Crime Against Humanity: Banking Reflux, Clearing House, Criminal Conspiracy, 4
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.
