again based on naive extrapolation and collective magical thinking. The recent
crisis taxed to the full – the word tax is used deliberately – the resources of world governments
and their citizens. Even if there is will to respond to the next crisis, the capacity to do so may
not be there.
The citizens of that most placid of countries, Iceland, now backed by their president, have found
a characteristically polite and restrained way of disputing an obligation to stump up large sums
of cash to pay for the arrogance and greed of other people. They are right. We should listen to them
before the same message is conveyed in much more violent form, in another place and at another time.
But it seems unlikely that we will.
We made a mistake in the closing decades of the 20th century. We removed restrictions that
had imposed functional separation on financial institutions. This led to businesses riddled
with conflicts of interest and culture, controlled by warring groups of their own senior employees.
The scale of resources such businesses commanded enabled them to wield influence to create a – for
them – virtuous circle of growing economic and political power. That mistake will not be easily remedied,
and that is why I view the new decade with great apprehension. In the name of free markets, we created
a monster that threatens to destroy the very free markets we extol.
While Hyman Minsky was the first clearly formulate the financial instability hypothesis, Keynes
also understood this dynamic pretty well. He postulated that a world with a large financial
sector and an excessive emphasis on the production of investment products creates instability both in
terms of output and prices. In other words it automatically tends to generate credit and asset bubbles.
The key driver is the fact that financial professionals generally risk other people’s money and due
to this fact have asymmetrical incentives:
They get big rewards when bets go right
They don’t have to pay when bets go wrong.
This asymmetry is not a new observation of this systemic problem. Andrew Jackson noted it in much
more polemic way long ago:
“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used
the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country.When you won,
you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell
me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand
families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out,
and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out.”
This asymmetrical incentives ensure that the financial system is structurally biased toward
taking on more risk than what should be taken. In other words it naturally tend to slide to
the casino model, the with omnipresent reckless gambling as the primary and the most profitable mode
of operation while an opportunities last. The only way to counter this is to throw sand into the
wheels of financial mechanism: enforce strict regulations, limit money supplies and periodically
jail too enthusiastic bankers. The latter is as important or even more important as the other two because
bankers tend to abuse "limited liability" status like no other sector.
Asset inflation over the past 10 years and the subsequent catastrophe incurred is a way classic behavior
of dynamic system with strong positive feedback loop. Such behavior does not depends of personalities
of bankers or policymakers, but is an immanent property of this class of dynamic systems. And the main
driving force here was deregulation. So its important that new regulation has safety feature which make
removal of it more complicated and requiring bigger majority like is the case with constitutional issues.
Another fact was the fact that due to perverted incentives, accounting in the banks
was fraudulent from the very beginning and it was fraudulent on purpose. Essentially accounting
in banks automatically become as bad as law enforcement permits. This is a classic case of control fraud
and from prevention standpoint is make sense to establish huge penalties for auditors, which might hurt
healthy institutions but help to ensure that the most fraudulent institution lose these bank charter
before affecting the whole system. With the anti-regulatory zeal of Bush II administration the
level of auditing became too superficial, almost non-existent. I remember perverted dances with
Sarbanes–Oxley when it
was clear from the very beginning that the real goal is not to strengthen accounting but to earn fees
and to create as much profitable red tape as possible, in perfect Soviet bureaucracy style.
Deregulation also increases systemic risk by influencing the real goals of financial
organizations. At some point of deregulation process the goal of higher remuneration for the top brass
becomes self-sustainable trend and replaces all other goals of the financial organization. This
is the essence of Martin Taylor’s, the former chief executive of Barclays, article
- Innumerate bankers were ripe for a reckoning in the Financial Times (Dec 15, 2009), which is worth
reading in its entirety:
City people have always been paid well relative to others, but megabonuses are quite new.
From my own experience, in the mid-1990s no more than four or five employees of Barclays’ then
investment bank were paid more than £1m, and no one got near £2m. Around the turn of the
millennium across the market things began to take off, and accelerated rapidly – after a pause in
2001-03 – so that exceptionally high remuneration, not just individually, but in total, was paid
out between 2004 and 2007.
Observers of financial services saw unbelievable prosperity and apparently immense value
added. Yet two years later the whole industry was bankrupt. A simple reason underlies this:
any industry that pays out in cash colossal accounting profits that are largely imaginary will go
bust quickly. Not only has the industry – and by extension societies that depend on it – been
spending money that is no longer there, it has been giving away money that it only imagined it had
in the first place. Worse, it seems to want to do it all again.
What were the sources of this imaginary wealth?
First, spreads on credit that took no account of default probabilities (bankers have been
doing this for centuries, but not on this scale).
Second, unrealised mark-to-market profits on the trading book, especially in illiquid instruments.
Third, profits conjured up by taking the net present value of streams of income stretching
into the future, on derivative issuance for example.
In the last two of these the bank was not receiving any income, merely “booking revenues”.
How could they pay this non-existent wealth out in cash to their employees? Because they had
no measure of cash flow to tell them they were idiots, and because everyone else was doing it.
Paying out 50 per cent of revenues to staff had become the rule, even when the “revenues”
did not actually consist of money.
In the next phase instability is amplified by the way governments and central banks respond to crises
caused by credit bubble: the state has powerful means to end a recession, but the policies it uses give
rise to the next phase of instability, the next bubble…. When money is virtually free – or, at least,
at 0.5 per cent – traders feel stupid if they don’t leverage up to the hilt. Thus previous bubble and
crash become a dress rehearsal for the next.
Resulting self-sustaining "boom-bust" cycle is very close how electronic systems with positive feedback
loop behave and cannot be explained by neo-classical macroeconomic models. Like with electronic
devices the financial institution in this mode are unable to provide the services that are needed.
Modern finance, he argued, was far from the stabilizing force that mainstream economics portrayed:
rather, it was a system that created the illusion of stability while simultaneously creating the
conditions for an inevitable and dramatic collapse.
...our whole financial system contains
the seeds of its own destruction. “Instability,” he wrote, “is an inherent and inescapable flaw of
Minsky’s vision might have been dark, but he was not a fatalist; he believed it was possible to
craft policies that could blunt the collateral damage caused by financial crises. But with a growing
number of economists eager to declare the recession over, and the crisis itself apparently behind
us, these policies may prove as discomforting as the theories that prompted them in the first place.
Indeed, as economists re-embrace Minsky’s prophetic insights, it is far from clear that they’re ready
to reckon with the full implications of what he saw.
And he understood the roots of the current credit bubble much better that neoclassical economists like
As people forget that failure is a possibility, a “euphoric economy” eventually develops, fueled
by the rise of far riskier borrowers - what [Minsky] called speculative borrowers,
those whose income would cover interest payments but not the principal; and those he called
“Ponzi borrowers,” those whose income could cover neither, and could only pay their bills
by borrowing still further.
As these latter categories grew, the overall economy would shift from a conservative but profitable
environment to a much more freewheeling system dominated by players whose survival depended not on
sound business plans, but on borrowed money and freely available credit.
Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis suggests that when optimism is high and ample
funds are available for investment, investors tend to migrate from the safe hedge end of the Minsky
spectrum to the risky speculative and Ponzi end. Indeed, in the current crisis, investors tried to raise
returns by increasing leverage and switching to financing via short-term—sometimes overnight— borrowing
late to learn?):
In the church of Friedman, inflation was the ol' devil tempting the good folk; the 1980s seemed
to prove that, let loose, it would cause untold havoc on the populace. But, as Barbera notes:
The last five major global cyclical events were the early 1990s recession - largely occasioned
by the US Savings & Loan crisis, the collapse of Japan Inc after the stock market crash of 1990,
the Asian crisis of the mid-1990s, the fabulous technology boom/bust cycle at the turn of the
millennium, and the unprecedented rise and then collapse for US residential real estate in 2007-2008.
All five episodes delivered recessions, either global or regional. In no case was there a significant
prior acceleration of wages and general prices. In each case, an investment boom and an associated
asset market ran to improbable heights and then collapsed. From 1945 to 1985, there was no recession
caused by the instability of investment prompted by financial speculation - and since 1985 there
has been no recession that has not been caused by these factors.
Thus, meet the devil in Minsky's paradise - "an investment boom and an associated asset market [that]
ran to improbable heights and then collapsed".
According the Barbera, "Minsky's financial instability hypothesis depends critically on what amounts
to a sociological insight. People change their minds about taking risks. They don't make a one-time
rational judgment about debt use and stock market exposure and stick to it. Instead, they change
their minds over time. And history is quite clear about how they change their minds. The longer the
good times endure, the more people begin to see wisdom in risky strategies."
Current economy state can be called following Paul McCulley a "stable disequilibrium" very similar
to a state a sand pile. All this pile of stocks, debt instruments, derivatives, credit
default swaps and God know corresponds to a pile of sand that is on the verse of losing stability.
Each financial player works hard to maximize their own personal outcome but the "invisible hand" effect
in adding sand to the pile that is increasing systemic instability. According to Minsky, the longer
such situation continues the more likely and violent an "avalanche".
The late Hunt Taylor wrote, in 2006:
"Let us start with what we know. First, these markets look nothing like anything I've ever encountered
before. Their stunning complexity, the staggering number of tradable instruments and their interconnectedness,
the light-speed at which information moves, the degree to which the movement of one instrument triggers
nonlinear reactions along chains of related derivatives, and the requisite level of mathematics necessary
to price them speak to the reality that we are now sailing in uncharted waters.
"... I've had 30-plus years of learning experiences in markets, all of which tell me that
technology and telecommunications will not do away with human greed and ignorance. I think
we will drive the car faster and faster until something bad happens. And I think it will come, like
a comet, from that part of the night sky where we least expect it."
Banking was once a dangerous profession. In Britain, for instance, bankers faced
“unlimited liability”--that is, if you ran a bank, and the bank couldn’t repay depositors or other
creditors, those people had the right to confiscate all your personal assets and income until you
repaid. It wasn’t until the second half of the nineteenth century that Britain established
limited liability for bank owners. From that point on, British bankers no longer assumed
much financial risk themselves.
In the United States, there was great experimentation with banking during the 1800s, but those
involved in the enterprise typically made a substantial commitment of their own capital. For
example, there was a well-established tradition of “double liability,” in which stockholders were
responsible for twice the original value of their shares in a bank. This encouraged stockholders
to carefully monitor bank executives and employees. And, in turn, it placed a lot of pressure on
those who managed banks. If they fared poorly, they typically faced personal and professional ruin.
The idea that a bank executive would retain wealth and social status in the event of a self-induced
calamity would have struck everyone--including bank executives themselves--as ludicrous.
Enter, in the early part of the twentieth century, the Federal Reserve. The Fed was founded in
1913, but discussion about whether to create a central bank had swirled for years. “No one can carefully
study the experience of the other great commercial nations,” argued Republican Senator Nelson Aldrich
in an influential 1909 speech, “without being convinced that disastrous results of recurring financial
crises have been successfully prevented by a proper organization of capital and by the adoption of
wise methods of banking and of currency”--in other words, a central bank. In November 1910, Aldrich
and a small group of top financiers met on an isolated island off the coast of Georgia. There, they
hammered out a draft plan to create a strong central bank that would be owned by banks themselves.
What these bankers essentially wanted was a bailout mechanism for the aftermath of speculative
crashes -- something more durable than J.P. Morgan, who saved the day in the Panic of 1907
but couldn’t be counted on to live forever. While they sought informal government backing and substantial
government financial support for their new venture, the bankers also wanted it to remain free of
government interference, oversight, or control.
Another destabilizing fact is so called myth of invisible hand which is closely related to the myth
about market self-regulation. The misunderstood argument of Adam Smith , the founder of modern
economics, that free markets led to efficient outcomes, “as if by an invisible hand” has played a central
role in these debates: it suggested that we could, by and large, rely on markets without government
intervention. About "invisible hand" deification, see
The Invisible Hand, Trumped by Darwin - NYTimes.com.
The moment in the financial system when the quantity of debt turns into quality and produces yet
another financial crisis is called Minsky moment. In other words the “Minsky moment” is the time
when an unsustainable financial boom turns into uncontrollable collapse of financial markets (aka
financial crash). The existence of Minsky moments is one of the most important counterargument against
financial market self-regulation. It also expose free market fundamentalists such as "former
Maestro" Greenspan as charlatans. Greenspan actually implicitly admitted that he is and that it was
he, who was the "machinist" who helped to bring the USA economic train off the rails in 2008
via deregulation and dismantling the New Deal installed safeguards.
Here how it is explained by Stephen Mihm in
Boston Globe in 2009
in the after math of 2008 financial crisis:
“Minsky” was shorthand for Hyman Minsky, an American macroeconomist who died over a decade
ago. He predicted almost exactly the kind of meltdown that recently hammered the global
economy. He believed in capitalism, but also believed it had almost a genetic weakness.
Modern finance, he argued, was far from the stabilizing force that mainstream economics
portrayed: rather, it was a system that created the illusion of stability while simultaneously
creating the conditions for an inevitable and dramatic collapse.
In other words, the one person who foresaw the crisis also believed that our whole financial system
contains the seeds of its own destruction. “Instability,” he wrote, “is an inherent and inescapable
flaw of capitalism.”
Minsky believed it was possible to craft policies that could blunt the collateral damage caused
by financial crises. As economists re-embrace Minsky’s prophetic insights, it is far from clear that
they’re ready to reckon with the full implications of what he saw.
Minsky theory was not well received due to powerful orthodoxy, born in the years after World War
II, known as the neoclassical synthesis. The older belief in a self-regulating, self-stabilizing
free market had selectively absorbed a few insights from John Maynard Keynes, the great economist
of the 1930s who wrote extensively of the ways that capitalism might fail to maintain full employment.
Most economists still believed that free-market capitalism was a fundamentally stable basis for an
economy, though thanks to Keynes, some now acknowledged that government might under certain circumstances
play a role in keeping the economy - and employment - on an even keel.
Economists like Paul Samuelson became the public face of the new establishment; he and others
at a handful of top universities became deeply influential in Washington. In theory, Minsky could
have been an academic star in this new establishment: Like Samuelson, he earned his doctorate in
economics at Harvard University, where he studied with legendary Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter,
as well as future Nobel laureate Wassily Leontief.
But Minsky was cut from different cloth than many of the other big names. The descendent of immigrants
from Minsk, in modern-day Belarus, Minsky was a red-diaper baby, the son of Menshevik socialists.
While most economists spent the 1950s and 1960s toiling over mathematical models, Minsky pursued
research on poverty, hardly the hottest subfield of economics. With long, wild, white hair, Minsky
was closer to the counterculture than to mainstream economics. He was, recalls the economist L. Randall
Wray, a former student, a “character.”
So while his colleagues from graduate school went on to win Nobel prizes and rise to the top of
academia, Minsky languished. He drifted from Brown to Berkeley and eventually to Washington University.
Indeed, many economists weren’t even aware of his work. One assessment of Minsky published in 1997
simply noted that his “work has not had a major influence in the macroeconomic discussions of the
last thirty years.”
Yet he was busy. In addition to poverty, Minsky began to delve into the field of finance, which
despite its seeming importance had no place in the theories formulated by Samuelson and others. He
also began to ask a simple, if disturbing question: “Can ‘it’ happen again?” - where “it” was, like
Harry Potter’s nemesis Voldemort, the thing that could not be named: the Great Depression.
In his writings, Minsky looked to his intellectual hero, Keynes, arguably the greatest economist
of the 20th century. But where most economists drew a single, simplistic lesson from Keynes - that
government could step in and micromanage the economy, smooth out the business cycle, and keep things
on an even keel - Minsky had no interest in what he and a handful of other dissident economists came
to call “bastard Keynesianism.”
Instead, Minsky drew his own, far darker, lessons from Keynes’s landmark writings, which dealt
not only with the problem of unemployment, but with money and banking. Although Keynes had never
stated this explicitly, Minsky argued that Keynes’s collective work amounted to a powerful argument
that capitalism was by its very nature unstable and prone to collapse. Far from trending toward some
magical state of equilibrium, capitalism would inevitably do the opposite. It would lurch over a
This insight bore the stamp of his advisor Joseph Schumpeter, the noted Austrian economist now
famous for documenting capitalism’s ceaseless process of “creative destruction.” But Minsky spent
more time thinking about destruction than creation. In doing so, he formulated an intriguing theory:
not only was capitalism prone to collapse, he argued, it was precisely its periods of economic stability
that would set the stage for monumental crises.
Minsky called his idea the “Financial Instability Hypothesis.” In the wake of a depression, he
noted, financial institutions are extraordinarily conservative, as are businesses. With the borrowers
and the lenders who fuel the economy all steering clear of high-risk deals, things go smoothly: loans
are almost always paid on time, businesses generally succeed, and everyone does well. That success,
however, inevitably encourages borrowers and lenders to take on more risk in the reasonable hope
of making more money. As Minsky observed, “Success breeds a disregard of the possibility of failure.”
As people forget that failure is a possibility, a “euphoric economy” eventually develops, fueled
by the rise of far riskier borrowers - what he called speculative borrowers, those whose income would
cover interest payments but not the principal; and those he called “Ponzi borrowers,” those whose
income could cover neither, and could only pay their bills by borrowing still further. As these latter
categories grew, the overall economy would shift from a conservative but profitable environment to
a much more freewheeling system dominated by players whose survival depended not on sound business
plans, but on borrowed money and freely available credit.
Once that kind of economy had developed, any panic could wreck the market. The failure of a single
firm, for example, or the revelation of a staggering fraud could trigger fear and a sudden, economy-wide
attempt to shed debt. This watershed moment - what was later dubbed the “Minsky moment” - would create
an environment deeply inhospitable to all borrowers. The speculators and Ponzi borrowers would collapse
first, as they lost access to the credit they needed to survive. Even the more stable players might
find themselves unable to pay their debt without selling off assets; their forced sales would send
asset prices spiraling downward, and inevitably, the entire rickety financial edifice would start
to collapse. Businesses would falter, and the crisis would spill over to the “real” economy that
depended on the now-collapsing financial system.
From the 1960s onward, Minsky elaborated on this hypothesis. At the time he believed that this
shift was already underway: postwar stability, financial innovation, and the receding memory of the
Great Depression were gradually setting the stage for a crisis of epic proportions. Most of what
he had to say fell on deaf ears. The 1960s were an era of solid growth, and although the economic
stagnation of the 1970s was a blow to mainstream neo-Keynesian economics, it did not send policymakers
scurrying to Minsky. Instead, a new free market fundamentalism took root: government was the problem,
not the solution.
Moreover, the new dogma coincided with a remarkable era of stability. The period from the late
1980s onward has been dubbed the “Great Moderation,” a time of shallow recessions and great resilience
among most major industrial economies. Things had never been more stable. The likelihood that “it”
could happen again now seemed laughable.
Yet throughout this period, the financial system - not the economy, but finance as an industry
- was growing by leaps and bounds. Minsky spent the last years of his life, in the early 1990s, warning
of the dangers of securitization and other forms of financial innovation, but few economists listened.
Nor did they pay attention to consumers’ and companies’ growing dependence on debt, and the growing
use of leverage within the financial system.
By the end of the 20th century, the financial system that Minsky had warned about had materialized,
complete with speculative borrowers, Ponzi borrowers, and precious few of the conservative borrowers
who were the bedrock of a truly stable economy. Over decades, we really had forgotten the meaning
of risk. When storied financial firms started to fall, sending shockwaves through the “real” economy,
his predictions started to look a lot like a road map.
“This wasn’t a Minsky moment,” explains Randall Wray. “It was a Minsky half-century.”
Minsky is now all the rage. A year ago, an influential Financial Times columnist confided to readers
that rereading Minsky’s 1986 “masterpiece” - “Stabilizing an Unstable Economy” - “helped clear my
mind on this crisis.” Others joined the chorus. Earlier this year, two economic heavyweights - Paul
Krugman and Brad DeLong - both tipped their hats to him in public forums. Indeed, the Nobel Prize-winning
Krugman titled one of the Robbins lectures at the London School of Economics “The Night They Re-read
Today most economists, it’s safe to say, are probably reading Minsky for the first time, trying
to fit his unconventional insights into the theoretical scaffolding of their profession. If Minsky
were alive today, he would no doubt applaud this belated acknowledgment, even if it has come at a
terrible cost. As he once wryly observed, “There is nothing wrong with macroeconomics that another
depression [won’t] cure.”
But does Minsky’s work offer us any practical help? If capitalism is inherently self-destructive
and unstable - never mind that it produces inequality and unemployment, as Keynes had observed -
After spending his life warning of the perils of the complacency that comes with stability - and
having it fall on deaf ears - Minsky was understandably pessimistic about the ability to short-circuit
the tragic cycle of boom and bust. But he did believe that much could be done to ameliorate the damage.
To prevent the Minsky moment from becoming a national calamity, part of his solution (which was
shared with other economists) was to have the Federal Reserve - what he liked to call the “Big Bank”
- step into the breach and act as a lender of last resort to firms under siege. By throwing lines
of liquidity to foundering firms, the Federal Reserve could break the cycle and stabilize the financial
system. It failed to do so during the Great Depression, when it stood by and let a banking crisis
spiral out of control. This time, under the leadership of Ben Bernanke - like Minsky, a scholar of
the Depression - it took a very different approach, becoming a lender of last resort to everything
from hedge funds to investment banks to money market funds.
Minsky’s other solution, however, was considerably more radical and less palatable politically.
The preferred mainstream tactic for pulling the economy out of a crisis was - and is - based on the
Keynesian notion of “priming the pump” by sending money that will employ lots of high-skilled, unionized
labor - by building a new high-speed train line, for example.
Minsky, however, argued for a “bubble-up” approach, sending money to the poor and unskilled
first. The government - or what he liked to call “Big Government” - should become the “employer of
last resort,” he said, offering a job to anyone who wanted one at a set minimum wage. It
would be paid to workers who would supply child care, clean streets, and provide services that would
give taxpayers a visible return on their dollars. In being available to everyone, it would be even
more ambitious than the New Deal, sharply reducing the welfare rolls by guaranteeing a job for anyone
who was able to work. Such a program would not only help the poor and unskilled, he believed, but
would put a floor beneath everyone else’s wages too, preventing salaries of more skilled workers
from falling too precipitously, and sending benefits up the socioeconomic ladder.
While economists may be acknowledging some of Minsky’s points on financial instability, it’s safe
to say that even liberal policymakers are still a long way from thinking about such an expanded role
for the American government. If nothing else, an expensive full-employment program would veer far
too close to socialism for the comfort of politicians. For his part, Wray thinks that the critics
are apt to misunderstand Minsky. “He saw these ideas as perfectly consistent with capitalism,” says
Wray. “They would make capitalism better.”
But not perfect. Indeed, if there’s anything to be drawn from Minsky’s collected work, it’s that
perfection, like stability and equilibrium, are mirages. Minsky did not share his profession’s quaint
belief that everything could be reduced to a tidy model, or a pat theory. His was a kind of existential
economics: capitalism, like life itself, is difficult, even tragic. “There is no simple answer to
the problems of our capitalism,” wrote Minsky. “There is no solution that can be transformed into
a catchy phrase and carried on banners.”
It’s a sentiment that may limit the extent to which Minsky becomes part of any new orthodoxy.
But that’s probably how he would have preferred it, believes liberal economist James Galbraith. “I
think he would resist being domesticated,” says Galbraith. “He spent his career in professional isolation.”
The positive feedback loop in inherent the environment dominated by large transnationals
which funnel their excess cash into the financial system to speculate on asset appreciation.
As analysis in "The
Endless Crisis" suggests ( updating the classic 1960s analysis of the U.S. economy given by Paul
Sweezy and Paul Baran in "Monopoly Capital.") that the global economy is controlled by large
oligopolistic firms. Which boost their profits by lowering their costs and suppressing wages(on global
scale), using computerization, automation and relocating production to cheap-labor countries such
as China. Wage suppression in turn created permanent weak global demand. Which in turn dry
ups investment opportunities in expansion of existing manufacturing facilities. That forces transnationals
to funnel their excess cash into the financial system to speculate on asset appreciation. As
a result we have "permanent recession" punctuated by boom and bust cycles in financial markets.
Nature of leverage is such that it always represent a positive feedback loop. And leverage
is the essence of
banking operations. In the absence of negative control loops in a form of regulation,
purges, exiles, etc, financial system eventually loses stability which demonstrate itself in financial
crisis. Deep financial crisis often are followed by stagnation and can turn into social crisis.
The economy finds itself in a "stagnation-financialization trap" in which the only way to stimulate
growth is through the financialization process which leads to the next bubble and the next financial
crisis. Policy makers in Western countries are ready and willing to lead the world off this
cliff: "Restoring the conditions for finance-led expansion has now become the immediate object of
economic policy in the face of a persistently stagnation-prone real economy."(Foster and McChesney,
p 47). The authors add, "Not only have financial crises become endemic, they have also been growing
in scale and global impact." (Foster and McChesney, 43)
It is very difficult to gain a greater understanding of the broad social forces at play that
are shaping the financial sector, but self-destructing tendencies of the latter can be established
beyond reasonable doubt. And the problem here is not with people, although, again, I would
like to stress that a lot of financial actors are as close to psychopaths/sociopaths as one
can get. But people are better then institutions as Prince Kropotkin once remarked. The problem
is with reshaping of institutions via weakening of regulations (up to the total absence of thereof).
Regulations represent genome that guides growth and proliferation of organizational entities much
like cells in human organism. Bad genome creates cancer cells that kills the host. This
analogy with financial sector converting into cancer under a weak regulatory regime is less superficial
that one might think from the first sight. Some see the cycle in which financial sector undermines
economy the following way:
Boost Phase of Credit Expansion. Banks became dominant political force and start to
dictate the government policy.
Deregulation. Banks create for the themselves the "most favorable entity" regime including
access to government funds and taxation. Here revolving door greatly helps (see
Corruption of Regulators)
Overextended Credit Expansion and Over Capacity (dot-com bubble)
Growing Malinvestment ( there are no alternatives and one burst bubble is simply replaced
by the next. For example, dot-com bubble with the housing bubble in the case of the USA)
Impaired Debt and Policy Decisions, such as bailout of TBTF at taxpayer expense and
great cost for the economy. Please note that at this point banks have total political control,
so they essentially bail themselves out at the expense of the society.
Stalled Consumption due to shrinking of middle class and high structural unemployment.
The growing bills are passed on plebs. Cheap Money are Offered as the only Panacea Available.
Shrinking Loans and another round of Bank Speculation, this time in natural resources.
Search for Yield from Shrinking Pool of Productive Assets. Increasingly speculative
investments with high risk
Stagnation - Over-indebted economy, massive overcapacity with limited growth.
The growth of nationalism and protectionism (ref. 1920's -> 1930's). Military Keynesianism.
Oligarchy don't hesitate to sacrifice millions of plebeians in the subsequent wars that always
In financial markets, socially-responsible, rational behavior isn’t optimal. That makes
reckless, self and society endangering behavior not a deviation, but a norm. That makes finance a
close relative to organized crime. In this respect Jefferson famous quote "I believe that banking
institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies" is really prophetic.
Instability is an immanent feature of dynamic systems with positive feedback loops. Financial
sector introduces a dangerous positive feedback loop into economy precipitating bubbles and subsequent
crisis. Despite artful packaging, the banking industry game is very simple, namely, they
take outsized, leveraged risks and when they work out, pay themselves handsome rewards, and when
they don’t, dump them on the taxpayer. That's why asJohn Kenneth Galbraith aptly noted "Finance
is the Achilles' heel of capitalism." While there are multiple levels and multiple meaning
on each level of this statement, instability of dynamic systems with positive feedback
loops is a fundamental property of such systems and it cannot be changed by any superficial
measures not related to the strength of feedback loop.The "inherently procyclical"
nature of the financial systemimplies thatthat perceptions of value and risk develop in parallel. Bankers always suffer from a blindness
to future dangers that are intrinsic to the system because that stand in a way of getting outsized
profits. The better the economy is doing, the higher the ratings issued by the rating agencies,
the laxer the guidelines for approving credit, the easier it becomes to borrow money and the greater
the willingness to assume risk.
Wall Street execs have been whining for two years that to reduce pay incentives and bonuses
would cost the firms their best talent. The government’s response should be YES! That’s precisely
the idea. Finance was once a means to an end: the growth of the real economy. Banking once served
industry and services. Now finance has become the end, and the real economy is subservient
to financial services (it’s no surprise that after the crisis, over-the-counter derivatives
trading quickly climbed back up to more than $600 trillion). “At some point in our recent past,
finance lost contact with its raison d’être,” European Central Bank chief Jean Claude Trichet
said earlier this year. “Finance developed a life of its own…Finance became self-referential.”
Computers brought innovations into financial markets, but at the same time greatly strengthened
and enhanced positive feedback loops inherent in financial sector. In other words
they make financial players much more dangerous for society then before. Our present system
could not exist without Web-based brokers, indexes, CDO’s, tranches, MERS, high speed trading. Computers
also have allowed dramatic increase of complexity, which often is used to hide the most dangerous
and the most reckless behavior of financial players. Computers are become an integral part of the
feedback and add gain (amplification) to the loop. The gain from computers is not bad by itself but
the trend to remove all controls or attenuations while adding this gain is bound to cause instability.
HFT seems to me one of the more obvious and stupid examples.
Complexity and luck of transparency are central to financial services firm rent seeking.
Those opportunities dramatically increases with computerization of finance and invention of complex
financial instruments. It is interesting that other industries can be allowed to teeter and
fall - steel, railroads, automobiles - but banks are considered sacrosanct. If they are, then
they should be public utilities, but good luck with this idea in captured Congress.
Megabanks automatically become an instrument for acquiring and keeping political influence
for its management ("silent coup"). Financial sector became viewed by the elite as a
solution to stagnation of industrial production and the way to fend of international competitors
playing of the US role of suppliers of global currency. As a result financial sector became a formidable
political force. Like senator Durbin put it:
And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of
the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the
That compensates their inefficiency in internal market. Investment banks understand pretty well
that the best investment with highest return is an investment in political capital.
Saving oversized banks, however, may ruin a country’s public finances (Gros
and Micossi 2008). Take the example of Ireland; this country provided extensive financial
support to its large banks and subsequently had to seek financial assistance from the EU and the
IMF in 2010. The public finance risks posed by systemically large banks suggest that such banks
should be reduced in size.
Further evidence against big banks can be found from studies on banking technologies. Berger
and Mester (1997) estimate the returns to scale in US banking using data from the 1990s, to find
that a bank’s optimal size, consistent with lowest average costs, would be for a bank with around
$25 billion in assets. Amel et al. (2004) similarly report that commercial banks in North
America with assets in excess of $50 billion have higher operating costs than smaller banks. These
findings together suggest that today’s large banks, with assets in some instances exceeding $
1 trillion, are well beyond the technologically optimal scale.
Flawed incentives. The relationship between the rating agencies and big banks is a perfect
case study of flawed incentives and positive feedback loop within financial sector. Agencies
were unduly influenced (aka "were puppets of") by the institutions whose products they were grading.
Financial markets never play a purely passive role; they seek a political role and always
try to actively affect so-called fundamentals they are supposed to reflect. Their lobbying
efforts and regulatory capture are part of positive feedback loop that increases risks and
instability of the financial system. They tend to convert economy into what is using analogy
with military industrial complex can be called the crony capitalist financial-regulatory complex.That means that the necessary contraction of hypertrophied financial sector requires difficult
political changes which captured political establishment is unable to pursue on their own, so changes
often come packaged with violence. As Soros stated:
"These two functions that financial markets perform work in opposite directions. In
the passive or cognitive function, the fundamentals are supposed to determine market prices. In
the active or manipulative function market, prices find ways of influencing the fundamentals.
When both functions operate at the same time, they interfere with each other. The supposedly independent
variable of one function is the dependent variable of the other, so that neither function has
a truly independent variable. As a result, neither market prices nor the underlying reality is
fully determined. Both suffer from an element of uncertainty that cannot be quantified.
I call the interaction between the two functions reflexivity. Frank Knight recognized
and explicated this element of unquantifiable uncertainty in a book published in 1921,
but the Efficient Market Hypothesis and Rational Expectation Theory have deliberately ignored
it. That is what made them so misleading."
The Fiat-based currencies has additional built-in instability risks in comparison with gold
based currencies. This is not to say that gold based currencies are better. But the
ability of the US to run record current-account deficits over the past several decades is one such
effect, the effect impossible in gold standard currency environment and the US political elite (Republican
and Democrats alike) became increasingly comfortable with overconsumption. (The
World’s Financial System Has Become Unstable):
Leading Bush administration officials used to talk of the US current-account deficit being
a “gift” to the outside world. But, honestly, the US has been overconsuming – living far beyond
its means – for the past decade. The idea that tax cuts would lead to productivity gains and would
pay for themselves (and fix the budget) has proved entirely illusory. ...
[T]he net flow of capital is from emerging markets to the US – this is what it means to have
current-account surpluses in emerging markets and a deficit in the US. But the gross flow of capital
is from emerging market to emerging market, through big banks now implicitly backed by the state
in both the US and Europe. From the perspective of international investors, banks that are “too
big to fail” are the perfect places to park their reserves – as long as the sovereign in question
remains solvent. But what will these banks do with the funds?
When a similar issued emerged in the 1970’s – the so-called “recycling of oil surpluses” –
banks in Western financial centers extended loans to Latin America, communist Poland, and communist
Romania. That was not a good idea, as it led to a massive (for the time) debt crisis in 1982.
We are now heading for something similar, but on a larger scale. The banks and other financial
players have every incentive to load up on risk as we head into the cycle; they get the upside
(Wall Street compensation this year is set to break records again) and the downside goes to taxpayers.
Financial deregulation logically leads to over-trading and under-investment creating bubbles
and converting the economy into casino capitalism. The recent the ‘flash crash’ as a clear example
of the bubble and subsequent fragility such over-trading can create. Excessive trading in securities
increases instability of the economic system and creates perverted incentives for many economic actors.
The effect is similar to how drugs and alcohol chemically alter the personality, increasing the value
of instant gratification. As Hyman Minsky noted:
“In a world of businessmen and financial intermediaries who aggressively seek profit, innovators
will always outpace regulators; the authorities cannot prevent changes in the structure of portfolios
from occurring. What they can do is keep the asset-equity ratio of banks within bounds by setting
equity-absorption ratios for various types of assets. If the authorities constrain banks and are
aware of the activities of fringe banks and other financial institutions, they are in a better
position to attenuate the disruptive expansionary tendencies of our economy.”
-- Hyman Minsky, 1986
Growth of inequality connected with emergence of hypertrophied financial sector is another
positive feedback loop. Outsized pay in financial sector attracts talent and this talent
is used for destructive (or at least non-constructive) purposes. This is the situation similar to
the poor countries problem with mafia. What is so destabilizing isn’t just the high guaranteed pay
if you can break in (even though that is a huge part of it) but the allure of obscene sums of money
if you can make it to the top.
The share of US national income going to the top 1 per cent of the income distribution has risen
from 15 to 25 per cent over the past decade, mostly because of the growth in size and profitability
of the financial sector. This payments to the top percentile is a tax paid by the population (similar
to what population paid to royalty and church in middle ages) as a whole for the questionable
benefits of living in the casino capitalism economy. While the key to growth of inequality was financial
sector it also complemented by several additional trends:
Dramatic increase of renumeration of top management in all types of companies : by
increasing number of sociopath in higher echelons of financial institutions and second by destroying
morale of the firm which makes reckless moves more probable.
Due to regulatory capture. Concentrated wealth makes it easier to buy deregulation
to free itself up even more. At the same time concentrated wealth of financial sector finds fewer
productive investment outlets and naturally migrates into destructive speculation, including creating
huge speculative global capital flows. A positive feedback loop in which increase of income inequality
increase "financization" of the economy looks like:
Increase of income inequality ->
Inadequate effective demand in non-financial economy ->
Inadequate investment opportunities in non-financial economy ->
Investments flowing into parasitic financial “creativity”...
Regulatory capture, especially complete capture of the Fed (with NY Fed widely considered
to be a branch of Goldman Sachs) and SEC nullifies enforcement and creates another positive
feedback loop. "Revolving doors" provide an excellent opportunity to buy influence without overt
corruption. One recent example is Peter Orzag accepting position in Citi (Why
Citigroup) And that means that while on the job ambitious people might try to avoid to aggravate
banks. But without strong regulatory oversight banks very quickly convert themselves into wonder
machines that provides astronomic returns to brass and selected employees, high returns to
creditors, while at the end of each cycle causing huge losses to taxpayers. Banks must keep up
with their competitors, and if one does some wonder trick with somebody else money, they all must
do it to stay in business. That is why regulation is so vital in this highly competitive sector.
One cannot be virtuous as a commercial entity with obligations to shareholders and customers under
brothel rules. That why Greenspan
as an apostle of deregulation was so destructive for the US economy. This is another positive feedback
loop that feeds on itself. In search of profits which became more scares as financization takes life
out of real economy, financial firms are prone to subvert safeguards and endanger the very society
in which they operate ("financial terrorism effect". Wealth permits financial sector
to remove "sand in the wheels": vital for stability negative feedback loops in form of regulation
and, what is actually more important, strict law enforcement of existing regulations. Here
is a quote from Yves Smith post
Should the Fed Be Independent-
But there has been another thread mixed in with this: resentment at the Fed salvaging the banking
industry, with contingent and real costs, in the form of higher inflation, per
Alford’s and Leijonhufvud’s analysis. Now that many of those actions may indeed have been
the best among a set of bad choices (although I suspect economic historians will conclude the
Fed cut rates too far too fast). However, the big issue is that they involved consequences of
such magnitude that they should not have been left to the Fed. I was amazed, and was not alone,
when Congress did not dress down the Fed in its hearings on the Bear rescue for the central bank’s
unauthorized encroachment into fiscal action (ie., if any of the $29 billion in liabilities assumed
by the Fed in that rescue comes a cropper, the cost comes from the public purse). So the frustration
isn’t merely about outcomes, it’s about process, about the sense of disenfranchisement. And that
will only get worse as this crisis grinds along.
The proliferation of speculative side bets in the form of naked credit default swaps and other
derivatives can have significant negative effects on economic fundamentals such as the terms of financing,
the patterns of project selection, and the incidence of corporate and sovereign default. The
existence of zero-sum side bets on default has major economic repercussions. It has strangulating
effect starving real economy of funds as investors who are optimistic about particular company or
state instead of funding it sell protection. This diverts their capital away from potential borrowers
and channels it into collateral to support speculative positions. Naked CDSs are insurance policies
bought against some other persons property. Such as, I buy a policy against your house. Insurance
companies do not write such policies because I might decide to burn your house down. But even if
we assume that there will be no intentional damage to other’s property, we still are encouraging
diverting of funds. See
Guest Post Economic consequences of speculative side bets – The case of naked CDS « naked capitalism.
They also can create artificial demand. Conservative analyses indicates that in the peak years of
2006 and early 2007, Magnetar’s program drove the demand
for roughly 35% of subprime bonds. That fact refutes the claim that all derivatives, futures,
options and swaps are zero sum game: one person loss is another person gain.
By its nature investment banking is constantly tempted to move into grey zone and then slide
into criminal behavior. There is a profound similarity between investment bankers
and hedge funds "Masters of the Universe" and hackers. Investment bankers play a similar role in
financial system as hackers play in computer networks: they are engaged in systemic effort to undermine
existing laws and security controls. But there one important difference: investment bankers are often
obscenely rich and can buy themselves freedom after being caught. That's why criminal law should
consider financial sector crimes similar to the organized crime. "Algorithmic Terrorism”
( HFT) is one example (Nanex
- Market Crop Circle Of The Day). Nobody went to jail (yet). When you see the kind of losses
we have seen on AAA rated securities for example it is almost certainly there was there was some
kind of fraud involved. In fact growth of investment banking tend to be accompanied by large scale
fraud so this would not be unusual.
Tremendous political power that finance sector acquired due to outsized profits is channeled
toward lobbing that is socially and economically disruptive. Externalities produced by
unregulated banking sector are dangerous for society, but at the same time political power of the
financial sector created a lock in which prevents any meaningful correction. Classic Greek Tragedy
necessary follows. Regulators – and their superiors in the legislative and executive branches
– were captured both intellectually and via implicit form of corruption known as revolving doors.
"To a surprising degree, economic misfortune has correlated with low top marginal tax rates. The
top marginal tax rate at the time of the 1929 crash was 24%. After his election, Roosevelt promptly
raised it to 63% and then to 94%, and one could easily make the case that it was this rise, rather
than financial regulation, that played the primary — though certainly not the only — role in curbing
abuses by attacking greed at its source, without, by the way, damaging the economy. Roosevelt essentially
taxed away big money."
Disincentivizing greed - Page 3 - Los Angeles Times
For financial sector stability is destabilizing. Minsky financial instability hypothesis
can be simplified to the general statement that in any economy with large financial sectorstability is destabilizing as financial firms try to exploit the stable regime to extract
additional profit by increasing leverage and making excessively risky bets which serves as a tax
on real economy, strangulating it and creating the necessity for even more risky bets and higher
leverage. In the latter case large firms also implicitly transfer their risks to larger society (via
The cost of financial intermediation is ultimately a tax on commerce.Outsized,
predatory financial services sector poses real danger to viable businesses, to business expansion,
and to general economic productivity. Large part of activity of financial sector, especially
connected with securitized products, futures, options and derivatives is parasitic: "Banks tend to
make profits – or more accurately, extract rents – out of all proportion to any contribution they
make to the wider economy." Excessive rents weaken the real economy similar to cases
when parasite weakens the host (The
Banking Oligarchy Must Be Restrained For a Recovery to Be Sustained ). In addition to the
overhang of unindicted and undeclared fraud which is widespread due to regulatory capture, distorting
the clearing of the markets, an oversized financial sector essentially make the sum of government
tax and Wall street tax a real drag on the economy. The percentage of financial sector profits to
corporate profits recently peaked at 41%. This suggests that the scope of parasitic financial activity
is a real killer for the economy.
Weakly regulated banks tend to become classic cases of market failure and their employees
at the senior level have basically become the biggest bank robbers of all time. This tremendous
transfer of wealth is inherent in growth of financial sector. The best way to rob bank is to own
Academia serves as the Fifth column of the financial sector. The financial system can
brainwash society via control of corrupt academia in classic Lysenkoism scenario. Here is relevant
quote from The Quiet
Wall Street’s seductive power extended even (or especially) to finance and economics
professors, historically confined to the cramped offices of universities and the pursuit of Nobel
Prizes. As mathematical finance became more and more essential to practical finance, professors
increasingly took positions as consultants or partners at financial institutions. Myron Scholes
and Robert Merton, Nobel laureates both, were perhaps the most famous; they took board seats at
the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management in 1994, before the fund famously flamed out at the
end of the decade. But many others beat similar paths. This migration gave the stamp of academic
legitimacy (and the intimidating aura of intellectual rigor) to the burgeoning world of high finance.
Reaganomics (and later Rubonomics) confused ends with means... As Stiglitz noted,
. ... a financial sector is a means to a more productive economy, not an end in itself. (Financial
a better measure of well-being). Attempt to convert the USA into new Switzerland on the
strength of dollar as a reserve currency was doomed from the beginning due to the country size constrains.
Highly leveraged economies are prone to deep and prolong crisis. "The lesson of history,
then, is that even as institutions and policy makers improve there will always be a temptation to
stretch the limits. ... If there is one common theme to the vast range of crises ... it is that excessive
debt accumulation, whether it be by the government, banks, corporations, or consumers, often poses
greater systemic risks than it seems during a boom. ... Highly indebted governments, banks, or corporations
can seem to be merrily rolling along for an extended period, when bang -- confidence collapses, lenders
disappear and a crisis hits. ... Highly leveraged economies ... seldom survive forever ... history
does point to warnings signs that policy makers can look to access risk -- if only they do not become
too drunk with their credit bubble-fueled success and say, as their predecessors have for centuries,
'This time is different' Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff (cited from
The first thing to understand is that attempt to weaken positive feedback looks via regulation, approach
that can be called “regulation as a Swiss knife” does not work without law enforcement and criminal
liability for bankers, as there is an obvious problem of corruption of regulators. In this sense the
mechanism of purges might be the only one that realistically can work.
In other words it’s unclear who and how can prevents the capture of regulators as financial sector
by definition has means to undermine any such efforts. One way this influence work is via lobbing for
appointment of pro-financial sector people in key positions. If such "finance-sector-selected" Fed chairman
does not like part of Fed mandate related to regulation it can simply ignore it as long as he is sure
that he will be reappointed. That happened with Greenspan. After such process started it became
irreversible and only after a significant, dramatic shock to the system any meaningful changes can be
instituted and as soon as the lessons are forgotten work on undermining them resumes.
In essence, the Fed is a political organization and Fed Chairman is as close to a real vice-president
of the USA as one can get. As such Fed Chairman serves the elite which rules that country, whether
you call them financial oligarchy or some other name. Actually Fed Chairman is the most powerful unelected
official in the USA. If you compare this position to the role of the Chairman of the Politburo
in the USSR you’ll might find some interesting similarities.
In other words it is impossible to prevent appointment of another Greenspan by another Reagan without
changes in political power balance. And the transition to banana republic that follows such appointment
is irreversible even if the next administration water boards former Fed Chairman to help him to write
his memoirs. That means that you need to far-reaching reform of political system to be able to
regulate financial industry and you need to understand that the measures adopted need vigilant protection
as soon as the current crisis is a distant history.
Several other source of financial instability were pointed out by others:
The logic of markets gets extended to “fictitious commodities” – land, labor, and money.Polanyi (1944) famously zeroed in on the way that the logic of markets gets extended to
“fictitious commodities” – land, labor, and money – and the way that society reacts defensively
to that illegitimate extension. Today, arguably, it is the logic of finance that has been so extended,
turning everything it touches into an asset with a speculative price.
Excessive accumulations of financial wealth – “other people’s money” – tend to undermine democratic
political forms.Brandeis (1914) thought that excessive accumulations of financial
wealth – “other people’s money” – tend to undermine democratic political forms (among other
problems). Today, arguably TBTF financial institution threaten democracy.
There are some outstanding lectures and presentation on YouTube on this topic. Among them:
The father of Imran Awan - a longtime IT aide from Pakistan who made "unauthorized access" to the
House computer network -
reportedly transferred a USB drive to the former head of a
Pakistani intelligence agency
, alleges the father's ex-business partner, Rashid Minhas.
Minhas told the
Daily Caller News Foundation
(DCNF) - which traveled to Pakistan to
interview those involved - that Haji Ashraf Awan, Imran Awan's father, had been giving information
to Rehman Malik - former head of Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and current senator.
Malik was appointed to Interior Minister in early 2008, only to step down in 2013 after he lost a
Supreme Court hearing over holding dual UK citizenship.
Minhas told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Imran Awan's father, Haji Ashraf Awan, was
giving data to Pakistani official Rehman Malik, and that Imran bragged he had the power to "
the U.S. president.
Asked for how he knew this, he said that on one occasion in 2008 when a
given to Rehman Malik by Imran's father, my brother Abdul Razzaq was with his father
"After Imran's father deliver (sic) USB to Rehman Malik, four Pakistani [government
intelligence] agents were with his father 24-hour on duty to protect him," he said - however Minhas
did not say what was on the USB.
The House watchdog, Inspector General Michael Ptasienski, charged in September 30, 2016 that
data was being
of the House Network by the Awans as recently as two months before the US
The Awan family had virtually unlimited access to Democratic House members' computers, including
Nearly Imran's entire immediate family was on the House payroll working as IT aides
to one-fifth of House Democrats
, and he began working for the House in 2004. The
inspector general, Michael Ptasienski, testified this month that "
hold the 'keys to the kingdom' meaning they can create accounts, grant access, view, download,
update, or delete almost any electronic information within an office. Because of this high-level
access, a rogue system administrator could inflict considerable damage
According to Minhas - "Imran Awan said to me directly these words: '
See how I control
White House on my fingertip
' He say he can fire the prime minister or change the U.S.
president," Minhas said. "
Why the claiming big stuff, I [didn't] understand 'till now
I was Imran father's partner in Pakistan,
" Minhas said, in two land deals
in Pakistan so big that they are often referred to as "towns."
In 2009, both men were
accused of fraud
Haji was arrested but then released after Imran flew to
, "allegedly exerting pressure on the local police through the ministry as
well as the department concerned," according to local news. Minhas and multiple alleged victims
in Pakistan also told TheDCNF
Imran exerted political influence in Pakistan to extricate
his father from the case
Minhas is currently sitting in US federal prison for fraud, and the
they can not confirm whether Minhas' claims about the USB is true. That said,
that neither the DOJ nor the FBI ever interviewed him about the Awans
, which is odd
considering that he's available and connected to Imran Awan.
He is also one of many people with past relationships with the Awans who have said
they believe they are aggressive opportunists who will do
anything for money
And parts of Minhas's story correlate with observations
elsewhere. Haji's wife, Samina Gilani -- Imran's stepmother -- said in
that Imran used his IT skills to wiretap her as a means of exerting pressure
Haji would frequently boast that Imran's position gave him political leverage, numerous
Pakistani residents told TheDCNF. "
My son own White House in D.C.
," he would
say, according to Minhas. "
I am kingmaker
Senator Malik has denied any relationship with the parties reportedly involved, saying "I am
hearing their names for the first time. I am in public and people always do name-dropping."
Imran Awan's attorney Chris Gowen says Minhas's claims are
"completely and totally
The Awans were banned from the congressional network on Feb 2, 2017 by House Seargant-At-Arms,
Paul Irving - after the IG report concluded that the Awans had been making "unauthorized access" to
House servers. The Awans
were logging in using Congressional members' personal usernames
as well as breaching servers for members they did not work for.
After several members fired
them, the Awans continued to access their data
, says the IG.
The behavior mirrored a "classic method for insiders to exfiltrate data from an
and "steps are being taken [by the Awans] to conceal their activity," reads
Shortly before the 2016 election, the House Democratic Caucus server was breached by Awan - who
authorities believe secretly moved
all the data
of over 12 House members' offices onto the caucus server.
The server may have been "
used for nefarious purposes and elevated the risk that
individuals could be reading and/or removing information,
" an IG presentation said.
The Awans logged into it 27 times a day, far more than any other computer they
Imran's most forceful advocate and longtime employer is Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, who led the DNC until she resigned following a hack that exposed committee
emails. Wikileaks published those emails, and they show that
DNC staff summoned Imran
when they needed her password
Shortly after the IG report came out,
the House Democratic Caucus server - which the
Awans were funneling data onto,
was physically stolen
according to three
government officials. During the same period of time, the Awans were shedding assets at a rapid
In January 2017 they took out a loan intended for home improvement, falsely claimed a medical
emergency in order to cash out their House retirement account, and
, according to an FBI affidavit. -
The FBI arrested Imran Awan at Dulles Airport in July 2017 while trying to flee to Pakistan with
a wiped cell phone and a resume that listed a Queens, NY address. Imran and his wife, Hina Alvi,
were indicted last August on charges of bank fraud - which prosecutors contend was hastened
after the Awans had likely learned that authorities were closing in on them for various other
That said, neither Imran nor Hina have been charged over the unauthorized access
by the House's own Inspector General,
after reviewing server logs. Three other suspects,
Jamal and Abid Awan, and Rao Abbas, have faced no charges whatsoever.
Eleven GOP members of Congress led by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) have written a letter to Attorney
General Jeff Sessions, Attorney John Huber, and FBI Director Christopher Wray -
them to investigate former FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton and others - including FBI
lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
, for a laundry list of potential crimes surrounding
the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Recall that Sessions paired special prosecutor John Huber with DOJ Inspector General Michael
Horowitz - falling short of a second Special Counsel, but empowering Horowitz to fully investigate
allegations of FBI FISA abuse with subpoena power and other methods he was formerly unable to
The GOP letter's primary focus appears to be James Comey, while the charges for all include
obstruction, perjury, corruption, unauthorized removal of classified documents, contributions and
donations by foreign nationals and other allegations.
The letter also demands that Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein "be recused from any
examination of FISA abuse
," and recommends that "
neither U.S. Attorney John Huber
nor a special counsel (if appointed) should report to Rosenstein.
The letter refers the following individuals for the following conduct:
"Comey's decision not to seek charges against Clinton's misconduct s
, potentially motivated by a political agenda."
The letter calls Comey out for leaking his confidential memos to the press. "
light of the fact that four of the seven memos were classified, it would appear that former
Director Comey leaked classified information when sharing these memos...
Comey "circulated a draft statement" of the FBI's decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton for
mishandling classified information - a conclusion reached before the agency had interviewed key
witnesses. "At that point, 17 interviews with potential witnesses had not taken place, including
with Clinton and her chief of staff..."
The letter also seeks clarification on "material inconsistencies between the description of
the FBI's relationship with
that you [then FBI Director Comey] did
provide in your briefing and information contained in Justice Department documents made
available to the Committee only after the briefing."
Hillary Clinton - contributions and donations by foreign nationals
"A lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid
Washington firm Fusion GPS to conduct research that led to the Steele dossier..."
"Accordingly, for disguising payments to Fusion GPS on mandatory disclosures to the
Federal Election Commission, we refer Hillary Clinton to DOJ for potential violation(s) of 52
USC 30121 and 52 USC 30101"
Loretta Lynch - obstruction, corruption
"We raise concerns regarding her decision
to threaten with reprisal the former FBI
informant who tried to come forward in 2016 with insight into the Uranium One deal
Of note, this refers to longtime CIA and FBI undercover informant
William D. Campbell
, who came forward with evidence of bribery schemes
involving Russian nuclear officials, an American trucking company,
and efforts to route
money to the Clinton Global Initiative
Andrew McCabe - false statements, perjury, obstruction
"During the internal Hillary Clinton investigation, Mr. McCabe "lacked candor -- including
under oath -- on multiple occasions," the letter reads. "That is a fireable offense, and Mr.
Sessions said that career, apolotical employees at the F.B.I. and Justice Department agreed that
Mr. McCabe should be fired."
"The DOJ Office of the Inspector General recently released a February 2018 misconduct
report... confirming four instances of McCabe's lack of candor, including three instances under
oath, as well as the conclusion that McCabe's decision to confirm the existence of the Clinton
Foundation Investigation through an anonymously sourced quite violated the FBI's and DOJ's media
policy and constituted misconduct."
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - obstruction, corruption,
"We raise concerns regarding their interference in the Hillary Clinton investigation
regarding her use of a personal email server."
Referring to a
Wall Street Journal
article from January 22, 2018 - "The report
provides the following alarming specifics, among others: "
Mr. Strzok texts Ms. Page to
tell her that, in fact, senior officials had decided to water down the reference to President
Obama to 'another senior government official
." By the time Mr. Comey gave his public
statement on July 5, both references - to Mr. Obama and to "another senior government official"
"Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI personnel connected to the compilation of documents
on alleged links between Russia and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump known as the "Steele
This section of the letter calls out Comey, McCabe, former acting AG Sally Yates, and former
acting Deputy AG Dana Boente regarding the Steele dossier.
we raise concerns regarding the presentation of false and/or unverified information
to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in connection with the former Trump aide Carter
"Former and current DOJ and FBI leadership have confirmed to the Committee that
unverified information from the Steele dossier comprised an essential part of the FISA
applications related to Carter Page"
we refer to DOJ all DOJ and FBI personnel responsible for signing the
Carter Page warrant application that contained unverified and/or false information"
The criminal referrals for the group allegedly responsible for FISA abuse include:
deprivation of rights
under color of law, corruption.
"... Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book. ..."
"... You left out the fact that he was instrumental in the formation of the Clinton Foundation. ..."
Current and former FBI agents are furious after former Director James Comey gave his first interview
since President Trump fired him last year to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday night, reports the
- which was privy to a play-by-play flurry of text messages and other
communications detailing their reactions.
Seven current or former FBI agents and officials spoke throughout and immediately after the
There was a lot of anger, frustration, and even more emojis -- featuring the
thumbs-down, frowny face, middle finger, and a whole lot of green vomit faces
One former FBI official sent a bourbon emoji as it began; another sent the beers cheers-ing
The responses became increasingly angry and despondent as the hourlong interview
Hoover is spinning in his grave
," said a former FBI official. "
money from total failure
," in reference to Comey plugging his book,
A Higher Loyalty
Jana Winter of
adds that when a promo aired between segments advertising Comey's
upcoming appearance with
, the official "grew angrier." "
Good lord, what a self-serving self-centered jackass
," the official said. "
to form he thinks he's the smartest guy around
... ... ...
Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, after which he
leaked memos he claims
document conversations with Trump
New York Times,
kicking off the special
counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller - whose team started out looking at Russian influence
in the 2016 election, and is now investigating the President's alleged decade-old extramarital affairs
with at least two women. Truly looking out for national security there Bob...
... ... ...
Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the
hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration
before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been
"forgotten" in his book.
I would rather have RP if he had the
charisma/gusto and also tactical genius of
DT. However, I worry that Ron, as a guy that
delivered babies and educated people on
nonagression, as opposed to running a
something-billion dollar cutthroat RE empire,
might be more at risk of A) being unable to
overcome political roadblocks and
destabilization, and B) something bad
happening to him.
Comey was always the most enigmatic figure to me in this
sad, troubling series of events involving the FBI.
GOOD NEWS: Everyone hates him now. The Rs hate him, the Ds
hate him. Who's Christmas party did he get invited to last
year? I'm guessing the invitations were few. His own ego
has turned him into plutonium. And he deserves even worse
Comey was the FBI Director when warrants
were issued to spy on Trump and his associates. Warrants
gained in part or in whole by, false evidence (the Steele
dossier) presented to a FISA court judge(s), gathered by,
a foreign national former spy (Steele) who was in contact
with his old Kremlin pals, who (Steele) was then paid by
the DNC, Fusion GPS via Perkins Coie to give Hillary
Rodham Clinton (affectionately known here as The Bitch of
Benghazi) some distance from the fake "evidence".
Now besides Comey knowing the source of "the dossier"
one of his deputies (McCabe) was at the same time
"colluding" with a couple FBI agents (Strzok & Page) in a
"counter-intel operation" (on the taxpayers dime) to
gather dirt on candidate Trump. McCabe's wife (we might
recall) got a sizable "donation" from Terry McAuliffe
(another Klinton sleezebag) for her political run in
And we haven't even touched on Comey's theft of
government documents or his turning over those documents
to his friend so the friend could turn them over to the
Alinsky NYT's for the purposes of...getting his mentor
Grand Inquisitor Mueller a gig as "special prosecutor"
(as he admitted to under oath).
There is only one thing keeping Comey out of Prison:
If we someday get a real AG, who is willing to man
up and appoint a second special prosecutor, Comey is
finished. But for the moment, Mr. Magoo is saving his ass.
Problem is that a sizable portion of the US population
view Comey's actions in the 'if you could go back in
time and kill baby Hitler...' perspective. Yes it's
illegal, yes it's unconstitutional...but was trying to
save the 'World' so it's justified.
I think you
framed it similar...this is the same as injecting
bleach into our veins in the hope in clears up a
pimple on our nose.
The Russian envoy to the chemical weapons watchdog group, OPCW, said that non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) funded by the UK and US carried out the April 7 chemical attack in the
Damascus, Syria suburb of Douma.
Russia's permanent representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), Alexander Shulgin, said Russia has irrefutable evidence that there was no
chemical weapons incident in Douma .
"Therefore, we have not just a "high degree of confidence ," as our Western partners
claim, but we have incontrovertible evidence that there was no incident on April 7 in Douma
and that all this was a planned provocation by the British intelligence services, probably,
with the participation of their senior allies from Washington with the aim of misleading the
international community and justifying aggression against Syria," he stated. -
Shulgin added that the US, UK and France are not interested in conducting an objective
investigation of the attack site. " They put the blame on the Syrian authorities in advance,
without even waiting for the OPCW mission to begin to establish the possible facts of the use
of chemical weapons in Syria ," he said.
The nine-member OPCW mission people has yet to deploy to the city of Douma according to the
organization's Chief, citing pending security issues.
"The Team has not yet deployed to Douma. The Syrian and the Russian officials who
participated in the preparatory meetings in Damascus have informed the FFM Team that there
were still pending security issues to be worked out before any deployment could take place .
In the meantime the Team was offered by the Syrian authorities that they could interview 22
witnesses who could be brought to Damascus ," OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu said as
quoted by the organization.
The Russian Envoy says that the controversial "
White Helmets " were one of the anti-Assad "pseudo-humanitarian NGOs" which staged the
event. As Disobedient Media and others have reported, the White Helmets are funded in large
part by the United States.
"The Syrian Civil Defense Force (aka the White Helmets) is funded in part by United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) . Included here are two links showing contracts
awarded by USAID to Chemonics International Inc. (DBA Chemonics). The first award was in the sum of $111.2 million and has a Period of
Performance (POP) from January 2013 to June 2017. It states that the purpose of the award will
be to use the funds for managing a " quick-response mechanism supporting activities that pursue
a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria ." The second was in the sum of $57.4 million and has a POP from
August 2015 to August 2020. This award was designated to be used in the " Syria Regional
Program II " which is a part of the Support Which Implements Fast Transitions IV (SWIFT IV)
Via Disobedient Media
Moscow says they have confirmed that " these structures [NGOs] on a fee-based basis
cooperate with the governments of the United States, the UK and some other countries ."
Russian experts who conducted the verification of reports on the use of chemical weapons
in the Syrian city of the Douma, found participants of video filming, presented as evidence
of the supposedly occurring chemotherapy, according to the Russian Envoy to OPCW . -
"Everything has been developing according to the script that was prepared in Washington.
There is no doubt that Americans are playing the 'first violin' in all of this . The United
States, the United Kingdom, France and some other countries after the "fake" addition from the
White Helmets and their ilk in Douma, immediately pounced upon the Syrian authorities with
accusations," Shulgin said.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has alerted the OPCW that Russia "may have tampered" with the chemical
attack site in Douma ...
"It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site," U.S. Ambassador
Kenneth Ward said at a meeting of the OPCW in The Hague on Monday.
" It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the
efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation ," he said. His
comments at the closed-door meeting were
obtained by Reuters .
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov shot back in a BBC interview, saying " I can
guarantee that Russia has not tampered with the site ."
Earlier, Britain's delegation to the OPCW accused Russia and the Syrian government of
preventing the international watchdog's inspectors from reaching Douma.
The inspectors aim to collect samples, interview witnesses and document evidence to
determine whether banned toxic munitions were used, although they are not permitted to assign
blame for the attack. -
"Unfettered access is essential," the British delegation said in a statement. "Russia and
Syria must cooperate."
Moscow says the OPCW delay is due to the Western air strikes. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov said the British accusation that Russia was to blame for holding up the inspections was
"We called for an objective investigation. This was at the very beginning after this
information [of the attack] appeared. Therefore allegations of this towards Russia are
groundless ," Peskov said.
On Friday we reported that Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow has
"irrefutable evidence" that the attack - which allegedly killed over 40 people, was staged with
the help of a foreign secret service.
" We have irrefutable evidence that this was another staged event, and that the secret
services of a certain state that is now at the forefront of a Russophobic campaign was involved
in this staged event ," he said during a press conference according to AFP.
According to defense ministry spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Kremlin has
evidence that Britain was behind the attack.
Reuters , he said: " We have... evidence that proves Britain was directly involved in
organising this provocation ."
further adds , the Russian Defense Ministry presented what it says is " proof that the
reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged." It also accused the British government
of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the "provocation." During a briefing on Friday, the
ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in
the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.
During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said,
are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the
Syrian capital, Damascus.
During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said,
are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the
Syrian capital, Damascus.
In the interviews released to the media, the two men reported how footage was shot of
people dousing each other with water and treating children, which was claimed to show the
aftermath of the April 7 chemical weapons attack. The patients shown in the video suffered
from smoke poisoning and the water was poured on them by their relatives after a false claim
that chemical weapons were used, the ministry said.
"Please, notice. These people do not hide their names. These are not some faceless claims on
the social media by anonymous activists. They took part in taking that footage," said
"The Russian Defense Ministry also has evidence that Britain had a direct involvement in
arranging this provocation in Eastern Ghouta," the general added, referring to the neighborhood
of which Douma is part. " We know for certain that between April 3 and April 6 the so-called
White Helmets were seriously pressured from London to speed up the provocation that they were
According to Konashenkov, the group, which was a primary source of photos and footage of the
purported chemical attack, was informed of a large-scale artillery attack on Damascus planned
by the Islamist group Army of Islam, which controlled Douma at the time. The White Helmets were
ordered to arrange the provocation after retaliatory strikes by the Syrian government forces,
which the shelling was certain to lead to, he said.
The UK rejected the accusations, with British UN Ambassador Karen Pierce calling them
"grotesque," "a blatant lie" and "the worst piece of fake news we've yet seen from the Russian
The blast area of just ONE cruise missile is 150ft/2 = 7000m/2
How many hit this target allegedly? You can even see the matrix caused by the layering of
the photo shopping software when you zoom right in (its not present on the first photo)
Fucking amateur hour LMAO
There really is not even a conspiracy theorist out there who would suggest it was a Syrian
government operation any way. Only batshit crazy raving lunatics have suggested it was the
Syrian government. This is clearly the stupidest thing Trump has done. It makes the USA look
like a bunch of circus freak losers. Very sad and shockingly insane. This is the stupidest
piece of propaganda in modern history. The USA looks very, very bad. It looks like, from any
reasonable perspective, that they are actively aiding terrorists on purpose. Wow. Interesting
cosmetics. Interesting optics.
Its almost as if the USA government hates itself and actually wants a nuclear war where
everyone dies. I think the only thing that should be considered is whether the nutty freaks
in charge are actually humans. Humans are a great disappointment, so likely, yes, human
beings really can be that mentally deficient. Trump really is such a level of mental retard
that he hates himself and wants to be nuked, so he bombs Syria knowing full well they have
nothing to do with it. He hates his career now and wants out.
chlorine gas is no big deal. Sarin is destroyed by fire.... There is a reason everyone
stores these away from People. Not saying Orange is right, by any means in fact the opposite,
but this story is a bit of a reach.
Not necessarily. There is no magic way to make this stuff go away. Incineration doesn't
solve the problems of the metal containers. All of this stuff would be making its way into
their environment, causing illness and death in the coming years. It takes decades to
properly neutralize this stuff. Lighting it up with Tomahawks definitely isn't the best way,
and without a doubt some of it would be immediately released into the surrounding area.
However small or not so small that amount is:
I used to manage a small apartment complex swimming pool. Dry Chlorine was mixed into a
40gal concentrated tank and a small squirt was pumped into the filter circulation all day
long. A newbee once lifted the top off the tank to have a look inside. Lucky I was there
(telling him, don't do thattttttt) I about had to carry him out of the room. There would be
reports all over that area if a few hundred gallons or more of Chlorine had been blasted into
I emailed the OPCW yesterday. I asked for the location of the Douma inspection
team at precisely the time the research center was attacked. I heard that they
were at the airport and only hours away from the site. I thought this would
give credence to the theory that the site was attacked just so it would
interfere with a proper inspection. They declined to release any info for the
protection of their workers and the integrity of their work. I guess we will
have to wait for the report.
The OPCW said there was no chlorine and sarin there.
Remember when....March 31, 2005 - The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that the intelligence community
was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before
the US invasion.
And on the left here you'll see our chemistry lab cleverly disguised as an office
building. We have no need for any of the essential components such as reasonable delivery
methods, power supply, storage tanks, pipes, etc. We're cutting edge, unlike all those
What's going on?
"In late March, the U.S. State Department warned European corporations that
they will likely face penalties if they participate in the construction of
Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, on the grounds that "the project
undermines energy security in Europe"
The Nord Stream 2 project and the
denial of pipelines through Syria territory is what's eating at the zio-cons.
This is power politics and Russia / China are too much of a threat.
The Russian central bank opened its first overseas office in Beijing
on March 14, marking a step forward in forging a Beijing-Moscow alliance
to bypass the US dollar in the global monetary system, and to phase-in a
gold-backed standard of trade.
Apr 3 2017 - Europe approves Nordstream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to
April 6 2017 - need to attack Syria.
Coincidentally, with a new government a gas pipelin can be run from
Qatar to Europe and cut-off Russian gas revenue.
The petroyuan project is the key. It will smash the petrodollar zio-world.
Saddam Hussien thought of doing that in the 80's by consolidating
Arab oil into a basket of currencies backed by gold. The problem for
him was he was a disposable puppet and not able to defend that
project. China and Russia are a different matter. It's driving the
Great, I voted for Trump in the hopes he would not be a warmonger since Hillary certainly
was. Looks like I should not have bothered after all.
I can only imagine what Putin et al are thinking. They know they and Assad were not behind
that attack, and they know we know, or should know. What this means is that they will have to
come to view our government the same way America used to view the Communists. As dangerous,
Once you come to view someone not as a rational actor, but as deranged, the dynamics
change, and in very dangerous ways. You cannot appease or come to terms with a lunatic. All
reasonable options begin to disappear, leaving behind only the last resorts.
The reason we voted for Trump is because we are tired of this sanctimonious hypocritical horse shit. Instead we get more of
what we didn't vote for. All Russia did was kindly not sink any of our war ships when we attacked Syria on an assumption.
You got exactly what you voted for... because if you were dumb enough to think you could actually get an outsider maverick
anywhere near the white house I have to think you are too dumb to figure out how to turn on a computer.
Trump's in deep over his head. It was an open question whether he posed any genuine obstacle to the pathocracy, but it seems
more clear now that, one way or another, he has been brought more tightly under their control. THAT, much more than any individual
false-flags or other deceptions or wrongs, should be cause for the rational world to fear. The psychopaths are still on the march,
and Trump is at least paying lip service to their chicanery. The further out on a limb he goes, the more reluctant and then helpless
he will be to backtrack as pathology becomes more extreme and events escalate under their own momentum. With markets looking more
precarious than ever, how long will it be before the psychopaths commit more and bigger false flags?
Cornered animal; that sounds like Trumps modus operandi. Notice that
anyone who criticizes him gets lambasted with personal attacks
instead of a reasoned response.
We need a President who
understands freedom and who is a reasonable person, neither of which
traits are possessed by Trump. He didn't win the election on his own
qualification but on Hillary's lack of qualification. This speaks to
the point, "The lesser of two evils is still evil".
Russia knows that this diplomatic, economic, and military aggression will never stop. These military strikes and economic sanctions from the West represent the death throes of a dying empire. A dying empire is like a gravely wounded, cornered animal.
This is an extremely dangerous animal, because it is willing to arbitrarily kill anyone and anything before it dies.
I still believe that the USA and its European allies will be the
first to use nuclear weapons.
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping no
doubt recognize the grave circumstances, and they are using the
utmost restraint to avoid the provision of a military pretext that
the West/USA is seeking in their effort to greatly escalate
The US will only use nukes to secure their dominance. The
people in change aren't beholden to any country or continent
being filthy rich and/or dual citizens. So the plan is to deny
the US an excuse to use nukes while cutting the empire off at
Otherwise, I agree it'll be a NATO country that
nukes first. That's part of the desire to make smaller nukes.
"Small" nukes are seen as a way to nuke but not start a global
exchange. Fucking insane people gambling with all higher life
Russia will tolerate it as long as possible. The delay only
weakens the US and allies. All have serious issues domestically
and even alliances are strained. Don't interrupt when your enemy
is making a mistake
True, but look around us. There is no need to nuke cities
and military targets in the US. Shut down the electrical
grid and the population would lose it in a matter of hours.
Within days it would be chaos on so many levels that it
would take a long time to recover. We really are our own
worst enemies because we are so fractured and polarized of
the stupidest shit.
Cornered animal; that sounds like Trumps modus operandi. Notice that
anyone who criticizes him gets lambasted with personal attacks
instead of a reasoned response.
We need a President who
understands freedom and who is a reasonable person, neither of which
traits are possessed by Trump. He didn't win the election on his own
qualification but on Hillary's lack of qualification. This speaks to
the point, "The lesser of two evils is still evil".
This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not
going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave
Syria and does not bow to America.
This recent American
Syria is just the opening overture.
In May we have the moving of American embassy to Jerusalem and the
unilateral withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal.
I think we will not reach the end of the year without a big war :
America is losing power and needs it.
The chemical weapons organisation in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria
found NO chemical weapons at the site the USA UK And FR bombed for that.
The only chemical weapons are those found in the tunnels in East Ghouta
after Syria bussed the militant occupiers away. The 40 tons of chemicals
have manufactuer names, serial numbers and addresses eg Porton Down
Cui Bono? Trump says he's going to pull out of Syria -- Things
never looked better for Assad -- and he gets the bright idea, to turn the world against him by gassing
gassing his own people? I'm not buying it. I-F-F (Israeli False Flag)
The west wants to destroy the world cup for Russia so that things will heat up before June
to the point of war. So much money was invested in the stadiums that Russia expects the
visitors to help pay. The US will deny this through false flags and lies. I am so ashamed of
this nation that has changed to the point that I do not recognize it from my childhood.
What happened right after the second direct U.S.-missiles invasion of Syria, which had
occurred on the night of April 13th, could turn out to have momentous implications - far bigger
than the attacks themselves...
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons headlined on April 14th, in the
wake of this U.S.-UK-France invasion of Syria that was allegedly punishing Syria's Government
for allegedly having used chemical weapons in its bombing in the town of Douma on April 7th,
Fact-Finding Mission Continues Deployment to Syria" , and reported that:
The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) team of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) will continue its deployment to the Syrian Arab Republic to establish facts
around the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma.
The OPCW has been working in close collaboration with the United Nations Department of
Safety and Security to assess the situation and ensure the safety of the team.
The OPCW is not part of the U.N., nor of any country; it, instead (as introduced by
is an intergovernmental organisation and the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons
Convention, which entered into force on 29 April 1997. The OPCW, with its 192 member states,
has its seat in The Hague, Netherlands, and oversees the global endeavour for the permanent
and verifiable elimination of chemical weapons.
In conformity with the unchallenged international consensus that existed during the 1990s
that there was no longer any basis for war between the world's major powers, the Convention
sought and achieved a U.N. imprimatur, but this was only in order to increase its respect
throughout the world. The OPCW is based not on the U.N. Charter but on that specific treaty,
the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was formally approved by the U.N.'s
General Assembly on 30 November 1992 and was then opened for signatures in Paris on 13
January 1993. According to the Convention's terms, it would enter into effect 180 days after 65
nations signed it, which turned out to be on 29 April 1997.
So, although the treaty itself received U.N. approval, the recent Russian-sponsored
resolution at the U.N.'s Security Council to have the U.N. endorse the OPCW's investigation of
the 7 April 2018 Douma incident, did not receive U.N. approval. It was instead blocked
by the U.S. and its allies . Nonetheless, though without a U.N. endorsement, the OPCW
investigation into the incident will move forward, despite the invasion.
This fact is momentous, because a credible international inspection, by the world's top
investigatory agency for such matters, will continue to completion, notwithstanding the effort
by the U.S. and its allies on the U.N. Security Council, to block it altogether. This decision
was reached by the OPCW -- not by the U.N.
Among the 192
signers of the Chemical Weapons Convention are U.S., Russia, and Syria, as well as China,
Iran, and Iraq, but not Israel, nor North Korea and a very few other countries. So: all of the
major powers have already, in advance, approved whatever the findings by the OPCW turn out to
be. Those findings are expected to determine whether a chemical attack happened in Douma on 7
April 2018, and, if so, then perhaps what the specific banned chemical(s) was(were), but not
necessarily who was responsible for it if it existed. For example, if the 'rebels' had stored
some of their chemical weapons at that building and then Syria's Government bombed that
building, the OPCW might not be able to determine who is to blame, even if they do determine
that there was a chemical attack and the chemical composition of it. In other words: science
cannot necessarily answer all of the questions that might be legal-forensically necessary in
order to determine guilt, if a crime did, in fact, occur, there.
If the investigation does find that a banned chemical was used and did cause injuries or
fatalities, then there is the possibility that its findings will be consistent with the
assertions by the U.S. and its allies who participated in the April 13th invasion. That would
not necessarily justify the invasion, but it would prove the possibility that there had been no
lying intent on the part of the U.S.-and-allied invaders on April 13th.
However, if the investigation does not find that a banned chemical was used in the Syrian
Government's bombing of that building, then incontrovertibly the U.S.-and-allied invasion was a
criminal one under international laws, though there may be no international court that
possesses the authority to try the case .
So: what is at stake here from the OPCW investigation is not only the international
legitimacy of Syria's Government, but the international legitimacy of the Governments that
invaded it on April 13th. These are extremely high stakes, even if no court in the world will
possess the authority to adjudicate the guilt -- either if the U.S. and its allies lied, or if
the Syrian Government lied.
For us historians, this is very important. And, for the general public, the significance
goes much farther: to specific Governments, to their alleged news media, and to the question
of: What does it even mean to say that a government is a "democracy" or a "dictatorship"? The
findings from this investigation will reverberate far and wide, and long (if World War III
doesn't prevent any such findings at all).
These people are delusional and extremely dangerous. There's been zero proof of who
actually used the chemical weapons (if there were chemical weapons at all?) and they're
making statements about it as if it were a verified and universally recognized fact.
We are entering the psyops and propaganda phase of a war. In this phase we are ordered to
only say what they want us to, and this goes for both sides. They don't care about the truth,
just where and when the shooting will start.
Here we go again- the ever-plotting West trying to create reality on the fly- attempting to make the alleged chemical weapons
attack into a
, painting the tape of reality with the shadow-puppets of the operation
mockingbird-controlled, corporate (MIC) media!
Any good reason we shouldn't just start calling the 5(+1)-eyez media environment the Oceania State News Network (OSNN)
Folks, like some alien abductors, the Deep State has taken the Donald hostage, and with
ball-and-chain finality. Whatever pre-election predilection he had to challenge the Warfare
State has apparently been completely liquidated.
Trump's early AM tweet yesterrday, in fact, embodies the words of a man who had more than a
few screws loose when he took the oath, but under the relentless pounding of the Imperial
City's investigators, partisans, apparatchiks and lynch-mob media has now gone stark raving
mad. To wit:
"....Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia,
because they will be coming, nice and new and "smart!" You shouldn't be partners with a Gas
Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
Yes, maybe Wall Street has figured out that the Donald is more bluster than bite. Yet when
you consider the broader context and what the Russian side is now saying, it is just plain
idiotic to own the S&P 500 at 24X. After all , earnings that have been going nowhere for
the past three years (earnings per share have inched-up from $106 in September 2014 to $109 in
December 2017), and now could be ambushed by a hot war accident in Syria that would rapidly
Indeed, did the robo-machines and boys and girls down in the casino not ponder the meaning
of this message from the Kremlin? It does not leave much to the imagination:
# Russian ambassador in beirut : "If there is a strike by the Americans on #Syria ,
then... the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired,"
Zasypkin told Hezbollah's al-Manar TV, speaking in Arabic.
Sure, the odds are quite high that the clever folks in the Pentagon will figure out how to
keep the pending attack reasonably antiseptic. That is, they will bomb a whole bunch of places
in Syria where the Russians and Iranians are not (after being warned); and also deploy
stand-off submarine platforms to launch cruise missiles and high-flying stealth aircraft to
drop smart bombs, thereby keeping American pilots and ships out of harm's way.
Then, after unleashing the Donald's version of "shock and awe" they will claim that Assad
has just received the spanking of his life and that the Russians and Iranians have been
messaged with malice aforethought.
But our point is not that Douma is Sarajevo, and, besides, this is still April, not August.
What should be scaring the daylights out of Wall Street is that we are even at the point where
the two tweets quoted above are happening.
For crying out loud, there is a brutal, bloody and barbaric civil war raging in Syria where
both sides are bedecked in black hats; both sides have committed unspeakable atrocities; and
where it is a documented fact that the rebels possess chemical weapons and have launched false
flag gas attacks in the past---even as 1,300 tons of Assad's inventory, which may or may not
have been the totality of it, was destroyed according to the certification of the Organization
for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
In that context, who can tell whether the alleged chlorine gas release last Saturday in
Douma originated in a bomb dropped by Assad's air force or came from a rebel stockpile that was
hit by a bomb? Or whether it was another deliberate false flag attack staged by the jihadists
or perhaps that it never happened at all.
The evidence comes mainly from rebel forces opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. One
of these was the Violations Documentation Center, a virulent anti-Russian organization funded
by George Soros. Another was the White Helmets, a completely comprised operation financed by
the US and UK and which has operated only in rebel held territories--- often check-by-jowl with
the al-Nusra Front and other terrorist elements.
Indeed, Washington's fabled spies in the sky and taps on every node of the worldwide web can
read your email and spot a rogue camel caravan anywhere in a Sahara sandstorm. But they can not
tell whether dead bodies are the victims of bullets, bombs, collapsing buildings or chlorine
gas. You need to be on the ground and perform chemical tests for that, and Washington just
plain isn't there.
Besides, even if a careful investigation--like the one proposed by Sweden and which the US
and UK vetoed at the UN---were actually completed, why is it Washington's prerogative to
administer a spanking to the culprit?
For one thing, if you are in the spanking business owing to bad behavior, then just within
the region you would also need to administer the rod to al-Sisi in Egypt and Erdogan in Turkey;
and also to Washington's on and off wards in Baghdad and to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia
for his genocidal attacks on Yemen. While you were at it, why would even Bibi Netanyahu be
spared the birch---given his periodic "lawn mowing" exercises on the Gaza strip?
The point is, Assad has never attacked, threatened or even looked cross-eyed at the United
States. So you would have thought that administering spankings to international malefactors is
the business of Washington's permanent War Party, not the leader of America First.
To be sure, the only evidence we have to date is the gruesome images posted on the internet
by the "Douma Revolution", which we don't credit because it is a tool of the good folks of
Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam), who were holding 3,200 pro-Assad hostages in cages when the
attack happened. But even if Assad is culpable, why is the Donald getting out the birch switch
if he doesn't mean to effectuate regime change?
Yes, inconstancy is his middle name. But how in god's name could even the Donald have
rearranged the modest amount of gray matter under his great Orange Comb-Over so quickly and
completely with regards to Syria?
As a reminder, this is what the Donald said just last week:
"We'll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon," Trump said on Thursday, "Let the other
people take care of it now. Very soon, very soon, we're coming out....We're going to get back
to our country, where we belong, where we want to be."
The fact is, it's way too late to drag Bashar Assad behind the Moammar Khadafy Memorial Jeep
to be ritually sodomized by his enemies. That's because he's already won the civil war (red
area in map below).
What's left is not remotely conducive to regime change because the majority Arab population
of Syria (regardless of Alawite, Shiite, Sunni, Christian, Druse etc. religious affiliation)
would never consent to be ruled by the small minority of Kurds (who control the yellow, largely
desert areas). And besides, a Kurdish Syrian state in part or whole would guarantee a Turkish
invasion and a blue (Turkish controlled areas surrounding Afrin in the northwest) versus yellow
war where Washington would be on both sides.
Indeed, the only thing that a regime change attempt at this late date would accomplish is a
resurrection of the remnants of ISIL (small black specs) or an upwelling of chaos from the
three or four islets (green areas) that warring gangs of rebels, jihadists, salafists and
blood-thirsty warlords now nominally control.
So the map below, in fact, tells you what is really going on. To wit, the neocons and deep
staters around Trump--with the Walrus Mouth (Bolton) now literally shouting in his ear----are
really about picking a fight with Iran and Russia. These are really Imperial Washington's
designated enemies, and the purpose of the impending attack on Syrian military installations is
to intimidate them into backing down----even as they issue hostile warnings and rhetorical
fulminations (especially the Iranians) against America.
Stated differently, the Orange Comb-Over is being lured not so much into an Assad spanking
exercise or regime change maneuver as into a Proxy War with Iran and Russia. The latter is
literally manna from heaven for the Warfare State.
Indeed, with the defense budget already cranked up to the absurd level of $720 billion , the
Deep State and its military/industrial/surveillance/congressional complex allies would like
nothing better than maximum rhetorical belligerence (and occasional provocative acts) from
Russia and Iran in order to keep the national security gravy train inflating toward the $1
trillion funding mark.
Needless to say, the contractual droppings from these staggering budget levels will keep the
beltway think tanks, NGOs and pro-war lobbying apparatus in clover for years to come, thereby
fueling the ugly secret of Imperial Washington.
Namely, since America lost its only real enemy in 1991, Washington has become an unhinged
war capital. It is now endangering the entire planet in a doom-loop of expanding military
muscle, multiplying foreign interventions and occupations, intensifying blowback from the
victims of Washington's aggression and an ever greater chorus of Empire justifying experts,
apparatchiks and politicians getting fat on the banks of the Potomac.
Mattis said that the U.S. aim in Syria is to defeat Islamic State, not "to engage in the civil war itself." But referring to the
use of chemical weapons, Mattis said that " some things are simply inexcusable, beyond the pale " and require a response. -
The Wall St. Journal reports that Mattis "brought those concerns
directly to the White House on Thursday, where White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the national security team
didn't agree on a response."
Exactly two weeks ago Mattis met Bolton - telling the bemoustached bringer-of-death "I heard you're actually the devil incarnate,
and I wanted to meet you."
... ... ...
"If these strikes start, it could end very tragically and it's impossible to predict the outcome -- that's the nature of military
actions," said Russian Senator Frants Klintsevich in a phone interview, adding that there are "no madmen" among Trump's top military
advisors. " These are professionals who aren't populists and know what this could lead to. "
Meanwhile, Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia issued a stark warning on Thursday that there was a danger the war
could escalate beyond Syria because of Russia's military presence.
"We cannot exclude any possibilities [of war between Russia and the U.S.] unfortunately because we saw messages that are coming
from Washington," Mr. Nebenzia said. " They were very bellicose. "
In an attempt to settle things diplomatically, Russia asked for an open Security Council emergency meeting on Friday morning,
calling for UN Secretary-General António Guterres to brief the council, according to the Wall St. Journal .
Meanwhile, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) says they are sending a team of investigators to Syria
on Saturday to collect samples from the site of the alleged chemical attack last weekend.
while President Trump told reporters on Thursday "We're looking very, very seriously, very closely at that whole situation,
and we'll see what happens, folks, we'll see what happens. It's too bad that the world puts us in a position like that."
The lack of self awareness and the victim mentality in this cry-bully statement is breathtaking. Akin to projectile vomiting
on someone them blaming them for smelling disgusting. Extraordinary .
"It was very disconcerting when I saw that an attack is planned on Mosul, an attack is planned. ... Why do we have to talk
about it? Why? I never saw anything like this. Every time we are going to attack somebody, we explain. We're going to attack,
we'll be attacking at three, noon on March 25. I don't know, unless you disagree with me, wouldn't it be better if we were going
to go after Mosul to not say anything and do it, as opposed to announcing -- they're announcing all over television they're planning
to attack Mosul." -- Donald J. Trump
The context of the entire Russia mania is ludicrous and the fake news is so ridiculous
that war must be close.
A) Congress votes unanimously to sanction Russia for tampering the election by hacking and
everybody in DC makes believe they've never heard of the dead staffer.
B) Putin decides to poison some guy right before their election using a special poison
only Russia has. Their involvement in the "investiagtion" is forbidden,
C) The maverick outsider says the US will be pulling out of Syria and ~ a week later Assad
decides to shoot chemicals at people like no one will ever find out. Trump calls Assad an
animal and blames Putin.
There are a few possibilities. Trump could truly be a dotard moron and believe this shit
or he's being strong-armed.
It's either that or some sort of wacko plan. Even the most ardent deplorables are having a
hard time with this.
"... U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017 admitted that a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff – also discussed: The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft . There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention. ..."
Unless you've been living under a rock, by now you know that the British government falsely claimed
that irrefutable evidence proved that the Russian government was behind the poisoning of a former
Russian double agent and his daughter using a "Novichok" nerve agent.
In response, the UK and US
carried out the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in history.
Now that the wheels have come off this farce, it is interesting to note previous examples of the
West falsely blaming Russia for bad acts.
Official German intelligence service documents show that, in 1994, the German intelligence
plutonium on an airplane coming from Russia, as a way to
Russia for exporting dangerous
radioactive materials which could end up in the hands of terrorists and criminals.
This frame-up job was so successful at
whipping up fear
got German Chancellor Kohl re-elected, and the U.S. used it as an excuse to "help" secure Russia's
nuclear facilities, as a way to get access to Russian nuclear secrets.
While everyone "knows" that the Kremlin poisoned Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko with
radioactive polonium, a very
French counterterrorism official, Paul Barril, alleges that French, US and UK intelligence worked
together to kill Litvinenko and to frame Russia:
U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017
a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff – also discussed: The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft .
There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to
confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a
provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly
installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention.
an article headlined (all caps in original Newsweek title):
U.S. GOVERNMENT PLANNED FALSE FLAG ATTACKS TO START WAR WITH SOVIET UNION, JFK DOCUMENTS
The article notes:
The U.S. government once wanted to plan false flag attacks with Soviet aircraft to
justify war with the USSR or its allies, newly declassified documents surrounding the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy show.
False flag attacks are covert operations that make it look like an attack was carried out
by another group than the group that actually carried them out.
Indeed, falsely blaming other countries for terrorism or violence is
the oldest way
to create a "justification" for war.
The governments have certainly learned how to mess with the thinking gear of people.
I spent most of my life working with inanimate objects not spending much time
figuring out how people think. Most of the people that I did try to figure out were
personally known to me. It was only in the last few years of my career that I paid
any real attention to how people are manipulated. I knew people were easily
manipulate for years, just think about how the war in Iraq in 2003 was so popular
amoung most people.
Hi, I am from the government. I am here to lie to you. I have so many lies on
top of other lies that sometimes they are true. Even the government has lost
track. I am not sure if even MIC or Israel knows anymore.
Someone didn't RTFA: " President Trump recently announced his intention to pull US troops
out of Syria - although the neocons that now dominate the Trump national security team have
been aghast at such a suggestion, and have managed to convince the president to slow-roll
this. It remains unclear if they staged the false flag chemical attack in Syria with the help
of Israel, or on their own. "
Despite President Trump
adopting his harshest rhetoric yet
to condemn Russia and the government of Syrian leader Bashar
al-Assad for an alleged chemical attack in rebel-held eastern Ghouta, a missile strike carried out
overnight on a Syrian airfield was not the US's doing.
Instead, Russia and Syria have accused Israel of carrying out the strike on Syria's T-4 airfield,
situated about halfway between Homs (Syria's third-largest city) and Palmyra (famously the site of
two Israeli F-15 jets fired eight guided missiles at the airfield from Lebanese airspace. The jets never
Of these, Syrian air defenses intercepted five. The attack left roughly 14 people dead, including
Iranians and Syrians, the
Russia and the Syrian military blamed Israel for a pre-dawn missile attack Monday on a
major air base in central Syria
, saying Israeli fighter jets launched the missiles from
Lebanon's air space.
A war-monitoring group said the airstrikes killed 14 people, including
Iranians active in Syria.
Russia's Defense Ministry said two Israeli aircraft targeted the T4 air base in Homs province,
firing eight missiles. It said Syria shot down five of them while the other three landed in the
western part of the base. Syrian state TV quoted an unnamed military official as saying that Israeli
F-15 warplanes fired several missiles at T4. It gave no further details.
Israel's foreign ministry had no comment when asked about the accusations.
Israel has struck inside Syria more than 100 times,
suspected weapons' convoys destined for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which has been fighting
alongside Syrian government forces.
Israel hit the same T4 base in February, after it said an Iranian drone that
had violated Israeli airspace took off from the base.
The base, which was used as a launching
pad for counter offensive attacks against Islamic State militants who were at one point stationed
close by, is near the Shayrat air base, which was targeted by U.S. missiles last year in response to a
chemical weapons attack.
Monday's missile attack came hours after President Donald Trump warned there would be a "big price
to pay" after a suspected poison gas attack Saturday on the last remaining foothold for Syrian rebels
in the eastern suburbs of Damascus.
At least 40 people were killed in that assault, including
families found in their homes and shelters, opposition activists and local rescuers said.
Eight missiles were launched by two Israeli Air Force F-15 jets at the T-4 airfield located about
halfway between Homs and the ancient city of Palmyra. Israel previously launched a strike against the
base back in February after an Iranian drone ventured into Israeli airspace, provoking an alarmed
This isn't Israel's first unprovoked attack on a Syrian military installation: most recently,
Israel launched an attack
against a government installation near Damascus almost exactly two months
ago. Before that, the Israelis launched another unprovoked attack
back in September.
Lebanon's Al-Mayadeen reported Monday that Israeli reconnaissance aircraft had been spotted close to
the border with Syria during the attack. The missiles crossed Lebanese airspace over Keserwan and Bekaa
before heading toward Syria.
France, which we had initially suspected might be behind the attack, along with Israel...
While the US was quick to pin the chemical attack in Ghouta - the last rebel stronghold in what's
considered suburban Damascus - on Russia and Assad, the US jumped to a similar conclusion a year ago when
Trump authorized a fusillade of tomahawk missiles to strike a Syrian airbase. It was later learned that
the US had no proof to suggest that attack was orchestrated by Assad's government.
As for Israel's
desire to provoke another regional war, it is understandable in light of growing Iranian influence on its
border, while President Trump recently announced his intention to pull US troops out of Syria - although
the neocons that now dominate the Trump national security team have been aghast at such a suggestion, and
have managed to convince the president to slow-roll this. It remains unclear if they staged the false
flag chemical attack in Syria with the help of Israel, or on their own.
Meanwhile, the Guardian says the IDF views the chaos in the West Wing as the latest sign that it must
take matters into its own hands, and not wait for explicit US approval. However, with a UN Security
Council meeting scheduled for Monday over recent events in Syria, we now wait to see what kind of
response Russia and Assad will decide on, and how Moscow will respond to this provocation by Netanyahu,
who has been friendly - at least superficially - with Putin in recent months.
The natural regional powers are Iran, Turkey
and Egypt. Just look at any population map
and/or economic activity indicators.
Israel has only technology and
'influence' to create a temporary, brittle
form of power. Saudis have only oil and
Hence, by a short-term accident, Israel
and KSA can effectively create death and
destruction in the region, killing babies for
their own greed and power.
BUT ONLY IF THE US HELPS.
The IDF is essentially useless on
the ground, ditto the Saudis, and neither can
handle Russian intel and air superiority on
So this populist insurrection is
indeed a pivotal moment,
coming as it
does when the global balance is shifting
toward Eurasian integration, global peace and
prosperity. A 'Chinese Peace' with Russian
muscle. The main idea being to not blow up
shiny new Chinese ports, roads, etc.
So the tiny, tiny minority of
war-mongering, globalist traitors in these
very, very few countries (Israel, KSA, and
the 'Five Eyes') has essentially NO other
cards to play. Use WMDs against civilians,
false flags, try to get their own killed to
trigger war fever.
The very best part right now is: we're
already past the tipping point. No one
cares, and almost no one believes them.
Pretty much game over, but a very
dangerous end game.
I think we
should round up all these sociopaths pronto
before they murder more babies.
Take it one step farther. The US public
is on to the con. BUT the US economy
still depends on the MIC. And the MIC
depends on maintaining the constant state
of little brush wars around the globe to
sell their hardware. Every Israeli or KSA
plane, missile, and bomb is stamped "Made
in the USA". As China and Russia step in
to impose peace in Eurasia and the Saudi
oil runs out, the petrodollar ceases to be
the world reserve currency. The US has
two economic pillars: the MIC and Big Ag.
With a failing currency and no customers
for war toys, it becomes locked into the
position of being a global commodity
supplier: pork, wheat, corn, soybeans,
peanuts. Historically, agricultural
commodity suppliers are third-world
nations, forced to accept low prices on
highly-competitive products while paying
high prices for monopolized industrial
This is the END for global US
dominance. One can understand why the PTB
are desperate to keep going no matter what
the resistance at home or abroad. A major
war is likely. Victory is not.
And if the Syrian Air Force launched missiles from Jordanian
air space against an Israeli Air Base nothing would happen?
By the way, the Golan Heights does not belong to Israel so
they launched from Syrian territory.
Whatever......hopefully no U.S. Ships are in the way.
"... Nikki Haley claims that the US "Will Respond" To Syria Gas Attack Regardless Of Security Council's Decision ..."
"... Last year, the US destroyed more than a dozen aircraft, as well as oil storage facilities and other structures, and killed at least seven people when it fired 59 missiles at Syria's Shayrat Airbase following a chemical weapons attack that the US also pinned on the Syrian government. ..."
"... Both the UK and France have suggested they're considering military action in Syria. UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said he and his French and US allies agree there should be "no impunity for those that use such barbaric weapons." ..."
"... However, Johnson added that Monday's emergency meeting of the UN Security Council would be "an important next step in determining the international response" and that "a full range of options should be on the table." ..."
Nikki Haley claims that the US "Will Respond" To Syria Gas Attack Regardless Of Security Council's Decision
Update (4:15 pm ET): US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said during an emergency meeting of
the UN Security Council on Monday that the US would retaliate against the attack in Syria
regardless of what the UN Security Council decides.
"History will record this as the moment when the Security Council either discharged its
duty or demonstrated its utter and complete failure to protect the people of Syria. Either
way, the United States will respond."
She described the victims in graphic terms.
"I could hold up pictures of babies lying dead next to their mothers, in their diapers,
all lying together, dead, ashen blue, open eyed and lifeless, white foam bubbling from their
mouths and noses."
Haley added that "the world must see justice done" in Syria.
* * *
Before heading into his Monday afternoon cabinet meeting, President Donald Trump condemned a
chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, Syria during an impromptu press conference. The president
said "even with the world as bad as it is, you just don't see things like that" before saying
he'd decide on a response "probably by the end of today."
And while the US was "having trouble getting people in" to the town, Trump added that he
would definitively determine which states were involved in the attack - be it Syria, Iran,
Russia (or presumably all three).
With Trump and his most trusted advisors still debating the proper response, several
anonymous Pentagon officials have told the
Washington Examiner that the US is considering several options including a missile barrage
similar to the strike carried out on a Syrian air base last year.
The Israeli F-15s launched a lethal strike on a Syrian airbase early Monday, killing 14
the US's tacit approval .
The options being considered now are similar to the options that were provided to the
president before last year's strike. The US has several ships armed with tomahawk cruise
missiles stationed in the region - including the USS Donald Cook, a guided-missile destroyer
that just completed a port call in Cyprus and got underway in the eastern Mediterranean. The
ship is within range of Syria and could presumably strike at any target the president
Last year, the US destroyed more than a dozen aircraft, as well as oil storage facilities
and other structures, and killed at least seven people when it fired 59 missiles at Syria's
Shayrat Airbase following a chemical weapons attack that the US also pinned on the Syrian
But according to one official who spoke with
the Examiner , Trump could be considering a "more robust" strike this time around,
considering that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad didn't quite get the message last time.
Both the UK and France have suggested they're considering military action in Syria. UK
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said he and his French and US allies agree there should be "no
impunity for those that use such barbaric weapons."
However, Johnson added that Monday's emergency meeting of the UN Security Council would be
"an important next step in determining the international response" and that "a full range of
options should be on the table."
Hi, I am from the government. I am here to lie to you. I have so many lies on top of other
lies that sometimes they are true. Even the government has lost track. I am not sure if even
MIC or Israel knows anymore.
The problem for governments using false flag operations like this is many more people are
no longer trusting their own governments and quite rightly so. Human minds are reinforcing
the concept of untrustworthy governments that actually lasts far longer than the elected
period of time of those who purport to represent the population we now know to be a
As example, take Blair ex-UK prime minister who concocted the whole Iraq dodgy dossier in
the UK who most people I know now call him a war criminal but nobody will put on trial in the
Hague. He has not been PM since 2007 but nobody forgets the criminal acts he instigated and
supported and will be remembered for a long time for this. So how do you make Blair appear
human again to the population?
You can apply this concept to so many elected criminals in the west ... join it up those
that rule us are in fact criminals not ordinary people. The psychos rule over us and to them
we are no more than dead meat.
The big game is the eradication of Western sponsored terrorists and ending of the Syrian
This is on schedule and nothing can stop it. It will be over soon.
Russia sees EVERYTHING flying over the entire theatre and in due course the SAA will be
supplied with the means to destroy the IDF over Lebanon also.
The IDF attacks are nothing more than an irritation and will be dealt with in the fullness
of time. 5 from 8 is nothing to brag about at all. In mission planning terms its a disaster
really and will lead to failure in a full war.
Only a direct attack on the Russian military will elicit a direct response from Russia. It
has been stated publicly enough times.
Any response from Russia in that instance will come from missile launches from Russia
(hundreds of them at that) The antagonists know this.
Syria is winning its war and that's all that matters.
Assad is fighting Sunni Insurgency, their all RADICAL. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Gulf
States are funding them. AL-Qaeda, ISIS, and all the other groups, all SUNNI's. This pocket
in SYRIA is filled with Sunni's, their fighting force are all RADICALS.
Look at one of the groups that USA supported a Jihadist Sunni Division, who went to
KITCHEN grab a cooking knife and cut off the head of 10 year old KID.
THE USA, FRANCE, UK, are all in BED with Sunni's, Ironically, It's Sunni's that are also
committing TERROR attacks in EUROPE. Yet Jew Boss's in USA and EUROPE want make Sunni the
Allies and SHIA the enemy.
"Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate
that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners
quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the
uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of
completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar
Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria."
Regime change is the only reason we or any of our proxies are there. We have NO GOOD
REASON being there other than this BS.
The US Congress has not approved the US being in Syria.
The UN Security Council has not approved the US presence in Syria.
President Assad of Syria did not invite the US or approve the US presence in
Only the US deep state neocons have approved the US presence in the context of "regime
Dammit Trump! Get control of your staff and get out of Syria leaving the Kurds all the AA
stinger missiles they need to take out Turk aircraft. And on the way out, rip the Turk
invasion force to shreds, then just say, "oops, sorry."
one reason Israel remained silent even though it seems clear they had advanced knowledge
of the 9-11 attack; and allowed them to proceed. Israelis Agents filming the attacks were
arrested and later deported, more than 70 of them.
Fortunately, Bibi was ready to take the microphone minutes after the 9-11 attack and
define the enemy for the American public, resulting in the deaths of thousands of American
service men and $7 Trillion wasted in the shit hole middle east.
The Anglo Jewish Alliance continues to try to provoke a war between the US and Russia,
Iran, and Syria.
Trump is right to get the US out of the shit hole as fast as possible, months not
Former CIA Steele claims that the Epstein Compromise Kiddie Sex tapes from the Lolita
Express, the palm beach estate and probably six other Epstein properties are in Israel for
Control-Blackmail purposes. The next time Bibi calls Trump, Trump should tell Bibi to fuck
off. What happened on the 300ft yacht ?????
CFR and AIPAC and all Globalist and Foreign lobbyist organization must be registered as
Foreign Agents, and forced to meet at the State Dept, and cut off from contact with the rest
of the US govt.
The plan is for Israel to conduct however many cowardly missions it takes until their
murderous ways are considered normalized behavior.
Someday in the not so distant future, israel hopes conversations such as "did you hear
Israel told an incidious lie then killed a bunch of innocent people?" to which a typical brow
beaten dufus responds "yes, but it had to be done," become as common place as banter about
"... Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve agents. So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then spray it all over the little Satan. Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of information that could lead to thousands of deaths in Israel? ..."
"... Remember, Mirzayanov was given residence (and a University position) in the United States after he was kicked out of Russia. There are also a number of "people who should know" that have stated that there is zero solid evidence for the existence of the Novichok nerve agents. For example: Robin Black in Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents (2016): ..."
"... "In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published." ..."
"... "There has never been a 'Novichok' research project conducted in Russia,... But in the West, some countries carried out such research, which they called 'Novichok,' for some reason." ..."
Remember, the evil people, Theresa May, Stoltenberg, Trump and the rest, are damning
Russia with obvious lies.
The Novichok nerve agents don't even exist.
HERE IS THE PROOF:
The Novichok nerve agents are supposedly much more toxic than the nerve gases VX or Sarin
(and yet the Skripals are still alive!?).
Mirzayanov's book, published in 2008, contains the formulas he alleges can be used to
create Novichoks. In 1995, he explained that "the chemical components or precursors" of
Novichok are "ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies
that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides."
Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve
agents. So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then
spray it all over the little Satan. Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of
information that could lead to thousands of deaths in Israel?
Do you really think they would protect the publisher of such information by giving him
residence in t