The globalist banks who own the central banks created the B.I.S. They did not create an entity to rule over themselves but rather a mechanism where they could rule over others.

The BIS is the structure of the Centralization of Authority. All Cabal systems work this way. The same people that own the BIS own the Fed. They aren't ever in opposition because they are the same entity owned and run by the same people, and always have been. However, this system has a legal structure, to ensure a Centralization of Authority. I am not talking about intentions, and I do not disagree with your statements of their intent. I am talking specifically about the legal structure of their System of Centralization of Authority.

This is not correct unless I misinterpret the nuance in your quotes around "investors". It's more accurate to say that some banks became "customers" of the Fed. There are "member banks" and "non-member banks" and the difference matters.

They are forced to invest. They have no choice. All banks in the United States were required by law to buy stock in the Fed. This ensured that anyone who wasn't part of the Cabal in the banking world, or had dissension to the designs of the creators of the Fed became "members" AKA "investors" (because they were forced to buy stock) AKA subjects to the dictates of the Centralization of Authority of The Fed.

The same thing happened with the BIS, except in that case there were no dissenters because all Central Banks were already theirs. However, it also ensured there never would be dissention, through the legal structure.

There are a couple of inaccuracies in this thread that probably don't matter to most readers

You have yet to show an inaccuracy. If you have disagreements of some points, that is not evidence of an inaccuracy, but evidence of your disagreement. That is the purpose of debate. If you assume "I am right and you are wrong" then you can call your disagreement an "inaccuracy," if however you appreciate that none of us knows the Whole Truth, you can instead make your case with evidence and debate, and see how that plays out.

The globalist banks who own the central banks created the B.I.S. They did not create an entity to rule over themselves but rather a mechanism where they could rule over others.

The BIS is the structure of the Centralization of Authority. All Cabal systems work this way. The same people that own the BIS own the Fed. They aren't ever in opposition because they are the same entity owned and run by the same people, and always have been. However, this system has a legal structure, to ensure a Centralization of Authority. I am not talking about intentions, and I do not disagree with your statements of their intent. I am talking specifically about the legal structure of their System of Centralization of Authority.

This is not correct unless I misinterpret the nuance in your quotes around "investors". It's more accurate to say that some banks became "customers" of the Fed. There are "member banks" and "non-member banks" and the difference matters.

They are forced to invest. They have no choice. All banks in the United States were required by law to buy stock in the Fed. This ensured that anyone who wasn't part of the Cabal in the banking world, or had dissension to the designs of the creators of the Fed became "members" AKA "investors" (because they were forced to buy stock) AKA subjects to the dictates of the Centralization of Authority of The Fed.

The same thing happened with the BIS, except in that case there were no dissenters because all Central Banks were already theirs. However, it also ensured there never would be dissention, through the legal structure.

There are a couple of inaccuracies in this thread that probably don't matter to most readers

You have yet to show an inaccuracy. If you have disagreements of some points, that is not evidence of an inaccuracy, but evidence of your disagreement. That is the purpose of debate. If you assume "I am right and you are wrong" then you can call your disagreement an "inaccuracy," if however you appreciate that none of us knows the Whole Truth, you can instead make your case with debate, and see how that plays out.

The globalist banks who own the central banks created the B.I.S. They did not create an entity to rule over themselves but rather a mechanism where they could rule over others.

The BIS is the structure of the Centralization of Authority. All Cabal systems work this way. The same people that own the BIS own the Fed. They aren't ever in opposition because they are the same entity owned and run by the same people, and always have been. However, this system has a legal structure, to ensure a Centralization of Authority. I am not talking about intentions, and I do not disagree with your statements of their intent. I am talking specifically about the legal structure of their System of Centralization of Authority.

This is not correct unless I misinterpret the nuance in your quotes around "investors". It's more accurate to say that some banks became "customers" of the Fed. There are "member banks" and "non-member banks" and the difference matters.

They are forced to invest. They have no choice. All banks in the United States were required by law to buy stock in the Fed. This ensured that anyone who wasn't part of the Cabal in the banking world, or had dissension to the designs of the creators of the Fed became "members" AKA "investors" (because they were forced to buy stock) AKA subjects to the dictates of the Centralization of Authority of The Fed.

The same thing happened with the BIS, except in that case there were no dissenters because all Central Banks were already theirs. However, it also ensured there never would be.

There are a couple of inaccuracies in this thread that probably don't matter to most readers

You have yet to show an inaccuracy. If you have disagreements of some points, that is not evidence of an inaccuracy, but evidence of your disagreement. That is the purpose of debate. If you assume "I am right and you are wrong" then you can call your disagreement an "inaccuracy," if however you appreciate that none of us knows the Whole Truth, you can instead make your case with debate, and see how that plays out.

The globalist banks who own the central banks created the B.I.S. They did not create an entity to rule over themselves but rather a mechanism where they could rule over others.

The BIS is the structure of the Centralization of Authority. All Cabal systems work this way. The same people that own the BIS own the Fed. They aren't ever in opposition because they are the same entity owned and run by the same people, and always have been. However, this system has a legal structure, to ensure a Centralization of Authority. I am not talking about intentions, and I do not disagree with your statements of their intent. I am talking specifically about the legal structure of their System of Centralization of Authority.

This is not correct unless I misinterpret the nuance in your quotes around "investors". It's more accurate to say that some banks became "customers" of the Fed. There are "member banks" and "non-member banks" and the difference matters.

They are forced to invest. They have no choice. All banks in the United States were required by law to buy stock in the Fed. This ensured that anyone who wasn't part of the Cabal in the banking world, or had dissension to the designs of the creators of the Fed became "members" AKA "investors" (because they were forced to buy stock) AKA subjects to the Centralization of Authority of The Fed.

The same thing happened with the BIS, except in that case there were no dissenters because all Central Banks were already theirs. However, it also ensured there never would be.

There are a couple of inaccuracies in this thread that probably don't matter to most readers

You have yet to show an inaccuracy. If you have disagreements of some points, that is not evidence of an inaccuracy, but evidence of your disagreement. That is the purpose of debate. If you assume "I am right and you are wrong" then you can call your disagreement an "inaccuracy," if however you appreciate that none of us knows the Whole Truth, you can instead make your case with debate, and see how that plays out.