VANCOUVER, Canada (Bullion Bulls Canada) -- Conspiracy nut.
Looking for a cheap laugh at a social gathering? Simply dig up some "conspiracy theory" that may have leaked into the view of the masses, point at the "conspiracy nuts" who propound this hypothesis and then make some derisive remark.
"Everyone knows" that all conspiracy theories are ridiculous, and thus all conspiracy theorists are "nuts." The mainstream media tell us this all the time. But what happens when we are not dealing with conspiracy theory? What happens when we're dealing with conspiracy fact?
Those who have been vacationing on a distant planet may not have heard of LIBOR, the London InterBank Offer Rate, and the basis for (according to the bankers themselves) more than $500 trillion in human commerce. It is produced through anonymous data, submitted by the largest of the Western big banks, and the integrity of this system is 100% dependent on the honesty of these bankers.
For those readers who are not currently shaking with laughter, you must have missed the
where one-quarter of the Wall Street executives who responded to a public survey expressed the opinion that crime was now a way of life in banking. Of course, the more interesting number is unknown: What percentage of Wall Street executives would have expressed that opinion if it were not a public survey?
Not surprisingly (in a process "regulated" only by other bankers), in early 2012 the conspiracy to rig the LIBOR interest rate was
. Originally, the U.K. government and the corporate media attempted to peddle the fairy tale that Barclays Bank had "colluded" alone to rig an interest rate set collectively by more than a dozen big banks. But this conspiracy of one fantasy was soon abandoned. As of this writing,
several of these banks
are now "strongly suspected" in this criminal conspiracy, as the international investigation into the largest financial crime in the history of commerce "advances" at an almost imperceptible pace. Meanwhile, the crime continues.
The same big banks are still colluding to set the LIBOR rate, in a process that is still totally lacking any "independent safeguards" -- i.e., having someone other than the criminals police themselves. We thus now have the two largest conspiracies in the history of humanity side by side, by dollar value (roughly 10 times as large as the entire global economy).
First, we have the conspiracy by Western big banks to rig LIBOR itself. That conspiracy is now out in the open (more or less). Piggy-backing on that, we have the conspiracy to hide the extent of this crime and to simply continue the crime as long as possible.
Media apologists will argue that there is LIBOR reform (supposedly) somewhere on the horizon. On Monday, CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler
that a "new" (and more transparent) system should replace LIBOR. And speaking of Mr. Gensler, anyone interested in another open conspiracy?
In 2010, the U.S. Congress passed the laughably ineffectual Dodd-Frank "reforms." The one meaningful provision? The imposition of position limits for commodity traders, beginning Jan. 1, 2011. This was not a mere suggestion. This was not an invitation to "begin negotiations." It was a legally mandated deadline dictated to a (supposedly) subordinate U.S. regulator by the supreme authority of Congress -- to the regulatory body presided over by Mr. Gensler.
What has transpired since then? Gensler has worked with the Wall Street banks to conjure an endless list of "reasons" for stalling on legislation where Mr. Gensler had zero administrative discretion. Want to delay ending LIBOR misdeeds as long as possible? Put (ex-Goldman Sachs banker) Gensler in charge of "reform."
However, living in societies in which even conspiracy fact is ignored by the sheep, conspiring in the open is now becoming a way of life for our shameless politicians and banksters. Does anyone remember Hank "Bazooka" Paulson, former CEO of
and Treasury secretary of the United States (in that order)?
In 2008, after the reckless gambling of the Wall Street cabal had blown up the entire U.S. financial system and severely destabilized the global financial system, the primary priority (apart from
in "financial CPR") was to completely and permanently eradicate gambling by banks. What did we end up getting instead from the ex-Goldman Sachs CEO/Treasury secretary?
Paulson and the Wall Street banks conspired to create what he (and the flock of corporate media parrots) quickly called "too big to fail." Rather than eliminating gambling by banks, Paulson not only entrenched gambling as a way of life for U.S. big banks, he made it possible for these financial casinos to increase their gambling with reckless abandon.
Paulson's (public) message to his friends (and fellow Wall Street bankers)? No matter how much gambling you do, no matter how reckless the bets, no matter how big the losses, "I've got your back."
In the world of conspiracies/corruption, this is known as having friends in high places. As I've
on multiple occasions in the past, the Too Big To Fail conspiracy is nothing less than institutionalized blackmail: "Pay off all our gambling debts or we blow up the U.S. financial system."
Conspiring in the open is brazen. Conspiring in the open to blackmail your own government -- and getting away with it -- is absurd.
This brings us to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, top cop in the United States and another fan of conspiring in the open with the Wall Street cabal. Holder has managed to raise the ante on the Paulson/Wall Street conspiracy. How is this possible?
Holder has pronounced the Wall Street banksters (a class of confessed criminals) as being
If Paulson's message to his Wall Street cronies was absurd, Holder's is simply insane. No matter
how much crime
you commit, no matter
the crimes, no matter
you get caught, "I've got your back." The attorney general of the United States has publicly pledged (in advance) to cover up any/all Wall Street crime. Now that is a conspiracy!
Being skeptical is an admirable trait in our 21st century society. For instance, it would have been admirable for the sheep to have been skeptical when the bankers, politicians and corporate media all told us our big banks are now too big to fail. It would have been admirable to have been skeptical when Holder asserted that the banksters are now too big to jail.
Stating that one does not believe in Sasquatches is a perfectly credible assertion to make. However, what if that same person makes the same assertion immediately after being trampled by a herd of Sasquatches? Not so credible.
In that hypothetical scenario, who is the "nut"? Is it the person who says, "I believe in Sasquatches?" Or is it the person who continues to assert, "I don't believe in Sasquatches" -- with size-20 footprints all over his or her body? At what point do the non-conspiracy nuts confront their own self-denial? Put another way, how many times does a non-conspiracy nut need to be trampled by Sasquatches before finally acknowledging he/she does "believe in Sasquatches?"
Let me conclude with a joke ... for all of the conspiracy nuts reading this piece. How many non-conspiracy nuts does it take to conspire to screw in a light bulb? An infinite number -- since none of them believe in conspiracies.
This article was written by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.