NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Until now, the "bail-in" (i.e. the Cyprus Steal) has been presented to us in the following manner by politicians, bankers and the corporate media. It is a least-worst option for dealing with a financial emergency, and is being conducted fairly and legitimately.
As previous commentaries have exposed, this is all lies. It is not a "least-worst" option, but rather the most extreme desperation measure imaginable. It is the only form of stealing that our crime syndicate governments haven't already attempted to perpetrate against their own populations: direct confiscation of assets.
This was not a "financial emergency." It was a choreographed looting of the Cyprus financial system, plotted at least 18 months in advance. Furthermore, the chronology clearly indicates that the Western banking cabal had already engaged in a secret agreement with the Cyprus government to ultimately approve this theft -- and the initial proposal (and first vote) was simply an absurdly transparent sham.
There is nothing "fair" or "legitimate" about this repugnant concept. This is why the propaganda machine invented a euphemism for it that is utter gibberish. "Bail-in" is nonsensical English, used to hide a vulgar act of theft, which is indefensible.
Ultimately, the thieves themselves even concede that what they are really perpetrating is a form of "taxation." Yet this "taxation" is entirely ad hoc, and arbitrary; with the initial group of victims involved (bank depositors) being asset-holders who put their savings in these banks for one (and only one) reason: because the banks and our governments themselves assured depositors again and again and again that their savings were "absolutely safe."
Obviously, if our governments (and banks) are going to arbitrarily choose to betray a particular group of individuals in society with a "surprise" theft of their assets, the one group of individuals who should be last on the list are those people that the banksters and politicians themselves assured were absolutely safe. There could be no more egregious knife-in-the-back.
However, what if this betrayal is much, much worse? What if the "bail-in" -- the bankers' new form of organized crime -- was not merely a desperation measure to ward off inadvertent bankruptcy? What if the banking cabal and our traitor governments were intentionally creating "insolvency" in our financial system in order to manufacture a pretext to engage in this illegal looting?
This brings us to Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. Stephen Harper is a consummate thief -- he's stolen his own job not once, but twice.
He stole his job as prime minister originally by promising Canadian voters that (unlike the Liberals) he would never "touch" (i.e. tax) their "income trusts" -- into which Canadians had funneled tens of billions of their wealth. However, it had already become obvious this massive tax loophole was destroying the entire, national tax base and was not economically viable. The moment Harper got into power, he flip-flopped and abolished that tax exemption.
He stole his job a second time when the opposition parties were about to unite to vote the Harper regime out of office. Stephen Harper illegally suspended Parliament, and then the Conservative Party and Big Business launched a massive propaganda campaign while Parliament was illegally suspended, labeling the plan to vote the Harper regime out of office as "undemocratic." The opposition parties backed off on their threat, and then Stephen Harper ended his illegal suspension of Parliament.
When Stephen Harper came to power, however, he had more on his mind than just breaking promises: He had an agenda. A part of that agenda was to duplicate -- as exactly as possible -- the massive housing bubble of the United States, the largest asset bubble in history, which was followed by the largest bail-out package in economic history.
For interested readers, this plot has been described in detail in a previous commentary. For the purpose of this commentary, it's not essential to know how Stephen Harper manufactured the Canadian housing bubble (with the enthusiastic assistance of former Bank of Canada Gov. Mark Carney). It's only essential to note the dates involved. Stephen Harper began constructing the Canadian housing bubble after the U.S. bubble had already burst.
There can only be one thing worse than engaging in suicidally reckless economic policy. This is to engage in suicidally reckless economic policy after that policy has been exposed as such. The reason this is much, much worse should be obvious to all readers.
The bankers and politicians (of both parties) who manufactured the U.S. housing bubble have at least "plausible deniability" on their side: They can pretend the U.S. housing bubble was an "accident." Stephen Harper has no such cover available to him. The dates involved make this clear that the Canadian housing bubble is a premeditated betrayal of the entire Canadian population.
There are two major distinctions between the U.S. and Canadian bubbles, apart from (perhaps) a difference in the level of premeditation. First and foremost, it was impossible for Stephen Harper to match the saturation level of fraud, which has permeated every nook and cranny of the U.S. housing sector -- from rampant land-title fraud to (institutionalized) liar's loans to literal "fraud factories": companies being formed solely to custom-produce forged/fraudulent documents for the Wall Street banksters.
The other important difference is that when the Wall Street crime syndicate and the Republican regime looted approximately $15 trillion from the U.S. financial system in direct handouts, (so-called) "0% loans", infinite "loss guarantees," and near-infinite tax breaks, there were no "bail-in" rules in place. Directly stealing from people's accounts to indemnify their gambling losses was merely a wonderful fantasy for U.S. banksters (at that time).
With Stephen Harper's housing bubble poised to burst -- whenever Canada's banksters choose to detonate it -- the question becomes: How large will the subsequent looting be, with Canada's "bail-in" rules officially carved in stone?
Most of Wall Street's looting following the crash of '08 was of necessity restricted to the 0% loans, loss guarantees and tax breaks. With the entire U.S. economy collapsing (as appears to be happening in Canada), there was only a limited amount that could be stolen from the public Treasury. When Canada's housing bubble is detonated, there will be no such limitations.
As was spelled out in my most recent commentary, the Canadian budget (and the Financial Stability Board "policy paper" it is based upon) opens up the possibility of not merely stealing bank deposits, but any/every asset in the financial system: bonds, pensions and equities as well. "Trust funds"? The term has been rendered archaic.
Even if we weren't dealing with intentional insolvency and premeditated betrayal, we have already long since crossed the threshold into insanity with respect to another nonsensical euphemism constructed by the corporate media: "too big to fail." The banks are "too big to fail" but the people (collectively) are not?
What if the banksters now tell us that the only way to "save them" (but again only temporarily) is for every family to sacrifice their first-born males? When do we say "enough is enough" with this criminal insanity? Congratulations, doctor, the operation was a success ... but the patient died. And now Stephen Harper and the bankers are going to "operate" on Canada.
In 2008, the same traitor governments told us they were "fixing the banks" with the largest public looting of our economies in history. In 2013, we're being told that they are still "fixing the banks" -- except now this requires exponentially more looting.
It is now crystal clear when our governments will be finished "fixing the banks," at which point these bankrupt shells and our insolvent economies will be allowed to default on their gigantic debts: after every last penny of wealth belonging to the little people has been cleaned out of the Western financial system.
This commentary comes from an independent investor or market observer as part of TheStreet guest contributor program. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of TheStreet or its management.