And indeed that has been the outcome of bank wars: central banks were enforced thanks to the power resulting from criminal consolidation, with the exact purpose of producing further criminal consolidation at the expense of “lesser” criminals, and of all of us in the first place. A substantial engulfment, laying the foundations for further substantial engulfments, towards what loot? Removing any and all possible restraints to unleashing the privilege of issuing debt money out of nothing through the fractional reserve scam, and to its progressive monopolisation in the long run: the absolute oligo−monopoly over the infinite debt trap.

And, indeed, a real−world case of these bank wars took place in the United States around the eighteenth century and was nicknamed “wildcat banking”.
The frontier drove a general socioeconomic expansion, that is, an expansion of exchangeable products, which in turn required a commensurable expansion of media of exchange and payment. Initially, banknotes were not monopolistic money but sorts of negotiable instruments any business and government could issue, and banks were not required any peculiar charter and were not that different from any other business; that the issuer backed its negotiable instruments with real value were an ordinary matter of business competition and law enforcement: if a bank went too far selling empty bottles as a miracle cure, either account holders would abandon the ship for a competitor or law enforcement officers would board it.
In response to that demand for expansion of the money supply, though, a governmental permissive attitude developed towards − guess what! – the increase of the inherent speculative tendency of banks to evade backing their banknotes with real value; the term “wildcat banking” meaning that some banks settled in such unwelcoming places that only wildcats would go there to redeem their banknotes in gold. At the same time, the Federal Constitution forbade the States to issue money, which doubled the incentives to banking, so much that States resorted to banks, too, whatever private or their own.

Such Federal takeover in the middle of such pressure may be regarded with suspicion, particularly in view of the ensuing outcome: while the lesser, wildcat banks were taking it too far, the bigger, well placed ones were busy infiltrating the institutions, and the troubles and unrest caused by the lesser provided the ideal pretext to the bigger lobbying for consolidation towards the end goal of the first stage of issuing power oligo−monopoly: central banking. The usual strategy later labelled as strategy of tension, shock doctrine, and the like: foment “disorder” to pave the way for your “order” as a rescue; straight by the book. And indeed in such a black book of propaganda dirty tricks there is one who reads: blame your own crimes on your enemy. That was the case with wildcat banking. Be it in full or fractional, with real value or not, that is, honestly or criminally, that the individual bank is the sole body responsible for backing its own banknotes is called “free banking”; well free banking, as opposed to central banking, was blamed for wildcat banking, instead of blaming the real source of it, its very opposite: whatever the kind of bank perpetrating it, allowing criminal banking consisting in creating and appropriating purchasing power out of thin air by issuing banknotes falsely backed by an illusory unlimited source of real value and actually backed by nothing.

But every cloud has a silver lining… at least for wildcat bankers and lesser banks, though not for us indeed. Surrendering to such process of criminal consolidation towards central banking, and entering a bigger and more monopolistic cartel, does not mean for them being just doomed. After all, at any given moment during a criminal consolidation process, lesser criminals have a given “market share” they can use to get in the way of bigger criminals, so these have better pass a commensurate slice of loot to them. And particularly when keeping the fuss to a minimum is in the interest of them all as in this case, you see… And more than ever in this case – the consolidation of banking cartel through “central” banking – the common interest for all criminals involved is huge, hidden and shared.

Tangible clue is the universal, permanent, full and unconditional, all−out support of the absolute independence, unaccountability and secrecy of central bank above any democratic scrutiny and sovereignty of the people on the part of politicians, experts, media and banks, unanimously and in unison. Setting common good aside, in terms of gang wars, a pressure on the part of the head of central bank to preserve and expand their own unfettered power is understandable; far less understandable is the lack of pressure in the opposite direction, the conspiracy of silence, and even the pressure in the same direction, on the part of all the others. It would be understandable the permanent pressure of politicians to seize some of the central bank head’s power; it would be understandable a certain level of permanent clash on the substance of the matter on the part of experts and media; and it would be understandable a permanent pressure of the banks to control and evade the power of the central bank as their “regulatory” authority. Nobody does anything for nothing, do they? Wouldn’t we be suspicious of all such unanimous support and silence in any other industry?

I discussed the facet of the bank privilege of fractional reserve before, here I discuss the facet of removing any limit to it.

Let’s then take stock of the situation. The induction of the intrinsic value is lost in a forgotten past, and now the adjective “precious” is taken for granted beside certain metals, while currency is only now on the verge of its ambiguity, in that at the current stage money is considered backed by gold, and the departure between its face value and its intrinsic value, of the amount of paper redeemable in gold in circulation against the amount of actual gold to redeem it, is still far from the scale planned by the criminal conspiracy.

And now let’s look at the scene from the viewpoint of the citizen, from which one is likely to see only what is being put on the stage for one to see, and quite not what actually goes on behind the scenes – the same relationship as between a good−night fairy tale and an autopsy –: the government grants private banks the right to issue banknotes because they are backed up by gold; the banks own enough gold to back up the amount of banknotes issued; the banks have earned that gold as honestly as any other business has; the banks shall redeem these banknotes in gold at any time upon request, hence paper circulates instead of gold merely for your very convenience. Moreover, just as banks can, the government itself as well can issue banknotes backed up by the gold it has earned, and redeemable in it upon request. Everything squares.

But here the line of reasoning begins to dumb down, though: similarities are assumed where there are differences, separate things are identified as if they were the same thing. Authority, law, government, banks, money, money minting, money issuing, money loaning, all wrapped in a single cloud, maliciously blurred above the citizen’s head.

It is from this numb point of view that the absurd seems logical, that enormities go unnoticed. It takes learning to think like a stupid and then jump out of that stupidity to get it. Let’s keep it simple and restricted to the core, and here we go: Money is issued by banks, so it is “logical” that if the government too is to issue money it is supposed to have a bank to do so. Banks loan the money, so it is “logical” that the government bank is supposed to loan the money, too. What a nonsense.

Mints produce the money, not banks. If the government is to issue money, it has to have or hire a mint, not a bank. And guess who the government bank loans the money to? The government. What? The government loans the money to itself? Against collateral plus interest?

But they know we are prone to judge the book by its cover, and to take all too much for granted that the label is truthful as to what’s in the package; so even if the nonsense begins to stink right under the surface, this is no hindrance to them because we make do with the surface without digging underneath it.

As a result dawns the central bank age. A make−believe where as usual the lack of information appears temporary and accidental while on the contrary it is carefully planned and permanent. Central banks are private corporations purposely disguised as public institutions; that’s why they’re called “National”, “Federal”, “Central” or whatever adjective better suits this purpose in the inattentive and confident public’s eye. Their shares are privately owned, and even where owned by public bodies, they yield their gains to their owners, and those gains come from a fraud. Why do central banks exist in the first place? Why in the world a nation must borrow at face value the paper it should issue itself at production cost? Who owns the central banks? And, regardless of who owns them, who pockets their gains? Because they do make profits, you bet!

Since we’re here to call things with their name, it would be an euphemism to call this yield a “profit” without qualifying it further: the unpalatable truth is that what we are analysing here is a transfer of purchasing power, stolen and drained from the society, and transferred into the pockets of those who control the central bank. And all this – not only this, actually, but all the ensuing “tools” and “evolutions” as well – are nothing but parasitic extortion. There’s no reason for all this to exist. No reason but criminal conspiracy.

Let’s return to Example Island for the basics of how it works and the order of magnitude of its “yield” – that is, of the amount and transfer speed of stolen purchasing power –. And while en route let’s have a quick think of two mechanisms: the infinite debt trap and the ambiguous money. Again, there still live 100 people, and each one on the average owns 100 units of money; in all, 10,000 units of paper money in existence, 1% each on the average. But one of them is the banker and one of them is the king or the politician, and they have established and own the “central bank”; when the system goes full speed, the central bank has spent a trifle to produce all the 10,000 units of paper money in existence, then it has loaned them all to the government, and in exchange the government has given to the bank as collateral promissory notes in whatever form for say 10,000 units, expiring in 10 years, and has bound itself to pay to the central bank an interest of say 1% a year: 100 units a year.

To begin with, there is the initial theft of purchasing power perpetrated by receiving government promissory notes for 10,000 units in exchange for paper money whose production cost nothing. The banker has spent a trifle and has received in exchange the commitment of the government to give him back all the existing money supply plus interest. The government has committed itself to give back to the banker all the money supply plus the interest, and has received in exchange valueless paper it could print itself at the cost of a trifle. As to that paper being backed by gold – that which has the so−called intrinsic value, at first it may seem that the paper is but a placeholder of the gold, and anyone can go to the banker to redeem it. If that was true, the government had exchanged its commitment for the banker’s collateral, made up by that gold; if that was true, it’d be only a matter of why the government should borrow the banker’s gold instead of using its own; if the government were short of gold, it would be a matter of why should the government use a money backed by something scarce with the suppressive result of a scarce money supply. But the more the money moves inside the scope of its ambiguity towards being backed by nothing, the less possible becomes for people to actually redeem it in gold due to laws and rules, whether written or unwritten, and the more directly the question arises of why should the government commit itself to give everything in exchange for nothing.

Then, the trap begins to operate. After one year the government owes the central bank 1% of all the existing money, and what are the options left to the victim that “for some mysterious reason” can’t turn against the loan shark? To repay the bank it basically has to choose between: shrinking the money supply; borrowing more money from the bank; undermining its assets; stealing in its turn.

Shrinking: shrinking the amount of blood circulating in a living organism below the optimum amount it needs is but suppressing it towards death; this is one of the usual strategies of bankers and their partners in crime, but for the sake of simplicity now let’s assume they will discard this option as their current intention is to keep things in a “level” state – as level as it can be the state of one who is sawing the branch one sits on, also known as the difference between short−term and long−term view.

Borrowing: we have already seen before what happens if the government decides to borrow more money to pay the interest on the borrowed money – a dead end street for the government and the people, ending up in the banker and his partners in crime owning everything and everyone.

Undermining: selling one’s assets to honour one’s commitments is a distress sale anyhow: if it’s the seller that needs to sell, we know how the story goes. Suppose on the island there are actual goods – resources and products – corresponding to 10,000 units, and the government owns 10% of them, 1,000 units. It’s now up to the banker the discretion to accept his yearly 1% of 100 units of interest paid in goods instead of money. If he’s “obliging”, 10% of the government assets, representing 1% of all the goods in existence, are directly transferred to him; if he’s “unswerving”, it’s going to be even worse, as the government is forced to a clearance sale, and we can expect it to undersell say 150 or 200 units of its assets to scrape together those 100 units; and we can expect the buyers of those undersold assets to be partners in crime with the banker, isn’t it?

Stealing: once the basics of the infinite debt trap are operating, the ensuing hunger may prompt the government to desperation, and the desperation may prompt it to steal to meet its commitments; supposing there were public officials in good faith unaware of the real cause – these basics and the partnership in crime enforcing them – at this stage the pressure on them would be from the outside, and they would be hopelessly crushed within the coils. But there’s a quite shadier stage: this crime syndicate can directly manipulate the government into stealing, because the king or the politician is the first partner in crime of the banker, so controlling the government is not a problem to them. When it comes to get compliance from other politicians and officials along the lower levels of the pyramid, many a way exist; they can be summed up in either threat (be it by violence, by blackmail or by getting them into debt), bribing (from just enticing with funds to plain involvement) or deception (be it by lies, by cloaking or by throwing off track with whipping boys or ideologies), and they can be further summed up in having enough money to do so. And it so happens that as to this, the road is paved for the bankers and their partners in crime, because they’ve put themselves in the position of creating what even those less prone to emphasis would call the greatest money making swindle ever. At which point the worst is yet to come, because when a government takes the course of robbery there’s no limit: so much so that as we’re going to see ahead governments use the income tax to snatch bread from the mouths of their citizens and imperialistic wars to snatch it from the mouths of other states’ citizens. When you start to do the math of the casualties, be them home or abroad, be them starved, enslaved or mangled fellow human beings of yours, the running total increasingly suggests to your conscience that the outcome of this robbing machine is no small thing for mankind.

This said, what is a so−called "central", "national", "federal" bank for, in practice? Here’s a typical case of Trojan horse: the purpose passed off to people is that of protecting them, the actual purpose is that of better screwing them, more completely, more quickly, more easily and with more impunity. And those hailed from above as those who should protect people are actually the very ones people should protect themselves from. It’s a textbook example of passing off the fundamental cause of the disease as its cure. And then enjoying the yield and the grotesque show of unaware victims begging for rescue from their very hangmen.
People are told that a central bank is all about guaranteeing that their money won’t lose value in time due to inflation, while the real culprits for the inflation are precisely the bankers themselves, as a byproduct of creating out of nothing enough money in their pockets to seize everyone and everything, thanks to the connivance of their central bank holding the bag for them, as we will see.
People are told that a central bank is all about guaranteeing that their money won’t go up in smoke should their bank go bankrupt, while it’s precisely the bankers themselves that, in the process of destroying people’s money by creating further money out of nothing in their pockets they use to seize everyone and everything, moreover they even play dirty with their banks, squeezing and dumping them in many ways, precisely because thanks to central banks they will never be called to account for their foul play. And when in the end the central bank will pay off, in actual fact those enslaved under the pretext of footing the bill of both the crimes committed by the bankers and their own “rescue” through the state getting into debt with the very culprits of the whole scheme, will be the people, which is the ultimate target.

In other words, central banking is not merely for its own sake; it is not an aim but a means. And we can consider any ambiguity over the ownership, control and earnings of central banks from a more revealing point of view, as a planned smoke and mirrors of secondary issues to cover up what counts. Regardless of how huge the order of magnitude of fraud perpetrated within a central bank may appear to us, its main purpose lies nonetheless in an even bigger order of magnitude: allowing all banks to maximise their fractional reserve fraud while sheltering them from any accountability for it. Any issue about a central bank’s ownership and profits pales in comparison to the exponentially greater extent of the fractional reserve scam perpetrated by the whole banking system in its entirety. The central bank is the missing piece of the final weapon with which the bankers, to be exact the big fishes among them, the real big ones, seize everyone and everything. The real purposes of a central bank are:
First, allowing bankers to create out of nothing the purchasing power with which they seize everyone and everything in a more plentiful, more quick, less conspicuous and more unpunished way.
Second, allowing governments to get states into debt more easily and thus perform their function of bankers’ waiters better. Indeed, governments are the best customers of big fishes among bankers for a number of reasons combined:
because the order of magnitude of the debts they incur is unparalleled;
because they inherently tend to insolvency due to their humanoid nature fed by humanoid faults – where humanoid means below the minimum requirements of intelligence and honesty – and therefore they tend to take charge of social needs, even when they actually and decently do it at all, in ways that more or less intentionally produce monetary debt;
and all this even more so because they’re controlled by the bankers that push them as much as they can to run up debts with them;
and finally because it is the citizens that are held accountable for the debts incurred by politicians;
so in the final analysis the governments are a key tool for the bankers to seize everyone and everything: first the properties of people, and then people in the flesh, that they enslave in this manner with economic, or better yet, financial weapons. That is, in a cage whose bars are made of shade instead of iron, but which are as effective as we consider shade as real as iron, if not even more.

So now let's see in practical terms how the device called "central" bank enables bankers to both achieve their goal and avoid the “pitfalls” along its path, by isolating and observing the significant parts of the mechanism: its parties affected, two abstract concepts, its rules of operation, and its effects for and on the parties affected.

The parties affected are bosses, subordinates and targets:
The bosses are the bankers who won the bank wars, those controlling the main banking interests on top of the ensuing criminal consolidation, those who amassed enough power to control the law by controlling the media, “public opinion” and academics who inspire, mould, justify and campaign for it, the legislators and politicians who draft and pass it, and the law enforcement authorities who enforce and shield it.
The subordinates are the other bankers, those who survived the bank wars but did not win them, those controlling the lesser banking interests under the top of the ensuing criminal consolidation, those who did not amass enough power to be in control, but enough to be spared and co−opted.
The targets are the rest of us.

The two abstract concepts are promise and delivery, and we get to them by abstracting them from a concrete case: When the central banking part of the swindle begun, the targets were still permitted to handle both intrinsic value in the form of gold, silver and the alike in bullion, coins, etc., and face value in the form of paper in bank notes−banknotes, and thus they were accustomed to converting from one to the other. In this initial stage, the intrinsic value is the delivery and the face value is the promise: when a gold coin changes hands, actual value is delivered; when a banknote changes hands, only a promise to deliver actual value changes hands, a promise to be kept when that banknote will be redeemed in actual value such as gold.

As non−existent money, bank credit, caught on as an accepted medium of payment, a new pair of “promise and delivery” came into existence: bank credit and banknote; and this exemplifies how the concepts of promise and delivery can exist, and more importantly operate, in the abstract, whereby abstract means regardless of whether the delivery in question is of intrinsic value or not. The use of promise and delivery as abstract concepts here is that the fraudulent scheme of fractional reserve applies to any promise and delivery pair as such, regardless of their intrinsic or face value: from this perspective, all it consists of is passing off whatever promise as its corresponding delivery. And obviously the crime scene is the mind of the target who mistakes one for the other. Summing up the relationship of fractional reserve banking with the concepts of promise and delivery, the banker’s criminal motive for switching from 100−percent−bailee to fractional−reserve−debtor becomes crysyal clear in terms of promise and delivery: exploiting promises as deliveries is the basis of the fractional reserve swindle – it is what it consists in. And it is intrinsically counterfeiting: no circulation of promises, no point in counterfeiting fake promises for non−existing deliveries.

The basic rules of operation that matter in the central banking system, dictated by the legislator on behalf of the bosses, are as follows:
The central bank has the monopoly of the creation of banknotes.
the central bank and the other banks share the monopoly of the creation of bank credit.
People can demand both the central bank and the other banks to redeem bank credit in banknotes, but they can only demand the central bank to redeem banknotes in… what?
Conceptually, initially the central bank backs up the banknotes it issues in full with gold, then it applies fractional reserve and backs them up with gold only in part, and finally it backs them up with plain thin air. This is a case of what I call the “ambiguous money cycle”, which I discuss ahead; in parallel with it and to its logical support, it is made increasingly difficult and eventually impossible for people to demand that the central bank backs up those banknotes by redeeming them in gold or in anything at all.

The central bank backs up its credit identically to its banknotes: by the end of the “ambiguous money cycle”, when demanded redemption of credit, for that credit it issues and exchanges banknotes; when demanded redemption of banknotes, for those banknotes it issues and exchanges more banknotes. Both cases, it issues something created at will out of thin air at zero cost.
The other banks back up their credit with banknotes: when demanded redemption of credit, for that credit they exchange banknotes that they have to borrow from the central bank; the central bank demands that they expand their credit within the limit of the fractional reserve, dictates the current reserve ratio, and demands that they keep their reserves deposited in the central bank itself, so the other banks must have reserves no less than that ratio for the credit they create, and keep those reserves in the central bank. That is to say, the other banks issue credit created out of thin air at zero cost, in a quantity not exceeding that dictated by the central bank.
To say that the reserves of the central bank are as infinite as the thin air they originate from is incomplete: indeed people is told that the central bank is there to back it all up, but the cornucopia presented as the one the central bank taps into to back it all up in the final analysis is the State, not thin air. Small meaningless detail we are going to discuss in a moment…
The reserves of the other banks may also be comprised of own capital and embezzled customer’s deposits, but since the prime source of credit and money is the central bank, they’re basically and mainly comprised of central bank loans. Remarkably enough, what these reserves mainly consist of is not banknotes, but bank credit: that is, they are promises backed by other promises, not by deliveries.
To sum it up, a unit of bank credit issued out of nothing at zero cost is backed by only a fraction of it in central bank credit issued out of nothing at zero cost, which in turn is backed by only a fraction of it in… actual value at first, which as soon as possible is replaced by thin air. Some call it double pyramiding.

This means that once reached cruising speed the central bank has unfettered and absolutely unaccountable sovereignty over the money supply. No social, political or physical entity can scrutinise or undermine its absolute power to decide how much money when and to whom.
By the way, it has been said that among the basic vital duties of a true member of any group is never permitting anyone to exploit the mistakes and misdeeds of the few to discipline and enslave all; not surprisingly at all, a routine suppressive strategy is exactly that, and a typical case in point is that the bosses considerately foster the politicians’ penchant for stealing and wasting to not only indebt states with them, but also for building up the pretext and support for the idea that monetary sovereignty is not “safe” in the hands of politicians and governments, and that therefore – guess what? – it is “safer” in the totalitarian hands of the central bankers and their puppeteers. Some may call it: from the frying pan into the fire. Some others would call it entrusting the flock to the wolves to protect it from the jackals unleashed by the wolves.

So the central bank creates purchasing power out of nothing in the form of credit or banknotes, then buys something with it or lends it to other banks by crediting it to its reserve accounts under their names, and in the meantime dictates the fractional reserve ratio. The other banks create much more further purchasing power out of nothing in the form of credit within the limit dictated by fractional reserve ratio and their reserves at the central bank, then buy something with it or lend it to people. When people demand redemption of that credit in banknotes, the other banks draw on the credit in their central bank reserve accounts, and the central bank issues the corresponding banknotes out of nothing and reduces their credit in their reserve accounts accordingly. In short, the only constraint determining how much credit and money there are in existence is the arbitrary decision of the unaccountable central bank; and the only contstraint determining who is going to have how much of it is the arbitrary decision of each unaccountable bank.

I would invite you to pause for a moment to ponder over this godlike power, and in this regard I would add that central banks, in addition to, or better in combination with being privately owned or controlled entities, enjoy another godlike privilege: they are not subject to any audit by any independent entity; they are not subject to such independent audits because they are accountable to no jurisdiction; they are accountable to no jurisdiction because they are not subject to any jurisdiction. That this means that no one is allowed to know how much “money” there is in existence, nor to have any say about it, is just a facet of this godlike power.

And now, as to the effects for and on the parties affected, let’s compare the central bank scheme to its absence in view of its actual purposes of allowing bosses to control a scheme that runs the unwitting targets into debt to them and their subordinates by hijacking their money and institutions. The goal is maximising unpunished exploitation of fractional reserve scam; thus, at the same time minimising both the targets’ awareness of the scam and the eventuality that the targets step beyond the edge of the stage and catch the banker in the act of tampering with their purchasing power.

With free banking, if the targets demand redemption of any banker’s promises−credits in deliveries−banknotes, that banker promptly issues those deliveries−banknotes, but these in turn are promises, and targets are entitled to – and will – demand that banker to redeem them too in the corresponding delivery, be it gold, goods, or whatever. Free banking is a sort of limited crime scheme where competition intrinsically limits the expansion of promises fraudulently passed off as deliveries. Swindle aside, it’s nothing more than the basic of healty competition versus monopoly. If a banker decides to push it too far, why should the competing bankers stand by and watch that fellow banker strip them of increasingly bigger shares of their loot?

It must be kept in mind that any form of promise−credit can’t help but end up in a bank account, and most likely in another bank (unless there were only one monopoly bank, which is the bankers’ dream, and central banking is but a step in that direction). So the other bankers will just demand redemption of the excess promises−credits issued by that banker and now in their possession. And as to the targets, if they begin to be suspicious of that banker’s promises−credits in their possession, they will just start a bank run on that bank. In both cases, if that banker can’t fulfil all those promises−obligations, no one else is going to come to the rescue, and that banker has nowhere to take cover, nowhere to hide.

With central banking, no bank can push it too far alone, for the very good reason that they all do push it too far together at the same pace, constantly, relentlessly and stealthily. The central bank ensures via the reserve requirement that no banker pushes it too far all alone ahead of the pack of its fellow bankers, so that all bankers can blissfully devote themselves to back one another up by accepting and treating each other’s promises as if they were deliveries indefinitely, undisturbed and undetected. As to the targets, they end up like frogs boiling, to begin with: if you immerse the frogs in the water, and then you warm up the water uniformly enough and gradually enough, every day the frogs won’t notice any difference between here and there and between today and yesterday, while every day the increasing temperature takes away their force more and more, so they are eventually going to find themselves perfectly boiled without even realising it, crushed in enough apathy to let bankers skewer and strip them without the slightest objection. The more promises are created and passed off as deliveries, the more purchasing power gets transferred from the targets to the bosses and the subordinates, so the targets are subject to a permanent and universally coherent pressure to consider promises as deliveries, and to force them to do so at the slightest chance.

Fraud is a function of confidence: the more covered up the fraud, the more confidence exploitable. Hence, houses of cards get promoted if not enforced as much as possible. The fractional reserve house of cards can function to the degree the targets don’t call swindlers to account, therefore preventing such an eventuality in whatever way is a key permanent issue for the swindlers. If the targets are so stubborn to really want to redeem the promises−credits in deliveries−banknotes, we have a central bank at hand to print any amount of banknotes out of nothing; if this gets to the point of exhausting the reserves of a bank, well, that bank can even collapse without this resulting in the system collapse, regardless of whether its targets get their promises redeemed in banknotes or not. And should the targets be stubborn to the point of demanding redemption of promises−banknotes in delivery−gold−or−whatever−actual−value, our countermeasures are already deployed: our media and experts spread the mantra that promises are everything and deliveries are history… Deliveries? What deliveries? Oh, you mean that stone age oddity? Don’t you think you’re a bit out of fashion? You don’t really want to be laughed at, do you? Laughed at… by whom? After all, legal tender means that you are obliged to accept promises as everything, and after all the central bank is the State, and all this is the mother of all monopolies, so you can all sleep soundly in your beds as the hypnotist and the legislator join forces to tell you to sleep, and forget about delivery−actual value, isn’t it? After all, it’s merely a matter of moulding people’s habits, from being used to handling both promises and deliveries to being used to handling only promises as deliveries and that’s all: it’s just a matter of having enough time and power to carry it out, and bankers do have both. Do you see anyone around these days dreaming of demanding any central bank to redeem its paper in anything valuable? Do you see anyone around these days aware that the “tradition” of central banking and of its role as “lender of last resort on behalf of the State” were not at all dictated from above as part of the commandments but were craftily created out of nothing just as promise−money is? Bit of a difference with a time when each banker was to stand on his own, and when found out playing games, hopefully in the hustle of the bank run he ended up properly hanged.

The central banking masquerade was – and is – instrumental in artificially bolstering public faith in the banking system, so that bankers, bosses and subordinates, to that degree can indefinitely expand creation of purchasing power out of nothing in their pockets through fractional reserve promises of non−existing deliveries, seize with it all targets’ properties, lives, bodies and souls, and dump all the costs and the risks on the targets themselves via the State and the government connivance.

In order to avoid leaving gray areas, finally, I would like to single out a specific facet of how the fraudulent scheme of “central” banking backs up the other fraudulent scheme of fractional reserve: why did bosses reserve to the central bank the monopoly of the privilege of issuing physical money out of nothing, while they granted to other banks the privilege to issue credit out of the same nothing?

The purpose of the bosses is to ensure their own control. Control in order to prevent bank runs on single banks, control in order to prevent bank runs on the system, control in order to keep the scheme working, control in order to maximise and secure as much as possible to themselves its fraudulent and totalitarian profits, control in order to maintain their control. And to this aim the bosses imposed as much criminal consolidation of control as the power they had amassed allowed them to: there’s money in it for all, but I am the boss.

Bank credit and physical money are a “promise and delivery” pair, and the fractional reserve “works” by passing off promise as delivery. So central banks ensure that other banks toe the line as to promises via the reserve requirement, and that they toe the line as to deliveries as well via the monopoly of physical money issue. By means of these rules and their enforcement through control over law, accounting and law enforcemement, they have it all under satisfactory control.

Conversely, what if other banks could issue physical money as well? A serious of thorny questions would arise:
Would all bank issue the same type or money, or would each one issue its own?
What would be the scheme of promises and deliveries?
Who would be allowed or required to hold reserves, for what, and in what form?
Who would people hold accountable for redeeming what promise in what delivery?
Would the central bank be able to secure and maintain control of all promises, deliveries and reserves of the scheme, and to ensure that all banks toe the line? And how?

What a mess it would be. An explosive mess. Not only would these questions be a puzzle and the possible answers a conundrum; any possible answer would be an explosive risk, and moreover it would also hamper or prevent the achievement of the other very purpose of the scheme: pulling in the State as guarantor, the government as accomplice, and the citizens as victims to fleece.
The central bank pretends to be public and invents and assumes the role of “lender of last resort” “on behalf” of the State: “Dear citizen, the cavalry is always ready to come; become a bank customer with full confidence: come what may, Mother State will come to your rescue and foot any bill.”

Selling a fraud is as easy or difficult as its staged fiction appears plausible to the victim; and from the viewpoint of the target−citizen a stage where there is only one physical money issued by a central bank appears more trustworthy than a stage where each bank issues its own money, simply because psychologically it is more compatible to the further fraudulent facet of Mother State behind the “lender of last resort” central bank. And that those footing the bill of the criminals are the victims themselves robbed a second time of the same loot is just a negligible detail in the background.

All in all, without the monopoly of physical money, on one hand it would still be possible for banks to evade central bank control over fractional reserve expansion, and thus cause bank runs demanding them to redeem their promises in deliveries; on the other hand it would be more lileky for the central bank to be called to account and less easy to bail it all out and dump the cost on people via the government, and all this in a scene where more different types of cash circulating would seriously undermine the psychological authority of the central bank and its alleged identification with Mother State.

I’ll borrow from one of my heartily recommended readings to delve for a moment into the practical details of what central banking is, and what it is for.
G. Edward Griffin entitled his fundamental work “The Creature from Jekyll Island”. The creature from Jekyll Island is the Federal Reserve, the United States’ central bank, and both the names “creature” and “Jekyll” are quite to the point. In fact, the handful of Wall Street big fishes that gathered in the most absolute secrecy on Jekyll island in 1910 was the quintessence of a cartel, and the central bank they planned and got passed in 1913 is nothing else than the embodiment of a cartel disguised in the most quintessential way: as its very opposite.
Those big fishes were the emissaries of the biggest banking powers in the world, and at the time their grip on the economy was declining: people increasingly financed themselves without resorting to them. Free competition and money backed by real value were prevailing over monopoly and money backed by nothing. The number of small indepentent banks, thrift institutions, savings and loans associations, etc. was on a steady rise. And businesses were increasingly able to finance themselves out of their profits rather than from money borrowed from their banks. Their banks were losing ground while privately created and held capital, real products and services, real wealth, was growing.

They had a common problem: how to reverse an adverse trend. A trend expressible in terms of loss of market share, or in less aseptic terms of liberation from economic slavery in the making. They had a common goal, a goal composed of five purposes.
The first, and basic, purpose was stopping the growing competition from small indepentent banks, thrift institutions, savings and loans associations, etc., regaining the upper hand and maintaining and increasing control over the nation’s financial resources.
To achieve the first, the second purpose was improving the competitiveness of their debt money and stopping the growth of its competitor, real wealth.
The third purpose was to turn the competing small independent banks from a bunch of sticks in the mud into a pool of exploitable resources.
The fourth purpose was dumping the inevitable losses of an intrinsically fraudulent system from its perpetrators to its victims. Particularly so in view of the fact that their goal included bringing that fraudulent system to an unprecedented level, immense and systematic.
The fifth, obvious, purpose was that, in Griffin’s words, as with all cartels, it had to be created by legislation and sustained by the power of government under the deception of protecting the consumer.

Although the end goal and all the purposes above relate to what we have just discussed, the second of these may benefit from an additional explaination from Griffin:
Sound money, backed by real value, that is, a more honest ratio between money and actual product, curbing among other things the banks’ fractional reserve bug, produced a realistic money supply and a realistic balance between debt and thrift. That is, the cost of money was low enough to attract serious borrowers, confident of the success of their ventures and of their ability to repay, and high enough to discourage borrowers for ventures that were pies in the sky or for which there were alternative sources of funding such as one’s own capital.

The banksters’ weapon to fight this foe is what is euphemistically labelled “elasticity of money supply”, and is actually once again the foundation of the foundations: free fiat unbacked money. In other words, the right to create purchasing power out of nothing in their hands at zero cost almost at will.
Let’s see how: if the bankster can create almost unlimited money out of nothing at will, that money costs him nothing while its competitors in real economy must bear costs to earn limited money; hence the bankster can lend more at lower interest rates than his competitors, and this has two consequences.
The first is throwing his competitors out of market and business through what in the business world is labelled “dumping”.
The second is lighting the fuse of the inevitable collapse of the pyramid scheme of global fractional reserve on its intended victims, by incentivising more and more borrowing of his debt money for more and more up in the air and doomed ventures.
In the meantime the intended victims, people and real economy, get more and more weak and addicted to the banksters. As if the fishermen used addictive bait for the tuna and then began stripping them already while pushing them towards the death chamber at the end of the tuna−fishing net.

Many a comment may be suggested by the details above, of which but one is, that’s what a central bank is: the product of a a cartel. And a cartel. But as we have previously seen, that it’s a cartel is just one facet of it.

A comment worth emphasising is about their fourh purpose, and I think an effective way to emphasise it is through the words of Griffin: “The name of the game is bailout”. In considering the whole subject of central banking never we should lose sight of the fact that it has all been designed to screw us in the first place and from beginning to end, end most definitely included, and that’s the point here: banksters create “money” out of nothing in their hands and, both directly with it and indirectly through the ensuing inflation, they rob our purchasing power, they make addicted, corrupt and undermine both the economy and their own banks, and when the house of cards inevitably collapses as planned, the whole cost – that is, their further profit – is dumped through government, taxes and inflation on the victims already previously exploited and stripped along all the process: us.
Another comment worth emphasising is about their fifth purpose: that as to all their purposes their plan has been an unqualified success is a hard fact; given that such fifth purpose was essential and inescapable to achieve them, then such unqualified success measures the degree that fifth purpose has been achieved. But this is part of what awaits us ahead.

The actual facts documented by Richard A. Werner in his New Paradigm in Economics, and mentioned further ahead in the section about another crime against Humanity, the “Pensée Unique in Economics”, prove that central banks are loaded weapons of mass destruction waiting for suppressive criminals to seize control of them and through them perpetrate their such crimes, controlling and suppressing whole economies. Central banks as such may be therefore considered a mere potential crime against Humanity. But since they were created by those very criminals for that very purpose in the first place, and since when they are in private hands such potential becomes reality with absolute certainty, and when they are in public hands our only defence is what Thomas Paine called the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government, there’s enough to call things by their name.
Last, but not least among the reasons for the big fishes to usurp the ultimate control of money supply in itself via the central bank, there is also something even more meaningful: conquering a strategic position from which the implementation of the further facets that follow ahead becomes easier, if not even possible in the first place.
And while the next sections of the Philosopher’s Stone here cover the vast general panorama of economic crimes against Humanity conceptually, further ahead you will find a detailed report on the use of this weapon of mass destruction known as central bank right in the aforementioned section about the “Pensée Unique in Economics”.