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.
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.
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.
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.
We are close enough on this that it feels we are arguing semantics.
I’ve been busy so have been commenting on the fly, so apologize if my tone came across wrong.
Credit unions may hold deposits at the Fed, but they are not required to. Feel free to argue they aren’t technically banks, but they are governed by most banking laws. I believe there are other exceptions.
I am trying to expose the laws that create the structure. In doing so, I am trying to expose what powers those laws give, and/or take away from what entities. If you want to expose it and/or legally fight it, understanding the nuances is important.
I'm not a fan of suggesting that nuance is just "semantics." When it comes to law, there is only one way that is "the truth" of the law. There is, legally speaking, only one "correct" interpretation. Understanding the nuance of the self-consistency of law and its implications is important, not semantics. Debating it to get to that single correct interpretation can never be semantics because there is only one correct interpretation. That correct interpretation often lies in understanding the legal definitions of the words that make up the law (often very different from the vernacular), and the original intent of the law makers (the context).
Your protests have, I assert, been incorrect when it comes to the law of the Fed and the BIS. I haven't dug in to credit unions, nor do I care to. I have seen no evidence that suggests they are a meaningful part of the power structure and are thus irrelevant to me. I have no doubt there is a legal structure that gives the Cabal complete control there too, but it is so far down the totem pole, Idgaf.