Synopsis (Recap), 10

That is not just “accounting trickery”. THIS IS FALSE ACCOUNTING. This false accounting is the key cog in the mechanism of the theft of monetary sovereignty, and in view of the order of magnitude of its consequences it qualifies as the mother of all false accounting.
Part of this crime is how deeply it is occulted: in both applicable laws and even in accounting terminology there is no term for this case, while the closest existing terms, active occurrence and contingent asset, do not fit; so: no term, no case.
And part of this crime is that the bankers steer clear of this indictment by the trick of the ambiguous nature of the money they create: being a promise of money imposed as money, it has its purchasing power but creating it is not formally counterfeiting.

The next trick is, in fact, the ambiguous nature of the money the banker creates out of nothing. The very definition of money gets deliberately blurred, to the aim of passing off as money what is not money. The definition of money is synonymous of monetary sovereignty: money is that issued by the holder of monetary sovereignty. Hence if one does not hold monetary sovereignty and successfully creates and passes off one’s money, one factually and successfully steals monetary sovereignty.
And that is precisely what bankers do. They do not hold monetary sovereignty; someone else does: formally, these times, a central bank, whoever controls it. Legally, in this context, the money created by the central bank is money, and the money created by the bankers is not; they pressure to pass it off as if it was, and that is the only reason of such ambiguity. They call it “scriptural money”, by which they would have us mean “dematerialised money”, but whose real meaning is, instead, “promise of payment”. The money created by bankers out of nothing is not money; it is a promise of payment. Payment of what? Of money created by the holder of monetary sovereignty.