One of the main reasons why all this does not surface is the connivance, the code of silence, and the manipulation of politicians, academics, and media.
All these mechanisms get covered up, in particular, by so much incredible a fact that perhaps only the theft of monetary sovereignty is more incredible:
The bankers write their accounting principles themselves, and the complicit politicians, academics and media recognise them.
These are the indicted points:
If a company receives something for free, that is something that enters its availability and that the company owes to no one; it increases its assets and it generates in its balance sheet a corresponding book entry increasing its assets. When that company uses that something, for instance to exchange it with something else, that use generates in its balance sheet another book entry. Two distinct and separate events, two distinct and separate book entries.
When a banker creates money out of nothing at zero cost in his own pocket, that too is something that enters his availability and that the banker owes to no one. Counterfeiting aside, it increases his assets and as such it should generate in his balance sheet a book entry of active occurrence just as for any mere mortal. When the banker uses that money out of nothing, tipically by lending it, that use generates in his balance sheet another book entry. Two distinct and separate events, indeed. But… two distinct and separate book entries as well?
The acquirement of a resource is one thing, and an accounting event; an employment of that same resource is another thing, and another accounting event. They are two DISTINCT AND SEPARATE events, both in reality and in accounting. And the trick, indeed, is this: the creation of money out of nothing has been organised in such a way that these two events, that normally occur at a distance of time from each other, in the case of creation of money out of nothing occur simultaneously instead, and this simultaneity is used to conceal the fact that one of these two events, obviously the crucial one, is not booked.
The banker creates the money out of nothing the very moment, and in the very act, of loaning it. Thus, the two distinct events of acquirement and first employment of that money are simultaneous. And their simultaneity is used to confuse them with one another to the purpose of not booking the crucial one, the acquirement! In his balance sheet, the banker does NOT enter at all any book entry of active occurrence for that money, while he regularly enters a book entry of employment, instead, for the simultaneous loaning of that same money.