However, objective reality itself takes care of proving wrong in facts this thesis, which would be nothing more than an attempt at a mitigating circumstance for an undeniable and admitted crime anyway.
And the facts are in the banker’s financial statement. (Later on I’ll give you a simple explaination of it, suffice here to say that any economic entity is periodically required to publicly report its economic facts measured in money in this document, made up of various elements.)
When the banker creates and loans his “money”, he materially does so by creating a book entry in the account of the borrower; that entry states that the borrower is the creditor and the banker is the debtor of that sum. In addition, and in exchange for the “money” created and loaned, the banker creates another book entry in his own accounts, under loans, for the credit, stating that the borrower owes him the loaned sum.
When the borrower repays that sum, usually by instalments, what happens in the borrower’s account depends on whether he repays it in cash, from that account or from another account, and we’re not interested in that because it’s not relevant here; what we’re interested in is that the banker transforms his credit into cash. The banker materially does so by creating two book entries in his own accounts: one, under loans, states that the borrower has repaid the sum or an instalment and reduces the banker’s credit of that amount; the other, under cash, states that the amount received from the borrower has entered and increased the banker’s cash.

If the “ashes to ashes”, “I made you, I can crush you!” thesis were true, when the borrower repays the sum or an instalment, the banker would create ONLY the first book entry that reduces his credit of that amount, and would NOT create the second book entry that transfers that amount to his cash. That would be how the banker would materially delete his “money” back into nothingness. Created out of nothing upon loaning it, deleted into nothingness upon repayment.

Financial statements are public documents. Anyone can scrutinise them, but it’s no picnic. However, they say that things can be hidden by putting them in plain view, and there’s also an old joke where an ant bumps into an elephant, the elephant says, “Take care!” and the ant replies, “Excuse me, I didn’t see you.” So let’s step back and take a broader look.

Money is the banker’s raw matter and loans are his stock−in−trade, hence they play a leading role in his business and in his financial statement as well. If the “ashes to ashes” thesis were true and the banker deleted his loaned “money” into nothingness upon repayment by not transferring it to his cash, what difference would this entail compared with the current situation?
With banking reflux, every time the banker creates a quid, loans it, and it is repaid, he pockets it and it continues to exist forever.
Without banking reflux, every time the banker creates a quid, loans it, and it is repaid, he pockets it and it ceases to exist forever.
Think of it for a moment. See the difference?
Accrual.
In the medium term, naming as medium term the average duration of loans, every single quid ever created out of nothing by the banker, letting aside the interest yielded during the loan which compared to this becomes a minor benefit, will pile up in his pockets.

As I said, money is the banker’s raw material and loans his stock−in−trade, and as such by far the main entry in his business; this means that without banking reflux there would be by far less money in circulation overall, and in particular by far a much smaller percentage of the circulating money would be in the banker’s pockets.
As I said, if anyone is allowed to create purchasing power out of nothing, sooner or later that anyone will seize anything and anyone. With banking reflux, this inescapable curve is infinitely faster and exponential.

And that is banking reflux: the banker recovers full possession of all the purchasing power he ever created out of nothing, maintains it in existence forever, and thus piles it up inescapably. Ironically, the meaning of the term seems related to the literal meaning of reflux; only, its unpleasing effects seem rather at the expense of others than of the subject.

But all the banking reflux in the world is nothing without clearing houses. No man is an island, and even the banker is no exception; anything is but agreement, agreement implies others, and even purchasing power is no exception.

Each banker is creating and piling up purchasing power in the form of scriptural money, which equals to, through and through, taking a pen and a paper and writing on it, “one gazillion quids”: so? To perform the magic and turn into actual purchasing power, it has to be accepted by someone as actual purchasing power. To this aim, his mates in law, politics, academia and media are a necessary but not sufficient condition; it takes something else more. His mates can coerce the citizens to accept it, they can even arrest, torture and butcher them if they ever dare to demand it to be redeemed in actual money – which by the way is the reason why they are there and they are the banker’s mates in the first place –, but then, whatever the form, cheque, bank transfer or whatever, the citizens are going to deposit it with another banker. And a fellow banker is not just any citizen under the thumb of their mates. And the most dangerous criminals are those who realise that a criminal syndicate is far more profitable than a bank – pardon, gang – war.

The concept of the clearing house was born in commerce: once upon a time there were two street sellers, one of shoes and one of clothes, and they sold them in different marketplaces on the same days. One fine day they agreed to share their goods: each of them would give the other some of his goods, and then, instead of paying to one another the full amount of A’s goods sold by B and the full amount of B’s goods sold by A, they agreed to compensate, that is, to pay one another only the difference. A win−win solution.

Then the concept was adopted by the bankers (who set up specific rooms called clearing houses to perform this function, hence the name for the concept): instead of paying to one another the full amount of the transactions from bank A to bank B and the full amount of transactions from bank B to bank A, they agreed as well to compensate, that is, to pay one another only the difference. A win−win solution?

The concept of clearing house is aimed at increasing efficiency, and efficiency is a cost−benefit ratio: same benefits with less costs, more benefits with same costs, more benefits with less costs. Ok, but… what costs and what benefits?
In the case of street sellers, the compensation makes for more shoes and clothes traded with less money used: the increased benefits are actual products, the reduced costs are money.
Money here could be either the scriptural money created out of nothing by the usurpers of monetary sovereignty, or the “legal” money legitimately issued by the formal holder of monetary sovereignty; in the case of the street sellers this is immaterial, while in the case of bankers this is the core issue, for the very good reason that the creators of scriptural money are the bankers.
In the case of bankers, the compensation makes for not only more scriptural money traded, but for the circulation of scriptural money in itself and for its persistence in itself, with less “legal” money used: the increased benefits are the scriptural money created out of nothing by the bankers, circulating and persisting, the reduced costs are the reduced ratio of “legal” money not created by the bankers required.

What happens to the concept of compensation, then, when it becomes the bankers’ clearing house, where purchasing power out of nothing is compensated? It becomes a criminal conspiracy.
Imagine a bank war situation, where bankers do not cooperate at all: any banker, anytime he receives scriptural money created by any other banker in any form, be it cheque, wire transfer, or whatever, he invariably replies, “Shove it. Only cash accepted. Period.”

Pause one moment to consider it: I mean, look beyond the mess and the paralysis, how would this affect scriptural money? Any banker’s purchasing power out of nothing would not go very far outside his bank. He would be coerced to redeem it in “legal” money almost completely and immediately. And there goes his purchasing power out of nothing.
Observe now in comparison the actual state of things, where bankers do cooperate with each other: any banker, anytime he receives scriptural money created by any other banker in any form, he invariably replies, “Welcome, money!”
Pause another moment to consider that, too: look beyond the seamless network of flows, what is flowing on it? Any banker’s purchasing power out of nothing will reach as far as, and last as long as that seamless network does. And any banker will never be coerced to redeem it in “legal” money as far as, and last as long as that seamless network goes. Here’s why, as I previously said:

All bankers have their peers under their thumb. It would be enough that a banker called a fellow banker to keep his promises – pay his debts to him in real money, cash or whatever form issued by the real formal holder of monetary sovereignty – and he would knock that fellow banker out. But bankers are careful not to do that for a very good reason: it would be worse than pushing the red button of the atomic war, in terms of immediate retaliation and total annihilation; and their fellows surviving it would not forgive them. So, why being so stupid to push that button and kill their golden goose, particularly if there’s plenty of golden eggs for everyone? Whence, the criminal conspiracy: the trick stands up as long as no one calls a banker to keep his promises of payment? So all bankers play along and hold their bags to one another: they accept each other’s promises of payment and are careful not to call each other to hold them, and in doing so they set up a perfectly watertight network, where their promises circulate from bank account to bank account, from citizen to citizen, seamlessly and indefinitely and no one ever dreams of calling them to keep those promises of payment.

This is what the concept of clearing house applied to scriptural money is: a criminal conspiracy thanks to which the bankers’ promises of payment can last forever as no one will ever call them to keep them. This closes the cycle in what is called banking reflux: the scriptural money, after having been simultaneously created out of nothing and lent by the banker, and then repaid to the banker, from then on never ceases to exist, and the biggest scam in history with it.

Materially, the clearing house was born as a lousy back room where banks’ emissaries exchanged data physically, and now it is implemented by means of information technology tools in various ways, at various levels, covering various scopes. There are clearing house systems between two banks, a group of banks, a nation’s banks, scopes above the national level; some banks participate directly, some indirectly through other banks or parent banks; some systems communicate with one another, some don’t, some interlace with one another, some merge, and so on.
Central banks as well participate into these systems, for the obvious reason that they are the issuers of the “legal” money with which bank clearing must be paid. Whenever a bank has to clear in excess of its reserves of “legal” money, it can borrow from the central bank and the other banks. This makes for a fluid and intricate labyrinth of mutual relations among banks, but its complexity is beside the point.

The point is the purpose; the purpose of the criminal conspiracy is the purpose of the whole system: maximising the “efficiency”, that is, the most “benefits” – the most scriptural “money” everywhere forever – with the least “costs” – the least “legal” money needed – for everyone. All the intricacies of clearing house systems point in that direction; as an example, if with a bank clearing interval of 24 hours banks build up an excessive amount to be compensated in “legal” money, then the clearing is triggered by a shorter time interval so that such amount won’t get that high, or by the beneficiary bank building up a corresponding amount to compensate so they cancel one another.

This is a criminal conspiracy also because everyone in it is well aware that the other side of the coin of having all their peers under their thumb is that keeping the show on the road is in the interest of each of them. In practical terms, this translates into maximising the system’s “efficiency” as seen above, but also in preventing such unbalances to occur in the first place. That is, in preventing that either a bank’s claims against other banks or its liabilities toward them stick out of their “secure perimeter”.

As a consequence, a monopolistic strategy arises governing the banking sector as a cartel. There’s enough for everyone, but everyone has to toe the line.
If a banker gets a big head and begins to create too much “money” out of nothing, the central bank automatically tightens the reins on him through the reserve requirements of fractional reserve; if he wants to increase his reserves so he can create it, he must increase his deposit−taking too much, so he must entice too many customers with too many advantageous conditions, thus selling too much at below cost, which then results in too much unbalance of his bank clearing for too many liabilities toward other banks, which then leads him to bankruptcy.

Last but not least, the legal side of the clearing house systems has something in store, too. Being basically private agreements, ever since their inception the legal systems tended to deal with them quite little and passively, and as you can imagine this is a great source of opportunities for the moneypulators.
The basis of such opportunities could be compared to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement in physics: when something occurs in point A, something else occurs in point B, hence there has to be a connection between A and B, but it seems not for us to know. This projects physics into the metaphysics of reality, with a very promising potential for the future of mankind: if we cannot find the link in the fields we already probed, let’s find other fields to seek it in.

And this projects banking into the metaphysics of moneypulation, with a somewhat more questionable potential for the future of mankind: if the link between purchasing power changing hands in point A and purchasing power changing hands in point B is not for us to know within the bankers’ watertight clearing house system, where else to look for it?

A goal of the bankers, of moneypulators, is the monopoly of creation, certification, circulation and persistence of purchasing power, above any jurisdiction. And most definitely their plans are well under way.
Their clearing house systems as a whole, within the favourable legal environment lovingly provided by the bankers and their mates, are the backbone.
As we move towards that goal, as they achieve unfettered monopoly, gradually and imperceptibly ALL the power will pass into the hands of the criminal conspiracy, the chaste of bankers and moneypulators, and all the citizens will become utterly powerless at their mercy, even though mostly unaware due to graduality and manipulation.
Unfettered monopoly will mean unfettered freedom in creation, certification, circulation and persistence of all purchasing power. That will mean unfettered freedom to create purchasing power in their hands and move it anywhere, and unfettered freedom to ransom and cancel purchasing power in our hands.

We hear about “money laundering”, and see it instrumentalised as a justification for an ever increasing Orwellian surveillance on each one of us. Well, what is money laundering? It consists of making purchasing power, usually in money form, untraceable and acceptable enough. Once upon a time money was physical, and it even had serial numbers on it, so there were objective elements on the basis of which it could be traced, while now money is “dematerialised”, and it lost its serial numbers even before it lost its physical form; not that it makes much of a difference, because the tracing is assigned to some legal body anyway, which in turn concerns itself with the practicalities. And the bankers’ systems are said to be instrumental to such surveillance by making everything more traceable.

But the bankers’ systems keep on becoming more and more oligo−monopolistic, closed and watertight. And more and more above and beyond any jurisdiction, accountability and scrutiny, as well. And more and more powerful. As the unanswerable money power becomes increasingly more powerful than the answerable legal power, as the tool grows stronger than the hand it supposedly ought to be at the service of, increasingly the question should resonate louder: Whom takes orders from whom? To whom the bankers’ Orwellian systems are instrumental?
And another obvious question ensues: who better than the all−powerful owners of such oligo−monopolistic, closed, watertight systems above the law could be in the perfect position to perpetrate on an unmatched order of magnitude exactly what they should allegedly help the legal power to prevent? The suspicions we harbour today, such as that banks and even central banks amass their banking reflux in tax havens, and that the flows of “money” through the Bank of International Settlements, the central bank of central banks, are beyond any imagination as well as beyond any jurisdiction and quite beyond the good and the evil, while we’re required to account for each hair on our head, will be nothing compared to the certainty of our final and unlimited economic slavery.

So, nothing is created – banker’s money EXCLUDED –, and nothing is destroyed – banker’s money INCLUDED –.
By the way, the fraudulent mechanisms related to “money” created by those who are not the formal holder of monetary sovereignty and those related to “money” created by its formal holder are rather distinct, and they ought to be studied as such, so as to understand more clearly and completely which applies where, regardless of whichever else applies where.
The moment to take stock of it all as a whole is when one wonders: does all this reflect in the state of the economy and of the world around us?
Comparing the statistical trends in time of the fortunes of the bankers and moneypulators and the parallel misfortunes of the rest of the world speaks for itself, and speaks volumes.

Just like usurped monetary sovereignty and fractional reserve make it possible to create purchasing power out of nothing, banking reflux and clearing house systems make it possible for that purchasing power out of nothing to persist forever and circulate almost anywhere; so, if the creation of purchasing power out of nothing is a crime against humanity, its persistence and its circulation are, too, and even more so.