- GLOBAL SECURITY - Peter Koenig - MAR 16, 2023 -
“Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to law; chance is but a name for law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the law.” —Kybalion
It is no coincidence that within 48 hours, two California commercial banks failed. The not much talked-about Silvergate Capital, a central lender to the crypto industry, declared on March 8, 2023, it would wind down its operations. On March 10, the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), primary lender for tech-startups, collapsed.
SVB was immediately taken over by federal regulators. It is the largest bank failure since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Relatively unknown outside of the Silicon Valley, SVB was the 16th largest US commercial bank with US$ 209 billion in assets at the end of 2022.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has assured SVB insured depositors that they will have access to their full funds within the FDIC-fixed limits of US$ 250,000 per depositor.
However, the FDIC total fund covers only about 2% of the $9.6 trillion in US-insured deposits.
What happens when other banks collapse at the same time and uninformed depositors believe their deposits up to US$ 250,000 are safe? But then find out that they are not?
The failure of the SVB is the result of several converging factors. As former Deputy Treasury Secretary, Paul Craig Roberts says, one of the key reasons is the 1999 Clinton-regime repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, i.e. a large degree of banking deregulation, and because the Dodd-Frank Act (2010) allows failing banks to seize the deposits of depositors in order to have a bail-in instead of a bail-out. The legislation, especially the latter, causes depositors to withdraw their deposits on any sign of bank trouble. It is called a run on the bank.
Another reason for SVB troubles is the Fed’s rapid and substantial interest rates hikes – the largest and in the shortest period in the last at least 30 years – which also reduced the value of the SVB’s bond portfolio. Banks and businesses have difficulties to adjust to the size and pace of interest rate increases. See this.
The same may apply to other banks which are not sufficiently diversified and securely funded. Wait and see.
As if programmed and looking like a domino effect, on Sunday March 12, Signature Bank folded too. SB is a New York-based commercial bank with a big real estate lending business, as well as sizable cryptocurrency deposits. SB had a total asset base of $110.4 billion and deposits of $88.6 billion as of December 31, 2022.
It closed its doors abruptly after regulators said that keeping the bank open could threaten the stability of the entire financial system.
Are we talking about a lingering and potentially rapidly expanding domino effect?
Nothing happens by coincidence. All is connected with everything. We have to learn overriding the mainstream media narrative that points always to singular events to confuse and brainwash. When we learn connecting the dots between occurrences and events, we will realize that everything is connected with everything. See also Michel Chossudovsky’s “Ninety-nine Interrelated Concepts”.
Switching the Narrative
So far, hardly anybody has made the link of these banking failures – and potentially more to come – to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) prophesized Great Reset.
A WEF insider has been caught boasting that the Silicon Valley Bank crash was an orchestrated plot that went to plan perfectly – and the crash will have a domino effect on the banking industry, leading to a global financial meltdown.
To what extent such a scenario will play out remains to be seen.
For more on the subject of “collapse and control”, see this, watch in particular the 11:11 min. video (below), inserted in this newspunch clip. It also features the General Manager of the Bank for International Settlement (BIS), Augustin Carsten, who already in 2020 was talking about the need for Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) for total control of who spends money for what and especially for control of cross-border transactions. He deliberately avoids mentioning “personal control”.