Can be tempting to see the battle against short-sellers as about one sector of the system manipulating stocks and regular people who support targeted companies such as GameStop rebelling against them, but the elite panic should be a hint to the uninitiated that this goes deeper.

The institutional short-sellers are a crucial part of a corrupt economic system that not only works generally to the benefit of the elite corporate oligarchy, but also benefits the imperialistic campaigns of foreign interventionists. Upending that system threatens all of it.

Heavy short interest well over 50% and even approaching or exceeding 100% is not new to the system. It has been a long-standing feature and is essentially an effort to murder companies. Issuing stock is one way companies raise funds. Heavy short interest makes that non-viable.

Previously, such campaigns forced companies into buyouts by the corporate oligarchy, who proceed to sell that company's products and make money off it. Doing so preserves the power of the corporate oligarchs over the market system. Many times they collude with financial media.

However, it is not just short interest in companies that is matter, there are also ways to effectively to take a short interest in countries. Institutional investors bet against a national currency or sovereign debts to drive a country into circumstances desired by elites.

Short-selling countries allows the corporate oligarchy to influence domestic policy and geopolitics. Breaking of the Bank of England is a good example of this as it forced the U.K. to abandon plans for joining the Eurozone, cementing its half-in-half-out status in the EU.

That status was crucial to American elites as they wanted the United Kingdom as their inside man in the European Union to make sure the Union never became a threat to American military supremacy in the world, but they didn't want the U.K. completely sucked into the EU's orbit.

Similar efforts effectively short-sold Greece, causing further instability in the European Union and diminishing prospects for integration and unity. George Soros, whose Open Society Institute advances American foreign interventionist causes overseas, was a key player both times.

Most impactful campaign to short-sell countries was probably 1997 when Soros and other institutional investors battered Asian currencies and sovereign debt. The result was the Asian Financial Crisis, which was possibly more important in shaping our world than the Great Recession.

Economies all over Eastern Asia took a hit and this contributed to a major drop in oil revenues. The oil producer most harmed by this at the time was Russia, still reeling from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lost oil revenue ultimately drove the Russian government to default.

Collapse of the Russian economy in the wake of its sovereign default prompted numerous leadership shake-ups in the country, until Russian President Boris Yeltsin finally turned to an ex-KGB agent and head of its successor agency the FSB to restore stability, Vladimir Putin.

However, this was not the end of the reverberations. While America never really got hit by the Asian Financial Crisis, this was not due to luck or sound economic policy, just the opposite in fact. It was due to a decision that marked the beginning of America's bailout economics.

Long-Term Capital Management, a private fund with some $100 billion in assets under its control, had been investing in DotCom companies and was already struggling when Russia defaulted. It had significant stakes in Russian sovereign debt and was now facing total collapse.

Given the firm's size, many in the corporate oligarchy feared its failure would prompt a massive sell-off and bring financial contagion to American markets. So, the Federal Reserve went into action, organizing a corporate buy-out of LTCM's assets with debt guaranteed by the Fed.

Many cited this as the start of "moral hazard" where financial firms deemed systemically important had a guaranteed bailout should they suffer from bad investments. Bailing out LTCM maybe averted a harsh recession in the 90's, but set a precedent we still suffer from today.

By establishing government would rescue financial firms to avert recession, the system rot spread and grew as firms made increasingly dangerous bets. We obviously got the Great Recession eventually, and you can link many social and geopolitical disruptions back to that event.

Probably one of the most significant events that can be directly tied into the Great Recession is the situation in Ukraine. Yanukovich rejected an E.U. trade deal in favor of a Russian bailout as the country faced significant financial problems stemming from the Great Recession.

American-backed leaders, partnered with a Soros Open Society group and CIA front organizations, sparked off the Euromaidan movement and overthrew the elected leader. Everyone knows basically what happened next as instability prompted low-scale civil war and Russian intervention.

Major reason the E.U. was unable to secure a deal with Yanukovich despite it being one of his campaign promises was because the euros wouldn't give Ukraine aid when they were busy bailing out Greece, another country hit by a short-selling effort in which Soros was also involved.

His campaign played off Ukraine's financial woes to defeat the pro-Western leaders in 2010. A major advisor on his team was Paul Manafort, who was part of a push to try and flip the pro-Russian leader by advocating a move towards the EU, while rejecting NATO membership.

Once Yanukovich rejected the EU deal in favor of Russia's bailout, Manafort and others were essentially scapegoated for the strategy's failure, despite it having been blessed by Western leaders. Efforts to hold Manafort at fault merged into the anti-Trump Russiagate narrative.