In another thread, u/Slyver replied to a discussion about political parties. In that reply was a mention of the Federal Reserve Act (FRA). I thought this subject deserved a thread of its own, rather than derailing that thread.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IYCrk69G/still-believe-in-the-right-vs-le/c/
I have long wondered the "how" part of the FRA. How did they structure it? And why did certain events happen in history that seemed to be centered around it? My research tells me this:
The FRA was the "Democrat" plan up against the "Republican" plan called the Aldrich Plan. The kicker is, they were the exact same plan.
Central banking had a long history in the USA before the FRA.
First one was in 1791, set up by Hamilton. Second one was in 1816. Third attempt was FRA in 1913, which became permanent.
It is helpful to understand the legal reasons that they had to keep re-starting it, and how they "fixed" that "problem" (from their perspective).
In the 1700's-1800's, businesses were either sole proprietorships, partnerships, or business trusts. There were very few corporations. Corporations were a creation of the king, with a special charter. Since the USA had no king, there was no mechanism for creating a corporation, or at least it was viewed as something undesirable.
The first Bank of the United States (1791), a central bank, was created as a trust. The history of trust law, going back to England, was that trusts could only last for 21 years (age of majority), or 21 years after the life of a named beneficiary.
So, they made business trusts for 20 years, a nice round number. That meant it would expire in 1811.
The fight over renewing the trust around 1810-1811 explains both the Original 13th Amendment (1810) and the War of 1812.
After the war, the second central bank was instituted in 1816. It would expire 20 years later in 1836. Just so happens that Andrew Jackson was around then, and he was anti-central banksters. This is why they tried to kill him, unsuccessfully, but his sounding the alarms and his fight against them kept the central bank away for generations following.
But around the turn of the 20th century, [they] were plotting to put in another central bank, as well as an income tax. The plan was a little more sophisticated this time.
They passed the FRA, which created the third central bank, which would again be in the form of a trust, while also passing the income tax. This trust was created in 1913, and would expire in 1933.
At the same time, they were pushing the "trust busting" narrative of anti-trust laws, using Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust as the example. But in reality, they were shifting things behind the scenes.
The corporation is unlike the traditional business trust in that it has an unlimited life (perpetual duration, which does not expire in 20 years). While denouncing trusts as bad, they were also creating laws in states for this "new thing" called a corporation.
The Federal Reserve Trust was, indeed, owned by foreigners, which a lot of people have read about. But by the 1920's the corporation was on its way in and the business trust was on its way out.
In 1927, the Federal Reserve Trust was officially restructured as a corporation, which also had a different structure to hide who really controlled it. Key point: ownership was never important, but control always was. "Own nothing, control everything." -- John D. Rockefeller
By 1933, when the FR trust expired, it was no longer a problem because it wasn't a trust anymore, but Roosevelt unconstitutionally abused presidential powers to confiscate gold and clean up the books.
Since then, the FR has been a corporation with perpetual existence, and no longer needs Congress' approval every 20 years.
Today, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation, owned by its member banks (not individuals like the original trust). Those member banks are large banks around the country that Average Joe and Jane bank at.
But those banks don't really have any power to run the operations of the Federal Reserve. Remember: Ownership means nothing; control is everything.
The Federal Reserve -- IN THEORY -- is run by the Board of Governors, which are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is for this reason that normies think it is "controlled by" (or a "part of") the federal government.
But this is a deception. These people do not really run the FR. Even the chairman, currently Jerome Powell (a true idiot), does not run the FR.
The ONLY reason the FR exists, no matter what other fake claims are made, is to PRINT MONEY and make sure the INSIDERS connected to the FR can PROFIT from it.
Printing money MEANS inflating the currency, so that the newly created currency goes into the pockets of the people who created it.
If everybody THINKS there is $1,000,000 in the system, but I secretly create an extra $100,000 to put in my pocket, and everyone else just treats it like it is as real as the other money, then I have created $100,000 out of nothing but some pieces of paper. THAT is what money printing is all about.
Repeat: The ONLY purpose of ANY central bank is to PRINT MONEY, and ENRICH those who printed it. That has been going on even before the money changers figured out how to cheat via government power, rather than cheating on a small-time basis.
So, the REAL power of the Federal Reserve is the money printing. Jerome Powell does NOT do that. The Board of Governors do NOT do that. Their policies of raising and lowering the "target rate" of the Federal Funds rates and setting the Discount Rate are NOT what does it.
All of that is smoke and mirrors, no matter how many normies eat it up (even very smart normies eat it up, due to its sophistication and most normies' inability to think that it could all be a Big Con, which it is).
It is the New York Federal Reserve Bank that handles ALL "Open Market Operations," which is a euphamism for MONEY PRINTING.
The New York Fed runs ALL money printing of buying and selling pieces of paper (or today, computer digits).
This means that the New York Fed, even though it is only ONE bank in the entire system, has ALL the power of the system. Whoever runs the New York Fed is whoever prints the money at will.
Is that the President of the NY Fed? Maybe. There is a LONG list of former presidents of the NY Fed who have become Treasury Secretaries. And the president of the NY Fed is the ONLY person who has a permanent seat on the Federal Open Market Committee.
So, it could be that person. I suspect that even that person is a puppet of others behind the scenes, but if so, that would be done in a way that is never made public -- via contracts that will not see the light of day unless someone REALLY does a full audit. To do a full audit, one would likely have to dodge some bullets aimed at taking them out first. The people behind the NY Fed are the people behind the assassinations, terrorism, and so much more misery in the world.
The entire Federal Reserve System should be abolished once and for all, but this understanding of the legal structure can be helpful to understanding some of the "why did that happen" questions that people wonder about.
Come to think of it ... maybe the Federal Reserve is the Keystone.
This is not true. Our jurisdiction is limited by our laws. If we sign away our jurisdiction through the laws (which are shown in the link I provided) then we have no jurisdiction. We signed over our right to enforce any laws on the Federal Reserve by signing away the right to enforce our laws on the BIS. The Federal Reserve is, by law, an agent of the BIS. None of what I am saying is controversial. If you look at the links in the document I linked in my previous post it makes it perfectly clear. We do NOT have jurisdiction, because we said we don't. That is how it works with Sovereign Entities. We determine ourselves who has what jurisdiction. That is simply the law. You can argue against the constitutionality of the law itself, but you can't argue against that it is the law.
THEY didn't claim it, WE did (our government). It is the law. Please look at the links provided.
You may be correct on this. I am still digging into the legal structure of the FOMC, and this was something I thought might be the case as well. It makes no sense to me though, so I am thinking there is probably a loophole somewhere.
Nothing could be further from the truth. They are all major players. JD himself is likely an agent of the Rothschilds. Yes, JD set up a great deal. I have about a thousand page book coming out that shows all the structure of the system he created. It is incredibly well sourced and will show everything. Discounting the efforts of JD's descendants misses a huge scope of what is, and who the real players are. JD was just one cog in the machine. It wasn't a machine built by him. The evidence suggests it was built many thousands of years ago. I'm not sure how long ago, but I have traced it back in primary sources to at least Babylon. Overplay JD, or underplay the others at the expense of appreciating the real scope of what the evidence suggests.
Having said that, if you have the source for Rockefeller saying it (Primary only, I only work in primary sources) that would be great.
They designed all the structures specifically to commit fuckery. I will show all the evidence to support that statement in my book. The structures are absolutely the problem. There is no reason to have a Corporation (legal entity) except to commit fuckery. It is a legal separation of ownership and control to limit liability of the controllers of the structure. It serves no other purpose than that. The same with Trusts, Foundations, etc. I will show that in painstaking detail soon.
We are at it again, Slyver. ;-)
I will just say this ...
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Congress has no authority to (a) delegate its authority over money to a private company, and then (b) say that the company is no longer subject to US jurisdiction, even though it operates within the US.
All we need are people in place to do what is necessary. Easier said than done, but there is no law or agreement that can overrule the Constitution, when it comes to this issue.
No, the Congress has LIMITED authority, and passing laws or regulations that violate the Constitution is not within their authority.
The Constitution, and the Supreme Court cases that say what the Constitution means, IS THE LAW in the united States of America.
Period.
Let's not get into a debate about who was a bigger bitch than the other.
We are talking about this statement: "Own nothing; control everything."
THAT is how the Federal Reserve Bank is set up, and also how much of the system attempting to control us is also set up.
Look at Twatter. Do the shareholders who OWN the company via stock ownership ... actually CONTROL the company ... or do the directors control it?
Do the directors have to own ANY of it to control it?
Exactly.
Nonsense. Very few people would risk capital if their entire fortune was at stake if anything went wrong.
There are TWO types of "limited liability."
One is routine business risks. Those are more or less protected in these entities. And they SHOULD be.
The other is criminal "fuckery." That should NOT be protected -- and IS NOT PROTECTED, according to LAW (the REAL law because the courts have said that immunity, even of police officers (i.e. government employees, much less corporate executives) DOES NOT APPLY where a crime is involved.
The problem today is we have criminals who are in positions to choose not to enforce it.
THAT is what needs to change.
I didn't say there was no path to auditing The Fed. We could simply walk in there guns ablazing. That is an act of war, one sovereign entity onto another. That's totally a viable path. If it is shown that the laws they passed that made the Fed a separate Sovereign Entity were fraudulent, then fraud vitiates everything, and there will be a legal path to audit the Fed. However, as the laws stand right now, we can't just pass a law to take away the Sovereignty of the Fed, because they are outside of our jurisdiction. The only options available to us are to declare war (by Natural Law) or show fraud (by Constitutional Law).
I really didn't mean to do that. I wanted you to appreciate that there are a lot of major players in this game. I used to think that JD was the big guns. In a way he was, but he really was just one cog in a much bigger machine. It's hard to really appreciate the scope until you dig in. That was what I wanted to point out.
I also was asking if you had a primary source for the quote because if you do, i'd really like to have it. That was the reason I asked.
I'm not in any way disputing that the Fed works by that method, on the contrary, it is a primary motivation for most of the evidence in my book.
This is a much larger debate which is partially addressed in my book. I assert it is completely unnecessary in theory, but is rather a "necessary" function of the economic system as they have created it. THEY created our system of economy. The ENTIRE thing. It is DESIGNED specifically to commit fuckery. Not just "Corporations" but the entire system of economics that we understand today. That is not the only possible path to economics, and a corporate entity is completely unnecessary in a truly free market economy.