Monday, May 21, 2018

The Ponzi of Stock Market Shares: This alters entire engine of economy – Lee Camp

RT | May 21, 2018

© Brendan McDermid / Reuters
Comedian Lee Camp, in a special episode of his show Redacted Tonight, has discussed whether the stock market is actually a Ponzi scheme with author Tan Liu.

Liu has written a book ‘The Ponzi Factor’ - “so dangerous that financial websites, finance shows and blogs…want nothing to do with him and banned him from their comment section,” Camp said introducing the guest on his show.

The author revealed “how our stock market is the dictionary definition of a Ponzi scheme - frauds that end with a lot of people getting royally screwed.”

Lee Camp: What do people think the stock market is? Most people think they're investing in a company and they get a small piece of the dividends, the profit, that's the money they get from it. But that's not really true, is it?

Tan Liu: No, it's not. Those are usually the people who don't actually read the documents in terms of what the stockholders are really entitled to. Basically, as you can see on CNBC in Jim Cramer shows, what they focus on is earnings and growth of the company. Why are they focusing on that? That's because they're trying to predict or …foresee whatever the stock price is going to be by earnings and growth.

The issue, of course, is profits from stocks and what makes a stock price move is not the earnings and growth. It is actually money from another investor. Now, is there a connection at all with respect to the earnings and growth and this price movement? Yeah, it is called a speculative connection: it is not a legal one, it is not a logical one, it is not a definitive or mathematical one. It is pure speculation.

What else is a speculative connection? A Ponzi scheme. I can speculate, a Madoff scam, when people will stop entering with more money. Speculative connections don't mean anything, but the thing is that is actually what CNBC, what school and academic institutions and Jim Cramer focus on.

LC: When your stock goes up, you buy something for $20, it is now worth $200, all that money is not coming from the company's profit, rarely, if ever, it is coming from other people willing to buy that stock from you for that price. But that is kind of the definition of a Ponzi scheme: all the money coming in is from new investors. And if they stop putting that money in, it all collapses, right?

TL: You are absolutely right. It is the purest definition of a Ponzi scheme. First of all, there's a name for this process of buying and selling at that profit. It is called capital gains. Basically, you buy low and sell high. That process itself is the definition of a Ponzi scheme. I didn't make up the definition. It is not my opinion that it is a Ponzi scheme.

By definition, the SEC defines there is three aspects of it. One, it is an investment scenario. Two, the investment profits come from other investors. Three, the investors think the profits come from somewhere else. And what we can clearly observe every single day, every single moment, the stocks are trading, is in the event where the stock seller, an investor, sells it to another investor, taking some capital gains profit if you're lucky.

So we have an investment scenario. We have profits that come from other investors. And those investors who are selling it, according to CNBC, according Jim Cramer, they think the money's come from somewhere else, like the growth of the underlying company. We have an event that we can witness every single day and we have a definition of a Ponzi scheme: the event matches a definition.  Therefore, it is a Ponzi scheme.


Surprise: Wikipedia Is An Establishment Psyop

If you haven’t been living in a hole in a cave with both fingers plugged into your ears, you may have noticed that an awful lot of fuss gets made about Russian propaganda and disinformation these days. Mainstream media outlets are now speaking openly about the need for governments to fight an “information war” against Russia, with headlines containing that peculiar phrase now turning up on an almost daily basis.

Here’s one published today titled “Border guards detain Russian over ‘information war’ on Poland“, about a woman who is to be expelled from that country on the grounds that she “worked to consolidate pro-Russian groups in Poland in order to challenge Polish government policy on historical issues and replace it with a Russian narrative” in order to “destabilize Polish society and politics.”

Here’s one published yesterday titled “Marines get new information warfare leader“, about a  US Major General’s appointment to a new leadership position created “to better compete in a 21st century world.”

Here’s one from the day before titled “Here’s how Sweden is preparing for an information war ahead of its general election“, about how the Swedish Security Service and Civil Contingencies Agency are “gearing up their efforts to prevent disinformation during the election campaigns.”

This notion that the US and its allies are fighting against Russian “hybrid warfare” (by which they typically mean hackers and disinformation campaigns) has taken such deep root among think tanks, DC elites and intelligence/defense circles that it often gets unquestioningly passed on as fact by mass media establishment stenographers who are immersed in and chummy with those groups. The notion that these things present a real threat to the public is taken for granted to such an extent that they seldom bother to even attempt to explain to their audiences why we’re meant to be so worried about this new threat and what makes it a threat in the first place.

Which is, to put it mildly, really weird. Normally when the establishment cooks up a new Official Bad Guy they spell out exactly why we’re meant to be afraid of them. Marijuana will give us reefer madness and ruin our communities. Terrorists will come to where we live and kill us because they hate our freedom. Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction which can be used to perpetrate another 9/11. Kim Jong Un might nuke Hawaii any second now.


Pull out of Syria? Bare all to IAEA? Why 12-point US list for Tehran is ‘ultimatum’ meant to fail

RT | May 21, 2018

The US has laid out 12 demands for Iran that it says Tehran must meet for a new nuclear deal. Problem is, telling Iranian troops out of Syria and dictating what nuclear watchdog inspects doesn’t sound like a real roadmap for peace

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made the White House’s stance crystal clear Monday, calling the nuclear agreement between Tehran and six world powers a “loser.” President Donald Trump has already pulled the US out of the landmark deal earlier this month. A new deal should be drawn up, Pompeo asserted, while laying out 12 “basic requirements.” Many of those were predictable, such as requiring Tehran to “stop enrichment of uranium and never preprocess plutonium” – because obviously, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is not good enough to hold Iran to its word.

One major point used as a bargaining chip is, however, entirely unrelated to the Iranian nuclear program. It reads: “Iran must withdraw all forces under Iranian command from Syria.”

The demand conveniently ignores the fact that Iranian troops were invited by the Syrian government and have been helping fight Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) on the ground – while the US troops, stuck in Syria indefinitely, were not. “Nobody invited them there,” Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya said in February, reminding the world that their presence was illegal. It’s not hard to guess which forces the Syrian government wants to keep and which it wants to be gone, as it battles the remaining pockets of Islamist militants.

Another US demand is that Iran must “respect the sovereignty of the Iraq government and permit the disarming, demobilization, and reintegration of Shia militias.” Just as in Syria, Iranian troops are in Iraq with the approval of Baghdad, and the country’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) even receive funding and training from Iran and  have been declared part of Iraq’s security apparatus. So why would Iranian troops suddenly need to disband and leave?

Then there’s the fact that the US seems to believe it’s perfectly fine to try to establish a new deal which abides by 12 demands designed by Washingtondespite Washington being the sole party to withdraw from the original deal. The other signatories – the UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia – are still committed to the 2015 JCPOA.

Although the IAEA, tasked with inspecting Iran’s compliance under the deal, has repeatedly stated that Tehran is implementing its commitments, the US apparently distrusts international watchdog’s expertise. That’s according to the list of demands saying how the Iranian nuclear program should be inspected.

 First, Iran must declare to the IAEA a full account of the prior military dimensions of its nuclear program, and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity. Second, Iran must stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing. This includes closing its heavy water reactor. Third, Iran must also provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country,”boomed Pompeo, speaking Monday at the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing Washington think tank.

One may almost forget the IAEA is not a lapdog of Washington, but an international body. Why the US now gets to decide the scope and methods of its work is unclear.

Of course, there is also a whole array of demands to scale back Iranian military programs and alleged support of militant groups. US accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism, including by helping the Palestinian group Hamas and even, allegedly, Taliban and Al-Qaeda. That these groups are overwhelmingly Sunni while the Iranian government in Shia is overlooked, by accident or deliberately.

The mentioned “threatening behavior against its neighbors,” the “firing of missiles” and “destructive cyberattacks” strangely mirror Washington’s own actions in the region, including some that have been aimed against Iran.

Crucially, there’s little doubt that the Trump administration understands Iran would outright reject most, if not all, of the listed demands, which brings the purpose of the entire list into question.

“Secretary Pompeo’s speech has not demonstrated how walking away from the JCPOA has made or will make the region safer from the threat of nuclear proliferation, or how it puts us in a better position to influence Iran’s conduct in areas outside the scope of JCPOA. There is no alternative to the JCPOA,” EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, said Monday commenting on Pompeo’s list. Others said the US list was outright destined to fail – on purpose.

“I think ultimatum is the right word… When you deliver an ultimatum, its purpose is to have it rejected,” former US diplomat Jim Jatras told RT. “There are people in the Trump administration, who want the regime change in Iran – it’s that simple, and they Iran to reject their terms.”

Jatras believes it’s too early to tell at this stage if US threats against Iran are merely “noise” and pressure tactics like the one used against North Korea, but he says even that pressure could backfire and serve as a positive effect for Tehran by “forcing the Europeans to pull even farther away from the US than they have.” The worst case scenario, he says, is Washington proceeding with a unilateral military action aimed at regime change.

“As you can imagine, Iran will not agree to any of Washington’s demands,” Hamed Mousavi, professor of political science at the University of Tehran, told RT. “It is Iran that should be asking the US why it has not fulfilled its side of the agreement when Iran has fully complied with its obligations under the nuclear deal. Why should Iran negotiate with an administration that is not abiding by an international agreement that is the result of years of intense diplomacy?”

Unmasking Philip Cross: Craig Murray asks if Wikipedia editor is network ‘demeaning alternative media’

RT | May 21, 2018

Is "Phillip Cross" the work of one, or many? © Ralf-Udo Thiele/Global Look Press
A Twitter account attributed to the mysterious and prolific Wikipedia editor Philip Cross has just 200 followers, but why are so many mainstream media journalists rushing to give him (or her) a follow?

Two weeks ago RT reported on the mysterious account of Philip Cross. The Wikipedia enthusiast has, for more than 14 years, been mass editing articles, 133,612 in total, adding up to 30 edits a day.

Pundit George Galloway, academic Tim Hayward and ex-UK ambassador to Uzbekistan-turned blogger Craig Murray among others have accused Cross of focusing on their entries. Cross has edited Galloway’s page more than 1,700 times.

Cross’s efforts on Twitter are not as substantial as that on Wikipedia. His Twitter feed, according to Murray, who has been targeted by the elusive editor, is “extremely banal,” having never “broken a news story and the few tweets which are not retweets contain no gems of expression or shrewd observation.”

So why, asks Murray in his blog, does Cross have only 200 followers but more MSM journalists than those among Murray’s 42,300 Twitter followers?

Among the list of “corporate and state journalists” following Cross and listed by Murray are:
  • writer for the Times Oliver Kamm,
  • Guardian/Observer columnist Nick Cohen,
  • columnist for the Independent Joan Smith,
  • film columnist for the Guardian Leslie Felperin,
  • foreign correspondent for the Guardian/Observer Kate Connolly,
  • political correspondent for the BBC Iain Watson,
  • Deputy Political Editor for the Sunday Times Caroline Wheeler,
  • CBC journalist and formerly of the BBC Jennifer Chevalier,
  • Scotland on Sunday journalist Dani Garavelli.
Of those followers, Cross is an avid retweeter of Kamm and Cohen’s tweets. The editor, following numerous accusations, has repeatedly insisted that he is not masquerading as Kamm himself.

Also following Cross is James LeMesurier, founder of the ‘White Helmets,’ former Shadow Secretary for Education, Tristram Hunt, and Sarah Brown, the wife of former Prime Minister Gordon. 
According to Murray: “There is absolutely no reason on the face of his Twitter stream why Philip Cross would attract this particular type of following. His retweets are mostly of Nick Cohen and Oliver Kamm, and his followership is concentrated in the Guardian and Times, which nowadays have very similar neo-con agendas.”

He added that the account “makes no effort at all to hide the fact that he has the strongest of neo-conservative biases, hates the Left and anti-war movement, and strongly supports Israel.”

Cross, says Murray, “is part of an active social media network trolling these views,” adding that “the purpose of ‘his’ continual Wikipedia editing could not be clearer.”

He hypothesized that ‘Phillip Cross’ could be a collective effort that has been formed to “denigrate and demean alternative media and anti-war figures through their Wikipedia entries, and at the same time to burnish the Wikipedia entries of mainstream media figures, is proven without doubt, as is the continued complicity of Wikipedia in enabling and defending the long-term operation.”

Meanwhile, Galloway has offered a £1,000 reward to the person who unmasks Cross. No further leads have been given since the offer was made.

PEOPLE REALLY AREN'T THAT STUPID (once they are told the truth)

Nicholas DeVincenzo | May 20, 2018

The winds of change are blowing, people are starting to really get just how bad Zionism is as a philosophy. The deep state is the Zionist State!!!

Nicholas DeVincenzo links..

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Liberal Media Meltdown: Celebrities freak after Trump calls MS-13 gangsters 'Animals'

SOTT | May 19, 2018

© Mike Windle/Getty Images for Equality Now/Getty Images
Several Hollywood celebrities freaked out over comments made by President Donald Trump on Wednesday, in which he referred to members of the MS-13 criminal gang as "animals."

During a roundtable discussion of California's sanctuary state laws, Trump described members of MS-13 as "animals," adding that immigration authorities were now "taking them out of the country at a level and rate that's never happened before."

It is not the first time that Trump has used the phrase to describe the bloodthirsty organization, who have been classified by the FBI as the most violent and organized criminal network in the United States.

However, a horde of famous figures on the left immediately took to social media to express their outrage, while falsely claiming that President Trump was referring to all illegal immigrants and not the notorious gang members.

Read more at SOTT..