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
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.