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.
OK for real real, at the risk of sounding like a slut ... I'd do things for this type of knowledge.
KEK