In light of Q post 4962, thought it would be a good idea to share my research over several years regarding the Federal Reserve (the "Endless" as Q says).
There is A LOT of misinformation out there about the Federal Reserve. Much of it comes from research done many decades ago, using information that was pulled from what was going on in the early days. But the structure has changed over the years, which means if you use those arguments today, normies will call you out on being wrong by pointing to open source info. And they will be right about you being wrong, but they will also be wrong.
It is important to understand the truth. This is the truth, as best as I can determine, and nobody has ever pointed out anything wrong in my analysis. So, here goes ...
-- Part 1 of 3 --
What is money
Money is a medium of exchange. Nothing more. Before money, we all bartered. I have 2 goats and you have 4 pairs of hand-made shoes. I will trade you, even up.
Barter is inefficient. You might not want my goats, and maybe we don't agree on what the true value of the exchange is.
So, it is easier if I trade my goats for gold and silver coin, and then trade you some of my gold and silver coin for your shoes.
Why gold and silver have been considered money for over 5,000 years
Other things have been money, as well. The Romans used salt. That's where the word "salary" comes from.
But gold and silver have properties that make them great candidates for money to be used as a medium of exchange: they are portable, difficult to damage, exposing them to rain and snow does nothing to them, they can be divided into smaller amounts, they are fungible (your 1 ounce gold coin is the same gold as anybody else's). I forget all the elements that economists use to figure out what makes the most sense as a medium of exchange, but gold and silver have them all.
Side note: Many people think gold and silver are basically the same, and that if the silver/gold price ratio changes and favors silver, then buy silver.
But that is wrong.
Gold and silver are similar, but not the same. Gold is primarily a monetary metal, and has minimal industrial use. Silver is primarily industrial, and has lesser monetary use. Gold is much more valuable, so it is easier to store large sums of monetary value with it than silver. US$100,000 of gold can be carried in about 50 ounces of gold (3 pounds), but the same value of silver would be over 100 pounds.
Using gold bullion (bars) is even more efficient because they can be in larger monetary amounts and easily stacked and stored.
So, silver as a money is useful for small exchanges of value, but not for anything large or for storing value.
What are the Money Changers
As useful as gold and silver are, they are cumbersome to carry around. It is easy for someone to rob you of your coins. You would not want to carry around all your wealth in gold and silver coin.
So, somebody came up with the idea of "money changing," which was the beginning of banking. You put your gold and silver coin in my bank, I will store it in a protected vault, and I will issue you paper certificates showing the value that you have on storage.
Then, you can exchange your pieces of paper with other people in commerce, rather than the coins themselves. This is so much more convenient and safe, that people jumped on board this new "technology" like a 12-year old girl takes to a new smartphone.
As long as the people running these banks (all private companies) are honest, it works out great. Anytime I want my gold and silver coin (or bullion) back, I just go to the bank and exchange my paper certificates, and get my hard stuff.
This also gave the bank a large amount of money to watch over, and as long as you didn't mind, some of it could be loaned out as loans to others, in exchange for interest paid -- some of it to the money changer, and the rest to the owner of the gold/silver.
Several hundred years ago, the English Church outlawed usury (the charging of interest), and if you were a Christian, you could not charge interest.
However, the jews did not have that limitation. This is the main reason why so many jews became bankers, and changed their names to Goldsmith and Silverstein.
What is Fractional Reserve Banking
The problem is some of these bankers -- and especially the jewish bankers -- were not honest. They printed extra paper certificates, for more than the gold and silver that was actually in the vault. But nobody knew this. As long as there was not a "run on the bank" so that everybody wanted their gold and silver at the same time, they could get away with this fraud. They could spend their paper certificates for the same value as you could, even though yours were backed by real gold/silver and theirs was just "printed paper" with nothing to back it.
This was the real beginning of the scam.
This is why the "money changers" are often considered crooks. If they didn't print extra paper not backed by gold/silver, it would have been fine. But they did print it up, and it evolved into the normal way of doing business.
Today, the US government is $31 trillion in debt, in part due to this scheme.
What is a Trust versus a Corporation
Now, let's switch gears from money to legal business structures.
Today, we think of corporations as the normal way of doing business. But that is a recent development. Going back in history, individuals did business as sole proprietors, or joined with others in a partnership.
Somewhere in the 1500's, the English developed the use of trusts in more and more sophisticated ways.
This was out of necessity, as the various kings would send men off to war for the king, and then steal their property, especially if they died in war, leaving the man's family poor or even slaves (slavery existed and had primarily to do with punishment for crime and for the super poor).
So, men started creating trusts where the Church would be the trustee and hold their property (trusting them), to benefit their family if they did not come back from war.
Over time, this developed into using trusts in business, rather than sole proprietorship or partnerships.
If you have ever come across such terms as "business trust" or "common law trust" or "pure trust" it is because trusts were used as business structures. Corporations were not available to the common man.
The corporation was a special charter created by the king -- and ONLY the king. It offered limited liability to the investors in large projects, such as buying ships to explore the other side of the world.
Corporations were special charters created by the king, and trusts were used as business vehicles for everyone else.
America's first Central Bank - Why Alexander Hamilton is [their] hero
In 1791, the Bank of the United States was created to be the USA's central bank. Alexander Hamilton created it. This is why he is on the $10 bill. The criminal banksters love what he did to push a corrupt central bank on America.
What most people do not know is that the legal structure of the Bank of the United States was a trust, not a corporation. This is KEY to understanding a lot of things that would happen over time.
English law, which American law derived from, has hundreds of years of legal doctrines established. One of those was the "rule against perpetuities." This meant that a trust could not exist forever (like a modern day corporation can).
A trust could only exist for 21 years after the death of someone named in the trust. If you go back to the late 1800's and early 1900's and look at some of the business trust documents back then, you will find that they list dozens of individuals, including young children, so that the trust can last for 21 years after the death of the last surviving person listed.
But as a practical matter, business trusts were often just given a life of 20 years -- a nice, round number.
The Bank of the United States (a trust) had a life of 20 years, after which it would automatically expire and no longer exist.
That meant it would exist from 1791-1811, then would expire.
As 1811 approached, the banksters were in a panic to renew the central bank, to continue gaining control over the new American economy. But Thomas Jefferson was president until March 1809, and he was opposed to central banking.
He was followed by James Madison, who was a bit wishy washy on a lot of issues, but seems to have not been too enthusiastic at renewing the bank.
I believe this is why the British started the War of 1812. The banksters were beginning to loser their grip, so they went to war -- and lost. (Again)
America's second Central Bank - Why [they] hate Andrew Jackson
Although the British lost the War of 1812, they continued to push on the political side. The war ended in 1815, and they got their new Second Bank of the United States in 1816.
Madison had gone from opposing to supporting, and thus it came to be.
This, too, was in the legal form of a trust, with a life of 20 years. It would end in 1836.
Well, in 1836, Andrew Jackson was president, and he was an outspoken opponent of central banking.
Andrew Jackson ran for president with a big part of his platform being opposed to the banksters. He called them a "den of vipers."
They tried to assassinate him, and he told his VP it was the bankers who did it.
Once the second central bank's trust terminated, the USA was free of central banking for almost a century.
This was the most prosperous economic time in world history.
America's third Central Bank - The Federal Reserve
But they kept pushing for yet another central bank. I believe they tried to get one again in the late 1890's, but President McKinley stood in the way. He was assassinated.
By 1909, they had their man in the White House -- President Taft, an American traitor.
The banksters met at Jeckyll Island, Georgia in 1910. The legislation was written up, and the plan was put into action.
What happened in 1912
There were prominent businessmen tycoons who were opposed. They were invited to take a voyage on the greatest of new technology, the USS Titanic, and were lost at sea.
This set the stage for the criminal banksters to do their dirty work.
What happened in 1913
Sen. Nelson Aldrich, tied to the Rockefeller family, got the Federal Reserve Act passed the day before Christmas Eve, 1913.
This became the third central bank. It, too, was a trust, lasting 1913-1933.
What is the official narrative for why the Federal Reserve was established
The official reason given for creating a new central bank was to stop 3 problems that were pushed as the narrative as being very bad for Americans: depression/recession, bank failures, and inflation.
The inflation, recessions/depressions, and bank failures of the 1800's did occur, but because it was a true free market economy, they did not last long, and did not hurt most people.
All 3 of these reasons were a smoke screen. In fact, the worst depression ever was in the 1930's -- AFTER the central bank was established.
The worst banking crisis was in the 1980's with an entire sector (the savings and loan industry) going completely extinct -- AFTER the central bank was established.
The currency has been devalued over 90% since 1913, making inflation far worse now -- AFTER the central bank was established.
Their reasons were nonsense. But their lies worked in getting the legislation passed.
What is the REAL reason for why the Federal Reserve was established
The real reason to have a central bank is to steal the wealth of the masses, enrich the few insiders who run the central bank, and provide great wealth to be used in obtaining control of society, by buying politicians, businessmen, media, "scientists" (these days), etc. It is for wealth and power. Nothing more, nothing less.
The system is set up in such a way as to disguise its true purpose, and to hide the indi
-- Part 2 of 3 --
What happened in 1927
So, the Federal Reserve Bank was set up in 1913 as a business trust. Business trusts DO have owners. These original owners were the Rockefellers, Morgans, foreign banksters (probably some Rothschild cutouts), etc.
But they had a problem. As a trust, it would expire in 1933. So, during the 1900's and beyond, they began to develop the idea that the corporation should be the new business structure.
Remember, only the king (government) could create a corporation, and that was done for special purposes. This was also true in the USA at the time.
If you ever come across a "Massachusetts Business Trust" it is because Massachusetts law at that time did allow for corporations to exist, but they were limited in their legal authority. They could not own real estate, for example, which is why business trusts were used instead.
Business trusts are created by right of contract, whereas corporations are created by permission from the state. The same is true today.
By 1927, the banksters knew how tough their predecessors had it when trying to renew a central bank. Now that corporations were becoming more and more accepted in the business world, they incorporated the Federal Reserve Bank into a corporation.
This gave it perpetual existence, and no longer subject to being renewed (or not) every 20 years.
Today, it is a corporation, not a trust.
What happened in 1933
The original trust expired in 1933, and now a corporation, they had to tie up the lose ends. Franklin Roosevelt's first act as president was to betray the American people and recalculate the value of gold by threatening confiscation.
I believe this had to do with resetting the currency from the US Dollar to the "Federal Reserve Note."
What happened in 1945
Following WW2, the People were distracted by celebrating the end of war and getting back to normal life. The banksters used this opportunity to set the stage for stealing all the worlds' gold (real money).
They met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to put together a deal where the US Dollar would be the default world currency, and other currencies would be tied to it. The Dollar, in turn, would be tied to gold.
World governments would deposit their gold with the United States, who would hold it for "safe keeping," and their currency would be backed by/tied to the US dollar.
Sound familiar? This was the same thing the money changers did hundreds of years ago.
The economy boomed, as we came out of a period of depression and war.
What happened in 1971
By 1971, governments around the world became suspicious that the US government was not holding up its end of the bargain. Did they REALLY have the gold to back all those dollars?
Germany refused to back its currency to the Dollar. Switzerland withdrew some of its gold from America. Eventually, France demanded its gold be returned, as well.
Nixon said no. The US government violated the agreement and refused to return anymore gold.
Instead, it pegged the US dollar to oil, claiming that oil was "just as good" as gold.
This was the beginning of the Petrodollar. It also began decades of world currencies fluctuating in price relative to each other, and to gold.
The US government's gold deposits are supposed to be kept secure in Fort Knox, Kentucky. However, nobody has ever audited it. President Reagan tried to show up and take a look, and he was refused. WTF?
How the Federal Reserve System is structured today
So, the Federal Reserve System today is not like it was a hundred years ago, but the true purpose -- to steal the wealth of everyone else -- still stands.
The name, Federal Reserve Bank, is a lie.
It is not federal. It is a private company, not a federal government agency. Back when phone books were a thing, you could look up government offices in the government section, and the Federal Reserve was not there. It was in the business section because it is a private business which is disguised to look like a government agency.
There is no reserve. It has never had a meaningful full audit, and there is no reason to believe it has any reserves anywhere, other than computer data on a hard drive, which is nothing.
It is not a bank. It is a central bank, and banking rules do not apply to it.
It is also a private company that pays no taxes -- no income taxes, no property taxes, no sales taxes, and has a private "police" force (aka security team).
Who "owns" the Federal Reserve? -- and why that is the wrong question
The owners are the member banks. This is one of the main things that normies will try to trip you up on. If you say it is the Rothschilds or foreign bankers, you will be wrong. Legally speaking, it is a corporation and the shareholders (owners) are the member banks. Banks in your community are owners.
But ... that is IRRELEVANT. Because they are "owners" in name only. They have NO legal authority over the Federal Reserve Bank. NONE.
They are more like beneficiaries of a trust that can just sit there and do nothing, hoping that the trustee does something they like.
By outward appearances, it would seem like they do have some authority. But it is structured to be deceptive.
The Federal Reserve Bank has several branches -- in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and other major cities around the country.
It has these FR banks in 12 districts. Each FR bank in its district has member banks. Your local bank in Toledo, Ohio is a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, for example.
These member banks can get together to appoint a director to their districts' FR bank. This makes it seem like they have some authority. But they do not. Each FR bank has 3 directors. The directors must be approved by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (BOG).
The BOG can say, "Yeah, we like Herman Cain, so make him a director at the Kansas City branch," (which he was, despite having zero knowledge about banking), but "Nah, we don't like that Ron Paul guy, so he is a no-go at the Dallas FR bank."
The member banks can only appoint directors that the BOG wants in.
Capiche?
Where does the 6% Federal Reserve dividend go -- and why that is the wrong question
To make the scam seem legit, the deal is that each member bank gets a 6% dividend paid to them from their local FR bank in their district (that they are a member of), and then "all the net profit over and above the dividend goes to the US Treasury."
Sounds reasonable, huh?
It is not.
First of all, it is not 6% on the profit of the FR bank branch. They would NEVER do that because it would mean that the FR banks must have audits to prove that the 6% paid is correct.
No. The 6% is on the INVESTMENT that the bank made.
If the bank put $1,000,000 into the local FR bank to be a member, then it gets paid $60,000 per year, like clockwork, and has no right to force an audit. Why would it? It got the 6% on its investment, and has no reason to demand to see the books of the FR bank.
So, the fact that the member bank gets a 6% dividend means NOTHING. It is just smoke and mirrors to make it look legitimate.
Likewise, the remaining amount going to the US Treasury is meaningless, because there is never an audit.
Here is the key: What are the REVENUES and more importantly what are the EXPENSES of the Federal Reserve Bank?
How do you KNOW that the "remaining amount" paid to Treasury did not FIRST have billions of dollars taken out by "contractors" and "consultants" and "loans" etc.?
You DON'T know.
Because the Federal Reserve has NEVER had a meaningful audit of its activities.
It takes in unknown amounts of money, pays out unknown amounts of expenses (and to whom is also unknown), pays a fixed amount out as dividends, and whatever is left over goes to Treasury.
So what?
What happens to all the money BEFORE there was a "net profit?"
What if ... FR pays a "consulting" fee to World Economic Forum for $10 billion, and WEF does whatever it wants with the money?
That would be deducted FIRST as an "expense," and US Treasury would get "whatever is left over."
Comprende?
What does the FR Board of Governors do
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors have a lot of power because they do 2 things to keep control:
(1) They set the Discount Rate, which is the rate they charge member banks to borrow from the FR, and
(2) They veto any director of any FR bank in any district, so they can keep only those who are "in the club" in the club.
The BOG members are appointed by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the Senate. By now, you should suspect that this means nothing. And you are right. It means nothing. It is smoke and mirrors to make it look legit to the uninformed public.
How does any POTUS decide who to nominate? Do you think Barrack Obama had any clue about who would make a good BOG member? Bush, Jr.? Clinton? Potatohead? Even Trump? Where did he pull his nomination from?
The president is given a "list of candidates from which to choose." Legally, he does not have to choose from that list, but as a practical matter, he always does.
Who provides the list? Rumors are Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and maybe Goldman Sachs. These are the main players in the system, so it would make sense that they TELL the president who he will nominate.
So, the insiders have THEIR guys appointed to the BOG, and then the BOG decide who is and is not in control of the local FR bank districts.
Remember: "Own nothing, control everything."
What does the Federal Open Market Committee do
The FOMC is another committee within the FR System, and is the one that is always in the fake news media. "What will the Fed do on interest rates ... I'm on edge of my seat!"
The fact that they are paraded by the fake news media as "important" should give you a clue that they are not.
The FOMC has only one job: Establish the Federal Funds Rate.
The FFR is the interest rate that member banks charge each other for overnight borrowing, which happens every day. Technically, the FOMC only sets a "target rate," unlike the Discount Rate which is set in stone. The member banks are encouraged to charge each other a rate within this target, but are not required to.
They often set other rates in their banks by this number, such as their own prime rate being some amount above the FFR.
Who has a permanent seat on the FOMC
There are several members of the FOMC. At each meeting, they rotate so that different FR banks from various districts have their own president sitting in on the meeting and voting for whatever.
Why do they rotate? Why not have all of them always in and voting? I don't know, but I do know that there is only ONE person on the FOMC who ALWAYS has a seat and ALWAYS has a vote.
That is the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. And the two dominant owners of the NY Fed Bank are ... Citibank and JP Morgan Chase.
So, they provide a list of people who "can" sit on the Board of Governors, who then decide who "can" be directors of all the FR banks. The directors decide who the presidents are, including the NY Fed president.
MANY former NY Fed Bank presidents have become Secretary of the Treasury.
So, you start to see that there is a closed loop of power. It does not matter who OWNS the Federal Reserve or its district banks. What matters is who CONTROLS the whole thing.
Ultimately, Citibank and JP Morgan Chase (possibly Goldman Sachs, too, now they they are an official bank, as well), control who the individuals are who are in the various offices, by way of controlling who is on the Board of Governors, and then the directors, and then the various presidents.
But the ONLY individual in the entire system that has REAL power is ... the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank ... and THAT is why he is ALWAYS involved in the FOMC meetings, unlike everyone else.
-- Part 3 of 3 --
What is the REAL power of the Federal Reserve
The reason for this is that the REAL power of the Federal Reserve, which (remember) has a true purpose of stealing the wealth of everyone else and enriching the insiders, is to PRINT MONEY.
It comes full circle back to being money changers. They PRINT MONEY, thereby CAUSING inflation (not fighting it), and that money is like dropping a pebble in a pond.
The pebble makes a splash and causes ripples of waves in the water. The people at the center -- the ones who FIRST get the money changers' fake money -- get the richest.
The FR is not audited. Therefore, money can be printed, and "loaned" or paid as "consulting fees" or whatever, and THAT person or company gets basically free money to use AS IF it were real, like any other money.
THAT is the REAL power of any central bank.
Who has the REAL power of the Federal Reserve
So, HOW is this money printing done?
It is done through a process of buying and selling assets -- US Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds being the primary tool, but they have many others, as well.
They create money out of nothing and "buy" assets or "sell" assets to manipulate the money supply.
And HOW do they do this?
They do it through a process called "Open Market Operations." This buying and selling (using fake, printed money) is done through this process.
And guess what?
There is only ONE location where this is all done: at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
ALL of the money printing (by the corrupt money changers) is done via Open Market Operations at the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the president of which oversees it, appointed by the directors of the NY Fed Bank, who are approved by the Board of Governors, who are selected by Citibank, JP Morgan, and possibly Goldman Sachs.
OK ... who has the REAL real power of the Federal Reserve?
Whoever controls the president of the NY Fed controls the printing of money AND also controls to whom loans and various other payments are paid out from the FR's profits ... BEFORE any money is paid out as a 6% dividend and "whatever is left over" goes to the US Treasury.
Who is that?
That would be Citibank, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs.
But who controls them?
Ah ... THAT is the real issue, isn't it?
You don't think the REAL power behind the system would be the CEO of Goldman Sachs, do you? No, that is a figure head.
The REAL power is behind the scenes.
Why is understanding John Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust KEY to understanding the Federal Reserve
The real power is hidden from the public. My guess is that it would be done via contracts and trusts. If you read through John Rockefellers Standard Oil Trust Company document, you will see that corporations were starting to become a think back just over 100 years ago, and the trust was set up to control the corporations from behind the scenes, with just 9 people (the trustees) making all the decisions for dozens of corporations.
I assume that JD Rockefeller himself had OTHER written agreements with most or all of those trustees so that they would do what HE wanted done, and not just anything they wanted.
After all, Rockefeller followed the cabal's golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
I cannot give you a list of who the individuals are behind the scenes who really pull the strings, because the system is designed to hide them from the public.
But they do exist, and they are the individuals who must be destroyed.
Here is a sample of Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust, in a book written by a legal expert in trusts, published in 1911 (go to page 553 of the book for the Standard Oil Trust, created in 1882):
https://archive.org/details/trustestatesasbu00sear/page/564/mode/2up
There was a later one that I can't find at the moment, which listed dozens of corporations that the trust would control via complex ownership and control.
This is how the Federal Reserve System really works in the 21st century.
Probably no coincidence that also in 1933 was the passage of the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment of 1919. Prohibition. A handy pressure-release valve for the population which was just then getting fleeced financially, but now was allowed to openly consume the product that would dull their wits to what was being done to them. A diabolical win-win.
OK for real real, at the risk of sounding like a slut ... I'd do things for this type of knowledge.
KEK
Excellent post anon, appreciate it.
BTW I saw an Aussie MP earlier grill what I guess is there guy in charge of the country's hold assets. He was asked about why it (the gold supposedly held somewhere) couldn't be audited, the answer was shocking!
It turns out it is allegedly in London, why he didn't know, and why any audit was kept secret if they done any at all.
Just thought I'd mention it as I saw it earlier today.
Not surprising.
Oh yeah, I forgot I also saw in the UK House of Lords, one of them saying how he is investigating a missing sum of 15 trillion pounds not able to be accounted for or stolen from a wealthy individual.
If I find the short clip I'll post it.
Here it is about the missing/stolen money. https://www.bitchute.com/video/x6VlxpwjpTBz/
This is a concise summary of the Ausrtrian school of economics. See Ludwig von Mises and Rothbard.
mises.org
No, it goes far beyond that.
You didn't read it all.
LOVE the post! I learned a lot.
Question.
There is a video floating around that Trump transferred ownership from this private banking system over to himself.
Do you think that is possible?
No, not ownership.
There was a story about him taking the control from the FR and giving it to the Treasury (where it belongs), but I doubt it.
This was the video I was referring to.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AEJ8GviWjpur/
Single-video ideas are likely misinfo for the purpose of hiding the real scheme. However, actual expositions of the real scheme, OP being a part of one of them, thus become hard to judge. Everyone must judge everything with their own judgment, as we each make mistakes. But after enough judging you begin to be able to tell which are the real scheme and which are the decoys, and you can point out the difference.
Until Trump announces the real deal by valid channels, we can only speculate his intentions. Lin Wood seemed to have a line on the scheme once but I don't think he was given enough info. It appears we can safely conclude that there are other money powers beside the Fed-related cabal and that these are engaging a multiyear process of removing the Fed's power without changing ownership. The removal of this power is down by destroying the network and its liquidity through its own faults (i.e. the blackmail network that underlies the cabal members).
However, Revelation teaches us that even if we get a breather due to this war, the next evil thing to come might well be much worse and more successful at its evil in the short term. So the actual success of how many good years Trump purchases will be a matter for history to judge, not us who are in it. Our part is to educate and build for whatever comes next.
As a Ron Paul follower in one way or another since the 70s, I can affirm this excellent essay as I see nothing in it I can dispute.
It seems to me that Q has now declared war on the Fed after years of prep. And by extension all the central banks he previously listed. All anons must meme accordingly.
I think it very important to track the tax structure along this history. Tax has always been a measure of what collateral (chattels) the central banks can count on. (1) War of 1812, Congress considers an income tax on government employees, realizes it's stupid to tax the people it pays instead of just reducing their pay. (2) Civil War, Lincoln passes a direct personal income tax, renewable every 2 years, Congress having lost its former scruple. (3) Lincoln dies, Reconstruction is chaos, income tax ends 1872, after years of attempts to continue and collect on this tax basis the Supremes rule (in Pollack) that Lincoln's income tax was essentially a property tax and unconstitutional. Pollack was a thorough review of all US taxes until late 19th century. (4) 1909, corporate income tax passes because everyone agrees Congress can do that; but it's a setup for the personal income tax. (5) As you and Griffin allow, Aldrich and company seeded the people with the idea "income tax good" (16th amendment) at the same time as they set up "Fed good". The two were absolutely necessary to each other, both passing in 1913. The Supremes later had to unpack everything they said in Pollack to declare the 16th Constitutional, and to this day nobody knows what they really meant (I think that one was Brushaber). (6) 1933: Social Security tax begins, a convenient add-on to the personal income tax that further collateralizes the American populace at the same time as the direct gold window closes. (7) 1941-2: Donald Duck literally convinces tens of millions more Americans to pay personal income tax due to the war (branded as Victory Tax, which was supposed to expire in 2 years but was rolled over into the existing personal income tax system). This added to the collateralization of all businessmen by collateralizing the commen employees too.
From that point on it's just a matter of convincing Americans to pay their voluntary income tax by making it look like any alternative is impossible, and indeed society is now structured to perpetuate this appearance. The later hijinks were merely attempts to add giant segments of the free economy to the collateral (central control) pool, such as housing, medicine, student loans, pensions.
Yes, you hit the main points.
1862 - First income tax, applied to federal employees, therefore constitutional, but later dropped.
1895 - Pollack decision, where SCOTUS said that portion of the 1894 income tax statute that taxed income from ownership of property was, in effect, a tax on the ownership of that property, making it a direct tax requiring apportionment. Therefore, it was unconstitutional and the entire tax act was thrown out.
1909 - Corporate income tax act, pushed by Taft. This is one where people get it wrong, thinking that "income" means "corporate profits." Remember, in 1909, most States did not have corporation laws for the general public. This was directed at corporations that were federally chartered, such as those created for building out the railroads. (Congress has never had authority to tax corporations chartered by the States.) In that sense, it was constitutional, and the tax was an exise (indirect) tax for the PRIVILEGE (which all excise taxes are) for doing business in corporate form where Congress created the corporation.
The problem we run into, is it is hard to parse through a lot of old case law because some of the important elements are missing -- such as original court filings in the cases, which tell us who the parties were. The court decision usually skips much or all of that.
1916 - Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad - the case that confirmed the 16th Amendment as constitutional. Yes, but the Union Pacific Railroad was a federally-chartered corporation for building the railroads, and Frank Brushaber was receiving dividends from that federal corporation. This is why it was (a) an excise tax, and (b) constitutional.
Since then, it has been a con job whereby people volunteer to participate, and once volunteering, must comply with the statutes.
Thus, "voluntary compliance," which is an oxymoron if not understood correctly.
https://files.catbox.moe/fwjqot.pdf
But that is income tax.
Q was referring to the Federal Reserve.
Two peas in a pod, but not the same.
I think Q is calling out the Fed, but by saying 1913 he's including the tax with that. There was much talk here last year about defeating the money spigot of the income tax, and it's important to have folks like you around to help beat down mistakes, because if we don't then the IRS will, much more brutally. Your exposition is so dead-on that it's not useful to quibble over any minor points that either of us might need to refine.
The essence is that income tax behaves like excise tax but nobody official can now admit this because the Supremes admitted in Groetzinger that defining income could be precarious to the whole structure. Once we understand its excise nature we can work the individual side of opting out safely. But that as you note is a different topic.
In terms of continuing to help bringing down the Fed, and turning a corner with that, it seems the direction is education and individual escape from debt. My first thought is that Q is calling for anti-Fed memes. But we are imaginative enough to think of many more things that might help.
The Titanic Never Sank.
https://t.me/FTFoYGL/2981
someone did dis :D
Great post, thank you for sharing.