Crime Against Humanity: “National”, “Federal”, “Central” Banking, 20

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.

Crime Against Humanity: “National”, “Federal”, “Central” Banking