“The initial bank” is not usually the bank you went to. What we’re concerned with in *the origin* of every unit of circulation, is always whatever “bank” *created” the [obfuscation] of *our* “money.”
In virtually all systems and in most cases, this is (“uniformly”) a CENTRAL bank. “The” “central bank” “of” the United States for example is the 12 private “Federal Reserve” “Banks.”
The central bank(s) do not interface with the public. Money comes into existence *from* the central bank(s) by ostensible “lending” from the central bank to what I call “peripheral banks” or “intermediate banks.” It is these peripheral banks from which you engage in faux “borrowing” only to acquire a representation of your promissory obligation. You should be careful not use (or to think) of these banks as your “initial bank,” for they are NOT (generally) the purported creators of money — yet money may be thought to initiate there — particularly as you engage in issuing or instantiating your promissory obligation there.
Yes, THAT (peripheral bank) is the true beginning of the life cycle of every unit of currency, because your promissory obligation in fact gives “money” (or this obfuscation of money) the very entirety of its legal and monetary substance. The proper life cycle of *all* “money” (obfuscated or not) in truth begins here.
But this is NOT where the structure of the system (wrongly) PLACES the beginning of the obfuscated life cycle of money — and this is how reason has them in such a terminal legal conundrum.
Why do they move the beginning of the life cycle of every unit of circulation *elsewhere* (somewhere *other than* the _real_ initial “bank”?
Effectively, they MUST pretend that money IS indeed “borrowed.”
It is imperative to the ruse then, that faux creation under fraudulent pretences sustains the wrongful idea that you are indeed borrowing. How is this done?
Well if your wrong “initial bank” in the parlance of the improprieties of the system is forced “to borrow” money from a central bank which on the contrary is no more than publishing a further representation of your promissory obligation — in which obligation and contract they have no rightful stake whatsoever — well then, even the very records we can examine of the seeming transaction seem to corroborate that you did indeed borrow money then — and furthermore *that* *commensurable consideration* (in other words ***THE*** money) was INDEED GIVEN UP!
If you make the peripheral bank your “initial bank” in any testimony then, NO ONE can understand that you are wronged at all.
All veritable, relevant, and revelatory testimony therefore must explain the obfuscation not from the bank which issues it, because at that phase of the ruse, all the seemingly relevant indications predicate that we believe we have borrowed money from the peripheral bank, because we can see from the records of the money that the peripheral bank borrowed the money from the central bank (or lent from already existing funds — which as I have just demonstrated in previous posts… IS the USUAL course of “money” — it is lent back into circulation practically as fast and in as much volume as principal and interest are paid *from* our possession to the unwarranted possession of the purported banking system.
How much deeper do we have to start in resurrecting the actual life cycle of money?
Well, if we look into the seemingly bearing jurisdiction of banking law in examining the ostensible legality of *the central bank* *issuing ostensible credit*, everything appears to be just fine as well.
You can *never* discover anything wrong then; and anyone can never *understand* that anything is wrong, until you dig beneath the ostensible law to understand that the central bank IS NOT merely ISSUING “CREDIT.” AU CONTRAIRE, it is fraudulently MAKING that credit a falsified debt to itself.
How do we understand this?
By understanding that the CREATING “bank” creating bank NEVER gives up commensurable consideration. Never can we understand that there is an intentional obfuscation of your promissory obligation into not a falsified debt to “the initial” “bank,” or issuing bank — BUT A FALSIFIED DEBT TO *****THE BANKING SYSTEM*****.
You must never phrase your case in reference to just one bank then, for it is thru A DEVIOUSLY CONCEIVED NETWORK of central banks within a periphery of peripheral banks, that the ruse is SUSTAINED by making it appear at the level of EACH peripheral bank, that debt is indeed incurred to the banking system.
This is why you always hear me saying falsified debt *****to the banking SYSTEM*****. Never to a given bank. THE DEBT IS FALSIFIED by THE SYSTEM.
No casual remark or observation will do then as reasonable testimony, or even as an ostensible thought. Once you understand this, you see it is a coordinated and intentional crime, perpetrated through the intentionally malevolent design of a system which no knowledgeable public in history has, or ever will, give its assent to.
Realize this, and think of these crimes always in these terms… and a judge and jury will feel the weight of a potential whole public coming to understand these crimes when they contemplate sustaining these crimes against you. This thing can never be a vague assertion if it is to prevail. The public which *does* come to understand these facts will never unite saying “money is created out of thin air” — for any nuance we have wrong is in fact not understanding at all — and therefore NOTHING either to unite upon, or to defeat legal system corrupted by the intentional subversion of our enemy.
When everything WE (all) say is perfectly and conclusively relevant, then and then alone are we ready to win this thing.