reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
HOW IS YOUR MONEY BEING MANIPULATED? THEY ARE STEALING YOUR WEALTH USING A SYSTEM OF DEBT TO E N S L A V E Y O U ! FOLLOW FOR PART [ 2 ]
Video Transcript AI Summary
A central bank is an institution that issues and regulates a nation's currency. It controls interest rates and the money supply. The central bank loans money to the government with interest. This system creates debt because every dollar produced is actually the dollar plus a certain percentage of debt. The banking system has a monopoly on currency production and continually increases the money supply to cover the outstanding debt. This perpetuates more debt and creates a cycle of slavery. In the early 20th century, powerful banking families like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds pushed for the creation of another central bank. They used an incident orchestrated by JP Morgan to sway public opinion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Central bank. A central bank is an institution that issues and regulates the currency of an entire nation. Based on historical precedent, the typical powers inherent in central banking practice include the control of interest rates and the expansion and contraction of the money supply itself. Now the central bank does not simply issue money to the government. It loans it to them with interest.
Then through the mechanisms of increasing and decreasing the supply of money, the central bank essentially regulates the value of the currency issued. It is critical to understand that the entire structure of this system can only produce one thing in a long run, debt. It doesn't take a lot of ingenuity to figure this scam out. For nearly every single dollar produced by both the central bank and its regulated commercial banks is loaned at interest. That means, every dollar produced is actually the dollar plus a certain percentage of debt based on that dollar.
And since the banking system has the monopoly of the production of the currency and they loan each dollar out with an immediate debt attached to it, where does the money to pay for debt come from. It can only come from the banks again, which means the banking system has to perpetually increase its money supply to temporarily cover, the outstanding debt created, which in turn, since that new money is loaned out at interest as well, creates even more debt. The end result of this system is essentially slavery, for it is technically impossible for a government and thus the public to ever come out of the self generating debt. By the early 20th century, the US had already implemented and removed a few central banking systems, which were maneuvered into place by and ruthless banking interests. At this time, the dominant families in the banking and business world were the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Warburgs, the Rothschilds.
And in the early 1900, they sought to push once again legislation to create another central bank. However, they knew the government and public were very weary of such an institution, so they needed to create an incident to affect public opinion. So JP Morgan, publicly considered a financial luminary at the time, exploited his mass influence by reportedly creating rumors
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
THIS VIDEO MIGHT H E L P Y O U UNDERSTAND HOW THE BANKING SYSTEM R E A L L Y W O R K S
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Federal Reserve, a private bank owned by private stockholders, controls the printing of America's money. They loan money to banks and the government, charging interest and putting the country in debt. The Fed gets its money from the United States Mint, which prints it for them. The Fed's control over the nation's wealth allows them to manipulate the economy and enslave the people through perpetual debt. In 1910, a secret meeting was held to establish a central bank, which would later be called the Federal Reserve. This secretive plan was executed on December 23, 1913, when Congress was mostly absent. The Fed's power to print money and the IRS's ability to collect taxes have resulted in the greatest theft from the American people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is allowed inside the Fed. Not you, not me, no American citizen, no duly elected member of our Congress, not the Supreme Court. Not the Supreme Court? Not the Supreme Court. Not the Justice Department.
Not the CIA, DIA, FBI, ATF, ATE, NBC. Sir. Not even g o d.
Speaker 1: How come the government isn't allowed inside its own building?
Speaker 0: Government. Supreme court. The Fed is a private bank owned by private stockholders. Do not let the name federal fool you. This plays about as federal as Federal Express.
A private bank? Private? Best to keep your voice down, pal.
Speaker 2: This is Ethan Federal Reserve
Speaker 0: Hey, Bill here First National
Speaker 2: Hi there, Bill. How are
Speaker 0: you? Good good. We're running a little low on money.
Speaker 2: No problem how much you need
Speaker 0: oh how does 20,000,000 sound what?
Speaker 2: Excellent we'll ship it over first thing tomorrow
Speaker 1: Wait. He can just call up the Fed and ask for more money and they give him whatever they want?
Speaker 0: No, pal. The Fed don't give the banks money. The Fed loans the bank's money. The banks have to pay it back with interest. Now come on, Tommy Wait.
Wait. Wait.
Speaker 1: Wait. Wait. Wait. I I still don't understand. Where does the Fed get their money?
I mean, if they're a
Speaker 0: private bank. You said they're
Speaker 1: a private bank. Right? Okay. So who puts money into the Fed Bank?
Speaker 3: This is Mel, United States Mint.
Speaker 2: Hi, Mel. First National needs another 20 millis.
Speaker 3: We're already the price is full steam here, Ethan.
Speaker 2: Gotta keep making loans. Gotta keep the money flowing.
Speaker 3: Right. You're the fed. Whatever you guys state. 20,000,000 more by morning.
Speaker 0: But I don't get it. What's so wrong of the fed printing money. Because it's unconstitutional,
Speaker 2: supreme court.
Speaker 0: But now the Fed controls the printing of America's money. Nobody gets a frigging dollar that the Fed didn't print. So They print the money and then they loan it to the government then they charge the government interest then the government taxes you to pay for it wake up high
Speaker 4: Quickly Take my
Speaker 0: hold. Show him. Wait. Show me what? Where are we going?
Ship. Of Liberty. Where are we? Battle of Waterloo. Hold on.
We gotta let's move. A money machine. There it is. Hey. Is that the same people?
Rich banker men from Germany, flying over the Federal of the Red Sea. They financed both sides of the war. We must hurry. That's him, the Red Sea courier. Shoot him.
Sh Oh, I'm not shooting anyone. Sabotage. What? He beat everyone back with the news from a war when he told England that Napoleon won. The Red Shield backers of London pretended that England was doomed and started selling their English stocks.
The English suit. Put into a selling frenzy and get rid of worthless English money. But the English won. Right? Of course, they won.
But it was a trick, a red shield. They waited until the stocks plummeted into pennies and then fought England back for giving nothing. What? They did that. When the English leaders found out, they had no choice but to give themselves over to the Red Shield.
Their money was gone. They were slaves to the Red Shield War debt. Supreme court. Not the Since that time, the English have been paying the national taxes directly to the Red Shield private bankers. The people have no idea.
But the bankers brag about what they did to us. Laughing at us all the way to the bank.
Speaker 3: Why it's the best business I've ever done. If I can control a nation's wealth, I cannot make its laws.
Speaker 0: Oh, is
Speaker 1: this what Jefferson wanted Shoshone? No.
Speaker 0: Look. They're in America too? The red shield banks supreme court. Seeking a way to conquer our American dream. A dream you have, A dream of free men.
Supreme court. They tried to take over our country many times and failed because Jefferson and the patriots vowed to stop the evil tyrants at all costs. My authority, my eternal god, he would not let the bankers win here. Supreme court. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. Wow. I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues. And public debt is the greatest of the dangers to be feared. It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it ghost.
In 1910, a secret meeting was held at the JPMorgan Estate on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. Supreme court. This meeting was so secret, so concealed from government and public knowledge that the 10 attendees used code names.
Speaker 3: I Am clearly the richest man, so I should be the one to run the super secret central bank. I own all the oil in America. I'm clearly richer than you will ever be, hula girl. I should run the super secret central bank. You're nothing thing compared to me Luke job I shall run the secret bank supreme master leader I didn't know you were gonna be here.
I'm
Speaker 4: not. Neither are you, dumbass.
Speaker 0: Okay. Right. Right. Be so smart.
Speaker 4: None of you shall run the bank. We have failed in the past because of openness. This time, the key to success is secrecy. The people also leave that they run the bank
Speaker 3: yes brilliant
Speaker 0: a Sneak attack
Speaker 2: what's the plan?
Speaker 4: We first create panic, then we show them the solution. With our man in office and well planned timing, we will have our central bank. And so the people think it is theirs. We shall christen it federal. The Federal Reserve.
Speaker 0: Supreme court. This truck on December 23rd, 1913. When most of our congress were at home eating fruitcake. These bastards, I mean, bankers, presented their treasonous act to their newly elected accomplice Woodrow Wilson, who had fortuitous they already agreed decided before he was even elected Wait the IRS. I thought we always had the IRS snow pile.
They did this to us too. The fair now has the exclusive power to print America's money. They loan this money to our banks and our government at interest, putting immediate debt on our own money. Print more and more. So each dollar they print becomes worth less than the one before.
Mary Christmas. Supreme court. What in the hell is that? Bad pot is how our government now must pay back these debts to the fed. Supreme court.
Your taxes does not go to your government. They don't? It's the greatest theft
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
W H E N Y O U R C O U N T R Y DOESN'T OWN IT'S OWN CURRENCY YOU HAVE TO ASK W H O D O E S ? THE F E D E R A L R E S E R V E IS FRAUD FOLLOW FOR PART [ 2 ]
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service have their corporate headquarters in Puerto Rico, chosen because it was once a haven for pirates. The pirates of the Caribbean used a black flag with a skull and crossbones, known as the Jolly Roger. This symbol is also used in Freemasonry and represents death. Piracy was a dangerous game of stealing on the high seas, governed by admiralty law. England, being a seafaring nation, developed admiralty law to expand its empire. False flags were used by pirates to deceive their victims, and this concept is still relevant today. The Federal Reserve prints Federal Reserve notes, which are not real money but represent it. The original constitution of California prohibited banking within the state.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When we're talking about the Federal Reserve, first thing you need to understand is where is the Federal Reserve's corporate headquarters? Because it's going to tell you something when you find out. Corporate headquarters for the internal revenue and the Federal Reserve is in Puerto Rico. Not the United States Corporation. And why is it in Puerto Rico?
Because Puerto Rico was picked long time ago. Over a 1000 years ago, it was picked by the pirates of the Caribbean. That's why, today, Puerto Rico houses the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue. It's because the Federal Reserve is, today, the Pirate of the Caribbean. When you begin to see that this is the whole setup in the Federal Reserve and the internal revenue, It's just piracy.
It's just the pirates of the Caribbean, and that's where they started. So what was the symbol for the pirates of the Caribbean? Well, their flag was a black flag with a skull and crossbones. And, and it was referred to as the Jolly Roger. Well, today, the skull and crossbones are a very important symbol used in World Free masonry that's used on a toxic and poisonous, medicines and things.
Scall and Crossbones basically met death. Well, that's what piracy in the Caribbean was like. It was a very dangerous and deadly game where they were stealing on the high seas. And so when you're stealing something on the high seas, then you have to deal with an admiral, which gives us our word admiralty law. Admiralty law is the law of the high seas.
England, in order to travel the world and do what they did to build their great empire, where or great seafaring peoples. Now, their navies, well, next to none, and so this is where the idea that, even in England today, they have such a thing as an Abrilty. And so it gives birth to an Abrolty law, which means it's giving birth to a law based on water. Why? Because, England was a master's of the seas.
Out to the Spanish. And so today, it's just interesting that the Federal Reserve and the internal revenue are our corporate headquarters in the in the Caribbean. But it still is today, ships will carry their own flights so that anyone else on the sea will see that with that flag and understand who owns it and and who's who's controlling that ship. Well, they developed an idea a long time ago among the pirates to fool their victims, and they would put up, a flag, of a country that was friendly with, I guess, the other coming. And so the other ships would not think anything about it until they got close enough to attack them, then they would send up their Jolly Roger the flag that represents the pirates.
Then the people on the other ship know they're so close now. They thought it was a friendly ship. Now they find out It was a as a pirate ship. And so that's where we get the concept today of a false flag. And my goodness, there are false flags everywhere in the world that we live today.
So many people think that you if you trust some country or trust somebody to do something for you and he's a friend, and then one day you find out They're not your friend. They've never been your friend. Then we see, the idea of a false flag. They were putting up the false color. So we even say that kind of thing today that Well, I didn't know.
I was with so and so last night he showed his true colors. True colors. What do you mean? A false flag? Yeah.
Because he's always been nice. He's always been courteous. And last night, he was horrible. So now he's showing his true colors. So that tells me he's been putting up a false flag all this time.
Now we know who he really is or how he really thinks. Would say, 1st of all, it's not federal, and it's not a reserve because it isn't there has no reserves. They just print money. And they don't really print money. They print what they call a Federal Reserve note.
And it says, on the Federal Reserve note, it says this note is legal tender for private, public and private. And then, it used to also say that you could take this to the bank and turn it in for real money. That's what it said on the, on the, on the bills, you know, 50 is not 50 to 100 years ago. It was saying on the bill, you can take this to the bank and turn it in for real money. So right off the bat to tell you is this is not money.
It represents money, but it's not money. And so you don't have to go around with gold coins buying everything. Just sick of dollar bills that represents the gold coin. But the problem is the government and the founding of this country, the constitution doesn't say that it's alright to have paper that represents money. No.
Money is gold and silver period end of the day. That's it. To see the silver goal or it's not money. And so if you're gonna print paper, and, and, incidentally, in California, the 1848 California Constitution, there's 2 of them. 1848 I think the other was 1869, but the 1848 original constitution for California expressly says no banking can be done within the state of California California will not allow any banks to exist in the state of California period.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
DO YOU T R U S T THE BANKING S Y S T E M ? https://t.co/DwhNg9PASO
Video Transcript AI Summary
All banks, including Bank Santander, Deutsche Bank, and Royal Bank of Scotland, are broke due to the concept of fractional reserve banking. This system allows banks to lend money they don't actually have, which is a criminal scandal. The political sphere and central banks contribute to the problem with moral hazard and counterfeiting, also known as quantitative easing. Central banks manipulate interest rates, not retail banks. Additionally, deposit guarantees are discussed casually, but when banks fail, taxpayers bear the cost. The speaker believes that bankers, including central bankers and politicians, should be sent to prison for this theft from the taxpayer.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is my opinion that you do not really understand the concept of banking. All the banks are broke. Bank Santander, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, they're all broke. And why are they broke? It isn't an act of God.
It isn't some sort of tsunami. They're broke because we have a system called fractional reserve banking, which means that banks can lend money that they don't actually have. It's a criminal scandal, and it's been going on for too long. To add to that problem, you have moral hazard, a very significant moral hazard from the political sphere. And most of the problem starts in politics and central banks, which are part of the same political system.
We have counterfeiting, sometimes called quantitative easing, but counterfeiting by Any other name. The artificial printing of money, which if any ordinary person did, they'd go to prison for a very long time, and yet governments and central banks do it all the time. Central banks repress the amount of interest that rate rates so we don't have the real cost of money, and yet we blame the real retail banks for manipulating LIBOR. The sheer effrontery of this is quite astonishing. It's central banks.
It's central banks that manipulate interest rates, commissioner. And, plus, underneath all this, we talk loosely in a rather cavalier fashion, do we not, about deposit guarantees. So when banks go broke through their own incompetence and chicanery, the taxpayer picks up the tab. It's theft from the taxpayer. And until we start sending bankers, and I include central bankers and politicians to prison for this outrage, It will continue.
@RedpillDrifter - Redpill Drifter
HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE SCAM WORKS Pro tip: The Federal Reserve is privately owned https://t.co/4R48j2tY2h
Video Transcript AI Summary
The government creates IOUs in the form of bonds, increasing the national debt. These IOUs are then swapped for currency, with the banks selling the debt to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve buys the IOUs with checks that have no actual funds, resulting in the creation of currency. The government spends this currency on various programs and services, while banks multiply the currency through fractional reserve lending. Taxes are then collected to pay off the debt, and the system relies on ever-increasing levels of debt. The secret owners, the world's largest banks, profit from this system. It causes economic disparity and enslavement, but there is hope in educating the public about the system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The way the system works is that step 1, the government creates glorified IOUs. These bonds increase our national debt and put the public on the hook to pay it back. Step 2, IOUs are swapped to create currency. The Treasury sells the bonds to the banks. The banks then turn around and sell our national debt at a profit to the Federal Reserve, which they probably own.
The Federal Reserve then opens its checkbook that doesn't have a penny in it, and buys those IOUs with IOUs that it writes checks on a checking account that has a zero balance. Then they give those checks to the banks and currency just springs into existence and then the whole process repeats. This results in a buildup of bonds at the Federal Reserve and currency at the Treasury, which is really just a supply of numbers. The Treasury then deposits the members in the various branches of the government, and we get to step 3. The government spends the members on promises, public works, social programs and war.
Then the government employees, contractors and soldiers deposit their pay into the banks. And we get to step 4, where the banks multiply the numbers by magically inventing more IOUs through fractional reserve lending, where they steal a portion of everyone's deposit and lend it out. That currency gets redeposited and then a portion is stolen again. And the process repeats over and over magnifying the currency supply exponentially. Then we work for some of those numbers, Which brings us to step 5, where our numbers are taxed.
We pay tax to the IRS, who then turns our numbers over to the Treasury, so the treasury can pay the principal plus the interest on bonds that were purchased by the Federal Reserve with a check from nothing. Then we get to step 6: The Debt Ceiling Delusion. The system is designed to require ever increasing levels of debt and will eventually collapse under its own weight because politicians always kick the can down the road. They don't want it to collapse on their watch. And finally, step 7, the secret owners take their cut.
The world's largest banks own the Federal Reserve. Those banks make a profit selling our national debt to the Fed. They make a profit when the Fed pays them interest on the reserves held at the Fed, and the Fed pays them a 6% dividend on their ownership of the Fed. This system is fundamentally evil. It funnels wealth from the working population to the government and the banking sector.
It is the cause of the artificial booms and busts of modern economies, and it Causes great disparity of wealth between the rich and the working class. And it is only possible because we no longer use real money, we use currency. But worst of all, it is a form of enslavement. Bond is the root word of bondage. Whenever a government issues a bond it is a Promise to make us pay tax in the future.
Nobody asked you if you wanted to pay tax today for the prosperity we all enjoyed in the last century. Nobody is asking our children if they want to work hard in the future to pay for the prosperity we're enjoying now. George Washington once wrote to James Madison. No generation has the right to contract debts greater than can be paid off during the course of its own existence. By stealing prosperity from tomorrow, so we can spend it today, we enslave ourselves and future generations.
Now this all sounds pretty bad, but there is great hope, for you are the greatest threat to this false monetary system. This system relies on the public being ignorant of its workings. Please share this knowledge with everyone you know, because an informed public that fully understands the system can build a better future for generations to come. And now I leave you with this quote, widely attributed to a former director of the Bank of England. The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing.
The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, But leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. But if you want to continue as the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money, and to control credit.
This is the Federal Reserve in Washington DC. It's located on Constitution Street, and that is just as much of a joke as the New York Fed being located on Liberty Street. Both of them are unconstitutional. Both of them limit our liberty. And they transfer wealth away from us every second of every day To the Federal Reserve, to the government, and to the banking sector.
reSee.it AI Summary
If you've borrowed money, listen closely. Understand how funds are accessed and given by banks. Know where the money truly comes from. A lawyer's questions to a judge shed light on this. Prepare to reclaim what's rightfully yours. Spread the word. #FinancialAwareness
@argosaki - Elon Musk ( Parody )
If you have ever ever borrowed money from a bank or finance institution YOU MUST LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY TO THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING REGARDING HOW MONEY IS ACCESSED AND GIVEN TO YOU , AND WHO YHE MONEY FOR YHAT TRANSACTION ACTUALLY COMES FTOM TO YOU … Questions FROM A LAWYER TO A JUDGE. This is a MUST WATCH SHARE AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD … PREPARE for the battle to take control of what is yours by BIRTHRIGHT ‼️‼️‼️👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👁️👁️👁️👁️👁️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️👇👇👇👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the practice of banks taking actual cash value from borrowers, using it to fund bank loans, and then returning it as a loan with interest. The judge acknowledges that this is a common practice and that Congress allows it. The speaker highlights that borrowers essentially give their own money to the bank for free, which the bank then loans back to them. The judge confirms that this is the bank's policy. The speaker emphasizes that borrowers are unaware of this process and urges people to educate themselves about the financial system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Never came up with any of his own mind to obtain the promissory notes. Am I hearing this right? I gave you the equivalent of $200,000. You return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 plus interest. Do you think I'm stupid?
All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this. Because congress allowed the banks to breach written agreements used false and misleading advertising act without written permission authorization and without the alleged borrower's knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan.
Speaker 1: But the borrower got a check-in the house.
Speaker 0: Is it true the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received with the funds from the alleged borrower for free.
Speaker 1: This is true.
Speaker 0: Is it the bank's policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank, and then keep the funds as the bank's property, which they then loan out as bank loans as if they actually own owned it and loan their own money. Yes. Was it the bank's intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Do you believe that it was the borrower's intent to fund his own bank loan check.
Speaker 1: I was not there at the time, and I cannot know what went through the borrower's mind.
Speaker 0: So if a lender loaned the borrower $10,000, and the borrower refused to repay the money, Do you believe the lender is damaged?
Speaker 1: If the loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged.
Speaker 0: So is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower.
Speaker 1: The bank returns the funds.
Speaker 0: Was the actual match value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took, or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?
Speaker 1: That's a loan.
Speaker 0: So how did the bank get the borrowers money for free?
Speaker 1: That's how it looks.
Speaker 2: No more questions, your a man talking to a judge and asking him questions about how banks work, and we're gonna cover a few things here that are very important. But first, we're gonna go through all these screenshots. I give you the equivalent of $200,000. You return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you 200,000 plus interest. The judge's response is all the banks are doing this.
Congress allows this. The guy says, does congress allow the banks to breach written agreement, use false and misleading advertising without your written permission or authorization, And without your knowledge, transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank. So what happens is when you go into the bank and you apply for a $200,000 loan. They get a check with your name on it after you gave them your social security, and they then take that check for $200,000 With your name on it, and they give it back to you as a loan plus interest, but they got it from you. And then again, like I said, return it back as a loan.
The judge's responses, But the borrower got a check-in house. So when you even go to finance a car, you give them your social security number, your credit, you're there all day because they are waiting on the check with your name on it to come through so that they can then give it back to you as a loan. So then he asked, is it true that the actual cash value that was used The fund the bank loan check came directly from you because your name was on it. It's your money, and that the bank got that money from you for free. No equal consideration.
They got it from you for free. And he says, this is true. That is the section that you hear in the beginning that I stitched. He then asked, is it the bank's policy to transfer the actual cash value from the check to themselves and then keep the money as the bank's property, Which they then loan out as bank loans back to you as if they actually owned it and that they actually loan their own money. And he says, Yes.
I mean, there's really nothing else to say. It's been proven time and time again. They get money from you, your money, then give it back to you, And somehow you have to pay them interest. It doesn't make any sense. It's your money.
What they're actually supposed to do is give you the check with your name on it when it comes in house, Which is why if you go and watch that video, the judge says, I don't know what's going on in the borrower's mind, but they also know that you're not reading your contracts. You have no idea about truth Lending, and you don't know anything about money. For if the people understood the financial system, there would be a revolution before tomorrow, but y'all don't care about that. I just want
Speaker 1: it dead.
@atensnut - Juanita Broaddrick
This dude wants more of your hard earned money. What do you tell him? https://t.co/htsVJy6Czw
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
DO YOU BELIEVE BILL GATES IS HELPING YOU? https://t.co/fCn31nfMJ1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bill Gates is accused of not being a true philanthropist, as he allegedly takes control of seed banks worldwide by giving small amounts of money. He also promotes technologies for patenting, further solidifying his control over seeds. Gates has coined the term "net zero" to address climate issues, but critics argue that it doesn't mean reducing emissions or pollution. Instead, he suggests finding other people's lands as offsets for carbon emissions. The speaker claims that Gates has acquired land in America and now seeks more for carbon offset purposes. This is the concept of "net zero" being pushed in climate discussions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you believe that Bill is really a philanthropist? Bill Gates is not a philanthropist. He gives a little bit of money to take over entire sectors. The big seed banks are called the CJR system. He gives a 1,000,000 here, but he takes all the seeds of that system.
All of these seed banks of the world, he now controls by giving a tiny bit, but that's not where he stops. He then develops, promotes technologies for patenting. Still he controls the seeds of the world. He finances the Swalabad seed bank, then he creates patent systems, and he straw is the international system that controls the country's rights to their seed so that all the seeds of the world are his seeds. He cooked up a word which I had never heard before that called net zero.
And he said we can we have to solve climate problems by net zero. It doesn't mean we get rid of emissions. He flies a private jet and has all the private jet services of the world. He says it doesn't mean we'll stop polluting. He says it just means we have to find other people's lands for offsets to absorb our pollution.
So he's bought all the land in America, but he wants our land for carbon sense. And this is the net zero they are trying to push in the climate discussions.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
WHAT ARE YOU SIGNING FOR EXACTLY? https://t.co/K15VlB5Gq9
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many people mindlessly sign consent forms without knowing what they are agreeing to. The speaker shares a personal experience where their girlfriend decided to read through a contract before signing it at the doctor's office. She discovered that it simply stated she was giving consent for the doctor to treat her. The speaker emphasizes the importance of knowing what you are signing and suggests crossing out or questioning parts of a contract that you don't agree with. They also encourage practicing saying "no" and setting boundaries in order to be genuine to oneself. The speaker concludes by urging viewers to stop consenting to things without understanding the terms.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How many of you have seen this before? You you know, like, when you go to your doctor's office and they say, just sign here. Do any of you stop and say, what am I signing for? I had done that in the past and usually, oh, you're just giving a doctor consent to see you. And, of course, I would trust them.
Right? But not anymore because I don't use this system. I would have to be on my deathbed and wanting to be saved. But anyway, the point is have them print it out, read it. This is what happened to my girlfriend a month ago.
She finally decided, you know I'm not signing that electrical thing anymore. I wanna know what it says because it's a contract. You're putting your signature down. And the fact that they need your signature Means they need you to consent. It took them a while to print this out because it was like 6 pages and I guess nobody had ever asked them to print before so they didn't know how to use the system to do that.
But once they got it printed out and she sat and read through it, you know what was at the end of it? You consent for your doctor to give you So know what you're signing. And this is not legal advice. But when you are going through a contract, you know, you you can't put a line through things. You can draw a line right through it and say, well, I agree to all this, but I don't agree to that.
Put a line through it and sign it if you have to. Now at the end of her appointment, she didn't sign it. She told them that. I don't consent to that. And, of course, they still want your money.
They still wanna collect the insurance, payment, so they saw her anyway. No is the most underused word in our vocabulary. Now I remember when I used to be a people pleaser and it wasn't till I had read the book boundaries. We need boundaries, people. And I started practicing saying no.
So if you're someone who has a problem saying no, Just start out small. A girlfriend called me up and she invited me one of those tea light parties, you know, when that was all the fad, and I didn't really wanna go. And so I wasn't being genuine if I were to tell her, yeah, I'll come to your party. So I said, no. Now mind you, I'd never said no to her before.
And so she was taken back in shock and I think her feelings were hurt, but your feelings aren't my responsibility. I needed to set a boundary and say no. So if you're somebody who has trouble saying no, Just start practicing with little things. Be genuine to yourself. If you don't wanna go somewhere, don't go there.
If you don't wanna do something, Don't do it. Learn to exercise the power of no and here is a great place to start. Stop consenting to things when you don't know what you're consenting to.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
SHOULD WE ABANDON THE F E D E R A L R E S E R V E ? https://t.co/xL9JXhGmlX
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the Federal Reserve, a private bank that controls America's money supply. It explains how the Fed loans money to banks and the government, charging interest and creating debt. The video also mentions the Red Shield private bankers who manipulate economies and control nations' wealth. It highlights a secret meeting in 1910 where plans were made to establish a central bank, which eventually became the Federal Reserve. The video concludes by emphasizing the negative impact of the Fed's power, including the devaluation of the dollar and the burden of debt on the government and taxpayers.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is allowed inside the fed. Not you. Not me. No American citizen. No duly elected member of our congress.
Not the supreme court. Not the supreme court? Not the supreme court, not the justice department, not the CIA, DIA, FBI, AT the FPD, NBC, not even God. The How come the government isn't allowed inside its own building? Government.
The fed is a private bank owned by private stockholders. Do not let the name federal fool you. This plays about as federal as federal expressed. A a private bank? A private?
The Best to keep your voice down, pal.
Speaker 1: This is Ethan, Federal Reserve.
Speaker 0: The 8th. Bill here, First National.
Speaker 1: Hi there, Bill. How are you?
Speaker 0: Good. Good. We're running a little low on money.
Speaker 1: No problem. How much you need?
Speaker 0: Oh, how does 20,000,000 sound? The What?
Speaker 1: Excellent. We'll ship it over first thing tomorrow.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. He can just call up the Fed and ask for more money and they give him whatever they want? The no, Pyle. The Fed don't give the banks money.
The Fed loans the banks money. The banks have to pay it back with interest. Now, come on. Time to go. Wait.
Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
Wait. I I still don't understand. Where does the Fed get their money? I mean, if they're a private bank. You said they're a private bank.
Right? Okay. So who puts money into the Fed Bank?
Speaker 2: This is Mel, United States Mint.
Speaker 1: Hi, ML. First National needs another 20 millis.
Speaker 2: We're already running the presses full steam here, Ethan.
Speaker 1: Gotta keep making loans. Gotta keep the money flowing.
Speaker 2: Right. You're the fed. Whatever you guys say, 20,000,000 more by morning.
Speaker 0: But the I don't get it. What's so wrong about the Fed printing money? Because it's unconstitutional, Pia. Our treasury supposed to create our money. But now the Fed controls the printing of America's money.
Nobody gets a frigging dollar
Speaker 1: that that the
Speaker 0: fed didn't print. So they print the money, and then they loan it to the government, then they charge the government interest, then the government taxes you to to pay for it. Wake up, pie. Quickly, take my horse. Show him.
Wait. Show me what? Where are we going? The Oh, where are we? Battle of Waterloo.
Hold on. We gotta get through. A money machine. There it is. The same.
Hey. Is that the same people? Rich bankermen from Germany flying over the banner of the red sheet. They financed both sides of the wall. We must hurry.
Paying. That's him, the red shield courier. Shooter. No. I'm not shooting anyone.
Damn it, hon. Won. He beat thrown back with the news of the war and told England that Napoleon won. The Red Shield backers of London pretended that England was doo. Then started selling their English stocks.
The English went into a selling frenzy to get rid of worthless English money. But the English won. Right? Of course, what they want. But it was a trick by Red Shield.
They waited until the stocks plummeted to pennies and then thought they'd go back for giving nothing. What? That. Ow. When the English leaders found out, they had no choice but to give themselves over to the Red Shield.
Their money was gone. They were slaves to the Red Shield war debt. Since that time, the English have been paying the national this. Directed to the Red Shield private bankers. The people have no idea.
But the bankers bragged about what they the idiots, laughing at us all the way to the bank.
Speaker 2: Why it's the best business I've ever done. If I can control a nation's wealth, I cannot make the
Speaker 0: laws. Oh, is this what you ever saw wanted to show me? No. The Look. They're in America too?
The red shield banks are here, seeking a way to conquer our American dream. A dream you have, A dream of free men. They tried to take over our country many times and failed because Jefferson and the patriots vowed to stop the evil tyrants at all costs. By a toy tie, the turtle god, But he would not let the bankers win here. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
The We must make our choice between economy and liberty, all profusion and servitude. Wow. I place economy me, among the first and most important of republican virtues. And public debt is the greatest of the dangers to be feared. It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
In 1910, a secret meeting was held at the JPMorgan estate on Jekyll the land off the coast of Georgia. This meeting was so secretive, so concealed from government and public knowledge that the 10 attendees used code names.
Speaker 2: This. I am clearly the richest man, so I should be the one to run the super secret central bank. The I own all the oil in America. I'm clearly richer than you will ever be, hula girl. I should run the super secret central bank.
The You're nothing compared to me, Loob job. I shall run the secret bank. Silence. Supreme master leader, the I didn't
Speaker 3: know you were gonna be here. I'm not.
Speaker 0: Neither are you, dumbass. Okay. Right. Right. Be so smart.
Speaker 3: The None of you shall run the bank. We have failed in the past because of openness. This time, the key to success is secrecy. The The people also believe that they run the bank.
Speaker 2: Yes. Brilliant.
Speaker 0: A sneak attack.
Speaker 1: The what's the plan?
Speaker 3: We first create panic, then we show them the solution. With our man in office at well planned timing, we will have our central bank. The And so the people think it is theirs. We shall christen it federal. The Federal Reserve.
Speaker 0: The time. This truck on December 23rd, 1913. When most of our congress were at home eat fruitcake. These bastards, I mean, bankers, presented their treasonous act to their newly elected accomplice Woodrow Wilson, who had fortuitously already agreed to sign it before he was even elected. Wait.
The IRS? I thought we always had the IRS. This. No power. They did this to us too.
The fed now has the exclusive power to print America's money. They loan this money to our banks and our government at interest, putting immediate debt on our own money, written more and more. So each dollar they print becomes worth less than the one before. The Merry Christmas. The What in the hell is that?
Bad pot is how our government now must pay back these debts to the fed. Your taxes this. Not gold. They don't? It's the greatest theft
@WeAreWoke1776_3 - We Have It All
Banking fookery. Learn. https://t.co/oIyOJRkAQq
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 1969, Jerome Daley challenged the foreclosure of his home by the bank, arguing that the mortgage contract required both parties to provide legitimate property for the exchange. He claimed that the money the bank provided was created out of nothing. The bank's president admitted in court that they created money and credit through bookkeeping entries, but there was no law giving them the right to do so. The jury found no lawful consideration, and the court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure. This court decision has significant implications, suggesting that borrowed money from banks is counterfeit and voids the contract to repay. Unfortunately, these legal realizations are suppressed, allowing perpetual wealth transfer and debt to continue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In 1969, there was a Minnesota court case involving a man named Jerome Daley who was challenging the foreclosure of his home by the bank which provided the loan to purchase it. His argument was that the mortgage contract required both parties, being he and the bank, each put up a legitimate form of property for the exchange. In legal language, this is called consideration. Mr. Daley explained that the money was in fact not the property of the bank, link, for it was created out of nothing as soon as the loan agreement was signed.
Remember what modern money mechanics stated about loans? What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions, but deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system. In other words, the money doesn't come out of their existing lessons. The bank is simply inventing it, putting up nothing of its own except for a theoretical liability on lever.
As the court case progressed, the bank's president, mister Morgan, took the stand. And in the judge's personal memorandum, he recalled that the plaintiff, bank's president, admitted that in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank, did create the money and credit upon its books by bookkeeping entry. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it? Mister Morgan admitted that no United States law or statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the known.
The jury found that there was no lawful consideration, and I agree. He also poetically added, only God can create something of value out of nothing. And upon this revelation, the court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure and Daly kept his home. The implications of this court decision are immense. For every time you borrow money from a bank, whether it is a mortgage loan or a credit card charge, the money given to you is not only counterfeit, It is an illegitimate form of consideration and hence voids the contract to repay, for the bank never had the money as property to begin with.
Unfortunately, such legal realizations are suppressed and ignored, and the game of perpetual wealth transfer and perpetual debt continues.
@NetworksManager - Bruce Porter Jr.
Do you want to get rid of the central banking cartel? https://t.co/V01U5QpAsu
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Federal Reserve is not a government agency, but a banking cartel disguised as one. Congress gave it enforcement power, making it seem like a government entity. In reality, it's a group of banks that self-regulate by setting industry rules. These rules, passed as the Federal Reserve Act, give the appearance of government authority. If not followed, individuals can face imprisonment. In essence, the Federal Reserve is simply a banking cartel.
Translation: The Federal Reserve is a banking cartel that appears to be a government agency but is actually a group of banks regulating themselves.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, you asked the question in your book that, Creature from Jekyll Island. What is the Federal Reserve, and what is your answer?
Speaker 1: Well, what it is, it's a cartel. It it's not a government agency. It has the appearance of it being a government agency and they went to great lengths to give it that that facade. It does have the power of government because congress voted to give the power of of enforcement to it. But in its essence, underneath it, it's a cartel.
It's nothing different than a banana cartel or an oil cartel or sugar cartel. It happens to be a banking cartel. They got together. They drew up the rules and regulations for their own industry to self regulate their own industry is what cartels do, and then they send it to congress, and they took off the the label at the top that said banking cartel may erase that, and they said Federal Reserve Act. Congress passed it into law and that's why we think it's a government agency is because if you don't obey the rules that they set down for their own industry, you go to prison.
And so it looks like a government agency. But basically, the answer to your question is it's a banking cartel.
@karma44921039 - karma
Is paying taxes lawful 👇👇 https://t.co/IK2R7Xozxg
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is no law requiring payment of taxes in the US. The IRS manual states they have no jurisdiction over US workers, only those abroad. Share this info and challenge the IRS to prove tax obligations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So a lot of us are talking about not paying our taxes. Well, I have been doing a lot of research on this topic, and I came across something today that I think everybody needs to know about. Okay? Now is there a law that says you have to pay taxes? No.
There isn't. And if you just simply ask the IRS to provide proof of that law, they'll never bother you again, okay? But there's something else I found today that's even more important than that. It's in the IRS federal agent manual and there's a law and I'm gonna post it here in a second. It says they have zero jurisdiction over anybody working in the United States.
This this tax, the investigation, everything they do is only for people living abroad. I'm gonna show you the fucking code right now, and I want you guys to copy this and share this with everybody you know. Go ahead and pause to read. This is directly out of the IRS manual. You are more than welcome.
I'm definitely feeling a little bit emboldened and empowered by this. I feel like, I'm gonna use this in my letter to the IRS to ask them to prove to me how I owe taxes.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
DO YOU A G R E E THAT THE FEDERAL R E S E R V E SHOULD BE ABOLISHED? https://t.co/Fy54NOsN0d
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes the Federal Reserve should be abolished for 7 reasons: it fails to achieve its goals, acts against the public, promotes usury, imposes unfair taxes, fuels war, disrupts the economy, and supports totalitarianism.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I came to the conclusion that the Federal Reserve needed to be abolished for 7 reasons, actually, and I'd like to read them for you now. I've stated them in rather concise terms. Hopefully, they'll have some shock value so you can remember them. And here they are. First of all, it is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.
2, it is a cartel operating against the public interest. 3, it is the supreme instrument of usury. 4, it generates our most unfair tax. 5, it encourages war. 6, it destabilizes the economy.
And 7, it is an instrument of totalitarianism.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
IS PAYING TAXES VOLUNTARY? https://t.co/rX5hv66hnr
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker interviews former IRS commissioner Sheldon Cohn about the tax code and voluntary compliance. They discuss the definition of income, Supreme Court decisions, and challenges the IRS to show a statute allowing a direct tax on wages. Cohn asserts that the law requires filing tax returns, despite objections. The speaker questions the IRS's legal authority and highlights inconsistencies in tax enforcement. Ultimately, the speaker challenges the IRS to prove the legality of income tax laws.
Translation: The speaker interviews former IRS commissioner Sheldon Cohn about the tax code and voluntary compliance. They discuss the definition of income, Supreme Court decisions, and challenges the IRS to show a statute allowing a direct tax on wages. Cohn asserts that the law requires filing tax returns, despite objections. The speaker questions the IRS's legal authority and highlights inconsistencies in tax enforcement. Ultimately, the speaker challenges the IRS to prove the legality of income tax laws.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So I called Sheldon Cohn because he used to be the IRS commissioner. He wrote the tax code, and he was also general counsel to the IRS. He is a shoe expert, and I couldn't find a better person to answer my questions. He graciously agreed to my interview. The reason I'm doing this documentary is because there are many people in America today who believe that there's no law that requires them to pay an income tax or file a a 10:40.
And there are many people going to jail for it, fighting over it.
Speaker 1: The Internal Revenue Code is authorized by the 16th Amendment.
Speaker 0: I think it should be clarified. I don't I don't I think government should be transparent to the people. Why isn't the IRS commissioner sit down with them and just explain it in clear English why
Speaker 1: I don't think they really care. They don't think I thought I think they're just playing word games.
Speaker 0: You don't think they're sincere people yet?
Speaker 1: No. I don't think they're sincere people.
Speaker 0: What does voluntary compliance mean? And what does the IRS code say it's voluntary to comply, not mandatory?
Speaker 1: That's a word euphemism we use. We we use voluntary compliance when we when we when we talk about traffic signals. Most people at 2 o'clock in the morning, do you stop at a red light?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Is there a cop there?
Speaker 0: Sometimes I
Speaker 1: don't. I do. I do. And most of
Speaker 0: us do. Most of
Speaker 1: us do.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: But that's voluntary compliance.
Speaker 0: That was a complete perversion of logic. Traffic laws state that it is mandatory to stop at a red light. The IRS code says it's voluntary to comply. Mandatory and voluntary are the complete opposite of each other, yet he wants us to believe that they mean the same thing. So can the government criminally prosecute somebody of information put on their 10:40?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Right. So it doesn't apply the 5th Amendment? No. But the 5th Amendment says I I I don't have to do anything that incriminates myself.
Speaker 1: Well, that doesn't incriminate you to put to put your income down.
Speaker 0: But you said before, I have to put put in jail for it. The commissioner wants us to believe that although the IRS demands that you fill out the 10:40 and you can go to jail for it, that they are not violating your 5th amendment rights of self incrimination. That is absurd. Isn't it true that the word income is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code?
Speaker 1: The law says that the government has a right to tax income from any source derived.
Speaker 0: So but the word income is not defined in the code. It just says income without a definition That's right. Of what income is. That's right. Correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: But there are many different kinds of taxes. Well, how can an American citizen know what income is if the code doesn't define it? If they're paying
Speaker 1: an income tax? Courts will define it.
Speaker 0: Do you remember what constitutional attorney Edwin Viera said?
Speaker 2: The definition of income in the constitution was given in the Eisner versus Montgomery case, and it turns on gains or profits that are made from some activity.
Speaker 0: So the supreme court has ruled, income is not wages, it's not labor, it's gain from corporate activity. I believe that a man's labor is his private property.
Speaker 1: That's your view, but it's not the law.
Speaker 3: The supreme court's even said your labor is your private property. When I go to work for somebody, it's a trade. It's an even exchange. I do some work, you give me some money.
Speaker 0: In 1916, we had the Bruce Shabler case and the Stanton case. And the Bruich Shabaugh case and the Stanton case said that the 16th Amendment gave the government no new taxing power.
Speaker 1: I I'm not gonna argue the niceties of that with you.
Speaker 4: And it came up again in a case called Peck versus Lowe where where the Supreme Court said the 16th amendment did not extend congress's taxing power to any new or accepted subjects. In other words, if you weren't taxable before 16th, you weren't taxable after the 16th.
Speaker 0: Today, I interviewed a juror. Okay. I was set on a case and, they found the person not guilty. Lack of filing. Okay?
And I asked her why they found her not guilty. And she said because the the IRS couldn't show us the law that made him liable to file a 10:40.
Speaker 4: All they need to do, if there is a law, is to show us the law, which of course they never did.
Speaker 0: And the reason they didn't do it was why?
Speaker 4: As there is no law.
Speaker 1: Title 26 requires you to file a return.
Speaker 0: But doesn't title 26 have to be in compliance with the Supreme Court decisions?
Speaker 1: You're gonna take a 1920 case and superimpose it on the holding term Remedy code that was written after it? No. That's not
Speaker 0: I can't believe what I just heard. Rewind.
Speaker 1: You're gonna take a 1920 case and superimpose it
Speaker 5: on the whole Internal Revenue Code
Speaker 1: that was written after it? No. That's not
Speaker 0: Remember he said earlier the Internal Revenue Code was authorized by the 16th Amendment?
Speaker 1: The Internal Revenue Code is authorized by the 16th Amendment.
Speaker 0: Remember, the supreme court said the 16th amendment did not give the government any new taxing power. These decisions have never been overturned. Let's listen further. Can the lower courts overrule the Supreme Court?
Speaker 1: No. How
Speaker 0: are they putting people in jail today if they're not paying a tax on their labor when the Supreme Court said they don't have to? Well, doesn't the IRS code have to be in compliance to the Supreme Court? That's my error is
Speaker 1: this is a waste of time. Well, let me Because whatever I say, you're not gonna believe.
Speaker 0: He's right. I don't believe him, and neither should you. He wants us to believe we should obey the IRS code, which is being enforced in violation of the many Supreme Court decisions. If the Supreme Court made a
Speaker 1: decision Thank you. Thank you, Aaron. I think we're finished.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, mister Cohen, to doing that.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm sorry that you you constantly re argue the point. You're liable because the law says that you're reliable, and the courts say the law says you're liable, and that's why you're liable.
Speaker 0: You see, he's talking about the lower courts who are not in compliance with the Supreme Court as they have to be. Doesn't the court have to be in compliance to Supreme Court?
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has so held. Where? You caught me unprepared.
Speaker 0: I'll come back. No.
Speaker 1: I don't wanna do that.
Speaker 0: But let let me ask you a hypothetical question.
Speaker 1: You're making silly arguments here.
Speaker 0: Why is the Supreme Court decision a silly argument?
Speaker 1: Well, because it's inapplicable.
Speaker 0: That made my heart stop. He just said Supreme Court decisions do not apply to the IRS. That's the behavior you would expect from a totalitarian country, maybe China or Russia or Cuba, not from America. They're just making up the laws they go along. Now I knew the tax honesty movement was right.
The IRS thrives on intimidation and fear, not by law. It's no different than a criminal protection racket using force to extract your money from you. Then the former IRS commissioner, now working at a prestigious Washington law firm, threatens me. Watch.
Speaker 1: Aaron, you understand Yiddish. Horn ist haufen.
Speaker 0: For those of you who don't understand Yiddish, that means nothing will help you. Now it all became clear. I understood why the IRS wouldn't go on camera and talk about where the law was. I understood why all the senators I called refused to be interviewed. There is no law.
And now you know what our political leaders and the courts have known for decades and have tried to cover up. The United States constitution strictly forbids a direct unapportion tax on the wages and salaries of American citizens. The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the income tax is a tax on profits and gains, not on labor and wages. On behalf of the American people, I challenge the IRS to show me a statute that allows a direct unapportioned tax on the wages and labor of the American people. And if I'm wrong, I will give my most humble apologies to the IRS.
If the IRS is wrong and there is no law, then every person who's been jailed should be let out of jail immediately, and any asset seized should be returned to their rightful owners. If this is a nation of laws and a free country, then the IRS should show the law to the American people.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
WHO DO YOU THINK OWNS THE FEDERAL R E S E R V E ? https://t.co/U6shwFHnar
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Federal Reserve is owned by banks that receive dividends from district banks, with profits remitted to the US Treasury. The New York Fed holds significant power due to its president's permanent vote on the Federal Open Market Committee. While there are conflicts of interest, the Federal Reserve today is seen as lacking in serving Americans' best interests, leaving the country financially vulnerable in times of economic shock. The institution's origins were rooted in the need for a central bank to stabilize the economy, but its current leadership is criticized for potentially harming the nation's financial stability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: By the way, who owns the Federal Reserve? Who are the main shareholders?
Speaker 1: Right now, Donald Trump. But that's post legislation.
Speaker 0: That's decision maker. That's decision I'm talking about who
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. There is an answer to this question. There is truly an answer to this question, and, boy, I'll be waiting for the hate mail. When I worked at the Dallas Federal Reserve, my email address ended in dotorg. There are there are banks that own the 12 district Federal Reserve Banks, are owned by banks in the sense that they they get paid a dividend from what the district banks make, up 6%.
And then whatever money the bank has, if it's a district bank, whether it be San Francisco or Dallas or Atlanta, then they have to pay the operating costs to operate an individual district bank. And after that, every single penny that is remaining is remitted to the US Treasury. That is why my email address ended in dotorg, not dotcom, because we were a quasi private public enterprise. Jay Powell's email address ends in dotgov. The Federal Reserve Board in Washington, DC is a bona fide formal federal agency that is not owned by the banks.
There's a gray area. There's a gray area and this is this is up for everybody in 10 hats. Here you go. Let's plow it down the middle. The government employees have permanent votes on the Federal Open Market Committee.
The district bank presidents rotate in every few years. They do not have a permanent vote on the Federal Open Market Committee, so they have less power. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York. However, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is also the vice chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee. He has a permanent vote, the only one of the districts who has a permanent vote on the Federal Open Market Committee and has the quasi public private ownership, which brings in the banks that sit on the board that you're getting to.
So there is a gray area there. And the New York Fed does have extraordinary power compared to any other district. And that power over the years and prior to the crisis was corrupted, which is documented. And the reforms that should have been made subsequent to the crisis have not been. And if you wanna get angry about something, get angry about that.
But understand that the bulk of the power seat is a government agency, or the Treasury would not have been able to step in like it has?
Speaker 0: This is like we need a drink right now.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say that. I can read his face. That's exactly
Speaker 0: what you're saying. Something like old fashioned, what we need right now
Speaker 1: is the Yeah. You need something stronger than a mimosa. Let me say that much.
Speaker 0: Okay. So how much do you if you're an economist and you do this full time, you've been in it for a while, this is your career By
Speaker 1: the way, I'm I'm in finance.
Speaker 0: I'll just Sure. And by the way, you said something about you start off in finance. I think you worked in hedge fund at one point. I think you did.
Speaker 1: I know. I worked with hedge funds. I I worked at a traditional investment bank. I watched what investment banks do from the inside out.
Speaker 0: Both sides. Yeah. I do. I start off with Morgan Stanley Dean with her a day before 911. That's kind of how my career got started, you know, in Glendale, California.
I was supposed to go to New York and then they started
Speaker 1: short the S and P 500 on 911. You what? I personally had a short position in the stock market prior while I felt that the market was very much overvalued
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: And was still going to come down. And my clients were very defensively postured also, for that very same reason, going into 9/11. My birthday was on 9/17, the day that the stock market reopened. And I closed out my position as quickly timing? Talk about timing.
Speaker 0: Oh, my gosh. Craziness. Right? So, timing? Talk about timing.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh.
Speaker 0: Craziness. Right? So how much do you read into these conspiracy theories that you, hear about with, the feds, with the creature of Jekyll Island, any of that stuff? How much do you go? How deep do you go?
Have you ever read the book or no? Yes. You have to read the book. You're in
Speaker 1: the world.
Speaker 0: The six names, the Own the Quarter of the Wealth of the World, etcetera, etcetera. And Woodrow Wilson saying what he said about it.
Speaker 1: I get it. I get it. I get it. I get it. And back in 1907, when we had a financial crisis and when JPMorgan brought all of the biggest bankers together in his parlor and said, I'm not gonna be alive forever.
We're no longer an emerging economy. We are advancing to become a developed economy. And like our developed economy peers, we need a central bank, because I can't keep bringing you all together to bail out the financial system every time there's a crisis. So that was the genesis of the need for a central bank, was JPMorgan saying, I'm going to die one day. We need an independent central bank, like the Bank of England.
We've evolved as an economy. We need a central bank. Because of how the Federal Reserve was born and when it was born, much more importantly, it was born headed into a war that exacerbated an overindebted a globally overindebted situation and brought about hyperinflation in Germany and another excuse me, a Great Depression in between that took the world down with it and brought about a war. I want you to think about that and where we are today. But because of the backdrop with which the Federal Reserve came into being and the fact that it had to go into DEFC CON 1 almost immediately, means that the original people who conceived it were bankers and had extraordinary powers.
Since then, the Federal Reserve has become a very boring, boring, boring place. Are there conflicts of interest at the New York Fed? Do big banks have more say than they should in terms of being regulated? Yes. They do, without a doubt, unquestionably.
But the Federal Reserve of today is bad for America, which is my subtitle, because the people who are in charge of the Federal Reserve don't have Americans' best interests at heart. They've put us in a precarious position financially, such that if there was ever an economic shock, their policies will have left us so much weaker than we need it to be otherwise. And that's a hell of a lot worse than any conspiracy theorist up in the middle of the night dreaming about a Roth child running the world, because a lot more people are gonna get hurt because you've had academics running one of the most powerful institutions in the world.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO BE TAXED ON MONEY THAT IS ALREADY TAXED? + TO SPEND THAT TAXED MONEY, YOU ARE TAXED AGAIN? https://t.co/yuVUWkBeq8
Video Transcript AI Summary
We started with a small tax revolt, but now we're taxed on everything - earning, spending, saving, investing, and even dying. We pay taxes on our commute, work, and home, which we already bought with taxed money. The more we earn, the more the government takes. Taxes are everywhere, from our morning coffee to our paycheck.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How did we go from fighting a revolution over a 2% tax on a breakfast beverage to what we pay today? And we're taxed on money when we receive it, it, when we spend it, when we keep it, when we invest it, and even when we die with it. It gets worse. We commute to work to make that money in a car that is taxed again to And so that's to maintain bridges and highways and tunnels that already have 1,000,000,000 of dollars. And so that's to maintain bridges and highways and tunnels that already have 1,000,000,000 of dollars, taxpayer dollars allocated to them and they're still falling apart.
Falling apart. And then when you get to your office that is taxed to exist in a corporation that all is also taxed to do business, that almost certainly requires permits and other things, which are another tax, you are paid a paycheck that the corporation must match another payroll tax on top of what they have to pay you. Then you go to a home of which you are taxed to own every single year that we bought with money that the government already taxed us on. Oh, by the way, the more money you make and the more you pay in taxes, warrants the government taking more and even higher percentages of your money.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
DO YOU BELIEVE WE ARE PROPERTY OF THE WORLD BANK? https://t.co/iKN3H9XzyF
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses how the US is under a secret constitution, where tax dollars go to pay interest to the Federal Reserve instead of services. They mention the financing of the country through poppy fields in Afghanistan and the birth certificate system creating debtors in court. This system turns citizens into property, not seen as US citizens but as entities tied to their birth certificates.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You you had brought up the new constitution that was instated in the United States. Right? So is the constitution that we know today in effect or is there a different constitution in play?
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, we are being snookered by the congress because every 2 years, they reintroduce a state of martial law, and we are not under our first constitution. We are under the second secret constitution.
Speaker 0: Alright. So this is Karen Hughes. Right? She worked for the World Bank.
Speaker 1: What that constitution provides is that our tax dollars are going to pay interest to the federal reserve. They're not paying for any of the services that we need in our country. Instead, where are we getting the money? We're getting it from the poppy fields in Afghanistan and the drug trade. That's how we're financing our country.
This is a travesty. You'll remember that, president Lincoln was assassinated by a jeseburger. That was in order to prevent the greenback dollars that Lincoln had issued directly by the treasury department. And so what happened was the bank in that day was then able to continue to earn interest on the currency of the United States. That was why he was assassinated.
And the reason why we had that second constitution enacted in 18/71 is that is when the revolutionary war gets filled due. As a matter of fact, one day, I opened, my mail and somebody mailed me the, financing statement for those debts that to govern with the unpaid interest on the debt that accrued to the 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars. It's in favor of the banks. It's certainly not in favor of the people. What happens when you have a child is your child is given a Social Security number.
They estimate how many taxes your child is gonna pay over his or her lifetime. And they went they take that birth certificate and they issue it on the capital markets and they earn money on it.
Speaker 0: The birth certificate itself creates a monetary value on the books with the Federal Reserve?
Speaker 1: I'm saying something much worse, actually. What I'm saying is that when every citizen goes into the court system, they are not seen there as themselves a US citizen. They're seen as the person who had their birth certificate pledge. You're there as a debtor. You're not there as a citizen.
You're converting from human beings that are citizens of the Republic of the United States into chattel. Chattel, that is a legal term for something which is property.
@BGatesIsaPyscho - Concerned Citizen
“Banks are stopping withdrawals of your money” Have you tried to withdraw over £1,000 in cash recently - you literally are required to go through an interrogation process to access you own cash. https://t.co/gC72PMcKp8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Banks are increasingly restricting withdrawals and deposits. A friend attempted to withdraw $20 but was told he needed to explain its purpose. When he went to withdraw $20,000, the bank required proof of where the money was going. Additionally, attempts to invest in Bitcoin were limited to just $5 a month. This reflects a broader trend towards a cashless society, which could lead to increased control over personal finances. It's essential to diversify your funds across multiple banks, as relying on bank insurance can be risky. Political views can also affect banking access, as seen with Nigel Farage's experience of being debanked. Ultimately, it's crucial to take control of your finances and decentralize your money.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Banks are stopping withdrawals of your money. Two stories about this, the same bank. One of the most famous banks in the UK. You'll know it. My friend, Pete, called up the bank and asked for $20.
They said, what's it for? He said, none of your business because it's my money. They said, we can't do that. You're gonna have to come into the branch. He went into the branch the next day expecting to be able to withdraw his money.
$20, not a 100 grand. And he asked the person at the bank, I wanna withdraw 20 grand of my money. They said, what's it for? He said, none of your business. It's my money.
They said, well, unless you can tell us exactly what the money is for and exactly where the money is going with proof, you can't have your money. Now, you should be shocked about that by the way. Just give me a yes in the comments if you can hear me. You should be absolutely shocked by that. Couple of you are saying no sound.
Just give me a yes in the comments if you can hear this. So with the very same bank, I wanted to put some money into Bitcoin when, you know, Bitcoin had dropped and it was $25 I think. It wasn't massive but, you know, it was a bit and, they would allow me to put $5 max a month into Bitcoin in 1.5 grand a day maximums. And I read the terms and conditions of the bank and they basically said, we don't allow money into cryptocurrency platforms. You should be shocked by these two stories.
Now, do not be naive about this. I've posted this on X and on LinkedIn. Make sure you're following me there. My post are going viral there. And people are really naive.
They say, oh, you know, with the banks, it's anti money laundering. That's just normal. It's for your safety. Well, yeah. Okay.
It's good to have some checks. I get it for, you know, you don't want to fall to a scam. However, let's not be naive that that's the real reason they won't let us put cash in or take cash out. You can hardly put any cash in the bank now. You can hardly take much out and they look like they're moving us towards a cashless society.
Cashless society means tracking, tracing, controlling, taxing at source, finding at source, stopping your account, de banking you, controlling you, whacking up the transaction fees. All of these things will be a reality or could be in a cashless society. Some of you are asking me to name the bank. They're one of the big four banks in the UK. So NatWest.
I'm just gonna tell you. It was NatWest. And so, here's the thing. The banks can take your money, lend it, invest it, earn on it, pay you hardly any back. And then, when you want it, they make it really hard for you to get it or you can't get it and you can't put it into cryptos.
And then, they say it's all to protect you. Anti money laundering and and scams. And it's not there's not a fair balance. This is not right, and you have to be aware of this. Now a few tips here then for you.
Number 1 is don't put all your money in one bank. Spread it around as many banks as possible. People say to me, oh, Robert, it's alright because the bank insures my money. Well, have you tested that insurance policy? Have you ever tried to, claim for insurance on a car or a watch?
How easy is that for you? So a lady in a Toyota backed into my Aston Martin DBS. I went to claim on her insurance. It put my premium up, my business partner's premiums up. We've got about 15 cars in in our fleet.
They all went up. My wife's car went up. And in the end, I had to cancel the claim because it put the insurance up on my and other related cars when it was her fault when she crashed into me. I don't know if you saw my friend Nigel Farage. He got de banked and then all of his friend well, not all of his friends, but many of his family, they got de banked as well and he couldn't open a bank account.
He tried with 9 different banks. He couldn't open it up because of his views on social media. So with your views on social media and your political leanings, you can get debanked. Do you really entrust these the insurance policies because they stop claims on cars and watches, etcetera? They're limiting to virtually nothing the money you can put in crypto.
And unless you tell them exactly what you're doing with the money and where it's going, you can't get much out and you can't hardly put any money in, and that's the reality. So you need to be prepared. Decentralize your money. Have it under your control.
@MYLUNCHBREAK_ - MY LUNCH BREAK
The Truth Behind Money? https://t.co/VSE0VnmDED
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker posits that modern civilization began around 1700, evidenced by the emergence of currencies, banks, and a massive population spike. They cite the US Mint Act of 1792, the British pound in 1707, and China's currency in 1948 as examples of relatively recent monetary systems. Major banks like JPMorgan also originated in the 19th and 20th centuries.
This timeline coincides with rapid population growth, suggesting a deliberate repopulation effort after a prior cataclysm. The speaker believes advanced technology was reintroduced around this time, masking a more advanced past. Buildings predating this era, like cathedrals, are attributed to a lost, globally advanced civilization.
The speaker questions mainstream narratives, citing the New York Palace in Budapest and the founding of life insurance in 1706 as further evidence. They find it improbable that significant advancements all occurred within the last 300 years, implying a manipulated timeline. Recurring names in historical accounts are seen as potential AI-generated inconsistencies. The speaker highlights the Saint Paul Saint Louis church in Paris, questioning the architect's background and the destruction of older structures and glasswork as possible narrative cover-ups.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We know that all of these inventions, the car, the train, the plane, all of it, came within the last two hundred years. We know that these great fires all over the world happened in the eighteen hundreds and took basically nobody's life. We know that the population spiked around the eighteen hundreds from basically nobody to billions of people in just the last two hundred years, where we are starting to pin the start date of our current timeline down. Because today, we're taking this research a step further. Today, we are looking into the money.
On 04/02/1792, the US Congress passed the Mint Act, which was the beginning of the dollar. It was also the country in the world to adopt the decimal system for currency. And now when we go over to The UK and see that they also started to use the British pound in seventeen o seven, making it the official currency of The UK when England and Scotland united to form a single country. Even China making a brand new currency in 1948. This new currency was introduced in 1948, taking over the previous currency, which was introduced in 1889.
All of these currencies, all starting within the last three hundred years worldwide, where we can go to Russia and see that their currency also begins in seventeen o four. So, apparently, in the sixteen hundreds, nobody had any money, and yet we are told that they were knocking out palaces all over the world. I think we're seeing that our timeline really began right around 1700. I think this is when all of the structural things, like governments, banks, the foundation of our civilization. I think this is when it all began.
And this is all based on what we're being told, the dates that they provide us, the information that we are given using their data. So we have the top 10 banks in the world based on market cap with JPMorgan at number one with a start date of 1871. Bank of America starting in 1922. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China started in 1984. Now we have shown that so much has started within the last three hundred years.
Everything that we have today that is a part of our civilization has been introduced within the last three hundred years. And at the exact same time, right when we get The USA, right when we get these banks, these currencies, right when all this happens, this is the exact point in time that our civilization sees a massive spike in population? At no other point in time have humans repopulated at this rate. Billions of people at a rapid pace. According to the mainstream narrative, we are told that we're at our peak right now.
We are the most advanced civilization ever. We have the most technology. We have the most amount of people when this is simply not true in my opinion. I believe that we have been given all of this technology back. I've said this before, but it is so true.
I believe that our civilization is as advanced as we're allowed to be. We see these inventions just flying at us in the eighteen hundreds. Cars, phones, TVs, electricity, planes, you name it. When you're in charge of controlling an entire civilization, three hundred years is nothing. To us, the eighteen hundreds were a long time ago, but in reality, this is nothing.
We are being told that AI is a brand new thing when it has, in my opinion, been here a very long time. And if we're being shown AI, could you imagine what else is not being shown to us? Thinking logically and using the information that were provided, in my opinion, we are pinning this narrative down. We are finding our civilization's beginning point. And the more people that see this, the more people that understand this information, the more people that we have researching and looking for the truth, the probability of us finding the truth about our past becomes more and more eminent.
All of this explains why we have buildings sitting in all of our cities and most of our towns that don't fit into our timeline. They don't look anything like the way we build today. And the only way to explain it logically is that an advanced civilization was here before us that fully understood how to create massive palaces, and it was a civilization that was worldwide. We see these cathedrals and basilicas in every single continent. It's not like it was just limited to a single location.
This was a worldwide understanding, and something massive happened to them. And right around 1700, our civilization began occupying this land with their work looking us straight in the face. In episode 64, we were looking into Budapest, and we found this character that was building palaces at 23 years old, winning contests for massive parliament buildings where Budapest had so many master palace architects that they didn't even need to use the winner's design. Mister Hausman was pinned to a lot of buildings, like we have shown, but we need to officially close the book on this guy. We've covered the New York Palace in Budapest, which is now a 185 room palace hotel and cafe.
They tell us that this building opened up in 1894 as the headquarters for the New York Life Insurance Company, where life insurance is yet another thing that starts right up in seventeen o six. The company to ever offer life insurance was founded in London seventeen o six, one year before the British pound became the official currency of The UK. At this point, it is becoming incredibly evident that something massive happened at this point in time. It's just one thing after the next. And if all of this wasn't true, then the mainstream narrative would have given us something major that was created in the fifteen hundreds by now.
A single company from the fourteen hundreds. You would think that there would be some sort of progression over time, that something would still be here from the fifteen hundreds. It's not mathematically probable that every single invention, all the money, billions of people, all of it comes in a matter of three hundred years. And before this, basically nobody rode around on donkeys and lived by candlelight, riding with duck feathers yet knocked out massive castles and basilicas. Doesn't add up at all.
Everything was given back to us starting around this date of 1700, where in my opinion, they were laying the groundwork, the foundation of our new civilization, and our new civilization was being formed. And then after it was all situated and they had control over all the major things that a controller would want to be in control of, governments and laws, financial institutions, insurance companies, taxes, and the rest. After this was done, the okay was given to start repopulating this place again. And three hundred years later, here we all are. And this is becoming clearer and clearer by the episode when we take a look at inflation where it basically follows the exact same chart that the world population does when we have nothing going on before the seventeen hundreds and then just takes off.
I think we have located the beginning point of our current civilization based on math and information that they have provided us, where there's nothing. And out of nowhere in 1700, everything is created and billions of people just come out of nowhere. Inventions all over the place with wars to confuse people, demoralize the ones involved, and destroy massive cities that give it all away, where according to the data provided, people reproduce at basically 66% growth every sixty nine years, and this is documented. So what was going on in the 12? Well, according to the mainstream narrative, everybody stayed away from each other.
Nobody wanted kids apparently for hundreds and thousands of years. The population was basically nobody. And then the seventeen hundreds hit, and all of a sudden, humans wanna repopulate at a rate that's never been seen before, and it's not even close, where it goes from nobody to billions of people in just a few hundred years when we know that this is the rate in which humans repopulate, and they know this as well. And when you wipe the population out, humans will repopulate at this rate yet again. We have so many different things that show that this is the case, Basically proving that there have been previous civilizations.
And at this point, it wouldn't be shocking at all if it was over a 100,000,000,000 people and they were extremely advanced. A community that can't see until the savior Benjamin comes around. Where sixty three point seven percent of people need glasses today. And I'm just gonna take a guess and say that the 12 people didn't have twenty twenty vision either. Meaning that they also needed glasses, but we are told they didn't have them.
And they also didn't have a light bulb. So no lights, no glasses. Could you imagine this group of people in the December where we are told that they built Buddha Castle, stumbling around at night with no glasses and no lights, yet getting palaces done no problem at all and not a single mistake anywhere. Over a 100 feet in the air, perfectly put together by people that can't see, A community that supposedly didn't even create the pencil for another five hundred years. But Buddha castles are no problem at all.
Where in the future, we can even show that the oldest prison in The USA was built in 1720. Where you might say, yeah. That's because The USA was formed in 1776. And then we go over to England, and the state prison in England was the Millbank prison established in 1816. And eight years later, in 1824, 54 other prisons had formed and adopted this system, and we will have an episode fully dedicated to this in the very near future.
I found some other things that I thought you all might enjoy. So let's start the bonus. The Saint Paul Saint Louis, which is a church located in Paris, France, with construction beginning in 1627. Beginning in 1627, three hundred and ninety seven years ago in a time period that we have shown, according to the mainstream narrative, had just a little over no people yet able to knock out the Buddha Castle and massive palaces. It was the booming sixteen hundreds before all currencies.
They just decided they would just go trade a donkey or two for some limestone. They would give the architect a pineapple for his skills. And this was completed in 1641 perfectly. They give us this story that we have seen so often often where the church on the exact same site was built around 11/25, you know, eight hundred and ninety nine years ago. And they give us a story of a chemist that gets chemist that gets guillotined just to make us think that they know all about the backstory of these buildings where we have shown in episode 33.
When you just email them about a building that was built in the nineteen hundreds, they have no clue who built it. These narratives are story hour in my opinion. They hold zero truth. They are as trustworthy as a child's bedtime story where we are told that there was a cemetery connected to this church, the one that was built nine hundred years ago. And then the cemetery just disappeared, and the old church was demolished in 1799 because they just needed an upgrade in 1799.
And here's another one of those situations where we have these reoccurring names with these stories where we've seen all the Fredericks in episode 43. But here they give the reoccurring names in a different way. When they say Lewis the ninth and Lewis the eighth, where I understand that this is possible, but we've seen it so many times. The reoccurring names are, in my opinion, exposing that these stories were created by an AI generator. It throws the same name right into the story over and over.
It's a pattern, and the AI works on patterns where if a human wrote this story, they would just make up a new name. And I think this is why we see so many people named Henry the ninth in these narratives from hundreds of years ago. I think it's a code. They could just say Henry the thirtieth, and nobody would ever question it. Just accepting this narrative for years when I think it's clearly a key to look deeper into these stories, these buildings, and castles surrounding these characters.
So the city supposedly grew too big, and the chapel was replaced where they know that Louis the eighth laid the cornerstone. And when you know, you know. The building's original name holds The architect of the new church was the priest. So now we are made to believe that the 16 priests were also master architects. This was the church in Paris to stop using the Gothic style and now use the Baroque style when the famous Jesuit preached some of his memorable sermons in the church?
All documented, of course. No. So my question is who is this priest architect that just knocks out palaces in the sixteen hundreds that last forever? We are told that he was born in 1569 and had two brothers who both became as well. Almost nothing is known about his early life.
Nothing. It's a big mystery just like the mainstream narrative likes it, but don't worry. They know all about every other detail of the rest of his life. Joining the order in 1590 when he was 21, this group established themselves in France in the fifteen sixties, but were banned in 1595 after attempting to kill Henry the ninth. But that's okay because they let him back in eight years later.
So this master architect, he wasn't even the best one where he would supposedly draw up all these kinds of buildings, no problem at all, and send them back to a superior general that would have to approve them. So we're supposed to believe a time period where we're told that the population was, like, 10 people. They also had all kinds of people just waiting around to draw palaces, and some guy was sitting in his chair throwing master designs in the no pile. How ridiculous does this sound? Now, of course, when they pin a guy to one building, there are always so many more.
Here's the one, which is still in use today. Built this one, and then he also supposedly built the Blauah Cathedral, a cathedral that also had multiple buildings. The one started in the November. However, nothing is left of the original structure. It's just gone.
And the next one starts four hundred and fifty years later. Of course, does. When this one is destroyed by a storm, they get back to work in the sixteen eighties. And then the Americans bombardment during World War two destroys most of the glasswork in the cathedral. When we know that this sounds like there was something on the glass that told a story, possibly things that would give something away about our past, things that we're not supposed to see, thinking logically, why would the glass be broken, and everything else is fine.
It sounds to me like these people just went in there and broke the glass and replaced it with the new narrative. What better way to do this than to just chalk it up to a war?
@skillz17q - All4Freedom🇺🇲🐸🍿
Are you still paying on your credit cards? https://t.co/Z2FwiZL1qr
Video Transcript AI Summary
People are waking up and understanding that banks operate fraudulently under the Federal Reserve, and money has no value. Your signature gives value to agreements under the corporation. Given this, the speaker questions whether people are still paying credit cards, suggesting that money could be used for more important things. When you understand you're the creditor and banks are operating fraudulently, it's hard to make payments. Nassara is coming soon, and the old system will fall so a new one can be implemented to restore financial freedom.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So now that people are actually waking up and understanding that all these banks, everything have been operating fraudulently, under the Federal Reserve and the criminal syndicate that created it, money has no value. Literally no value. Your West signature is the only thing that gives value to any agreement under the corporation. And knowing that the sorrow is coming, I'm just curious. Like, are you guys is anyone honestly still paying credit cards?
Like, that money could go to so many more important things. And then when, like I said, when you actually understand that you're the creditor and the banks are operating fraudulently, it's very hard to to make those payments, if you know what I mean. But I'm very curious on where people are at. Nassara is gonna be coming soon. Absolutely.
This old system's gonna fall. It has to so we can implement the new one, and we can actually get some of our financial freedom back. Amen. But drop a comment.
@myhiddenvalue - Not A Number
Can you believe the banks have been getting away with this? https://t.co/GfSYaQRXPg
Video Transcript AI Summary
A man questions a judge about how banks supposedly operate with borrowed funds. He presents a scenario: “I gave you the equivalent of $200,000. You returned the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 plus interest. Do you think I’m stupid?” He asserts that banks and Congress allow practices where banks breach written agreements, use false or misleading advertising, act without written permission or the borrower’s knowledge, and transfer actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, then return it as a loan. The man asks if, in this system, the borrower’s actual cash value funds the bank loan check and how the bank then uses those funds.
The other participant, identified as a borrower in the discussion, responds that the borrower “got a check in the house.” The man pushes: is it true the actual cash value funding the loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the borrower “for free”? He states, “No equal consideration. They got it from you for free,” and presses that the bank’s policy is to transfer the borrower’s cash value from the check to themselves and keep the money as the bank’s property, which they then loan out back to the borrower as if they own it and loan their own money. The other participant answers affirmatively, though notes not being present at the time to know the borrower’s intent.
The man asks further: if a lender loans a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refuses to repay, is the lender damaged? The reply: yes, the lender is damaged if the loan isn’t repaid. He asks whether the bank’s practice is to take the borrower’s actual cash value, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return it to the borrower. The response: the bank returns the funds, but as a loan to the borrower. The man clarifies: was the cash value returned as the bank loan to the borrower or as return of the money the bank took? Answer: as a loan.
The man concludes, “So how did the bank get the borrower’s money for free? … It doesn’t make any sense.” A narrator then frames the scene: a man discussing banking with a judge, summarizing the exchange about funding checks with the borrower’s name, and the judge’s reaction that “all the banks are doing this” and that Congress allows it. The narrator describes the process in which you apply for a loan, a check with your name is issued, the bank takes it, and then “gives it back to you as a loan plus interest,” sourced from your own funds. He asserts there is no equal consideration and suggests people don’t understand truth in lending. The speaker claims that if the public understood the financial system, there would be a revolution, but people prefer to “dance.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Never came up with any of his own mind to obtain the promissory notes. Am I hearing this right? I gave you the equivalent of $200,000. You returned the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 plus interest. Do you think I'm stupid?
All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this. Does congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and without the alleged borrower's knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?
Speaker 1: But the borrower got a check-in the house.
Speaker 0: Is it true the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free? This is true. Is it the bank's policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then keep the funds as the bank's property, which they then loan out as bank loans as if they actually own own it and own their own money?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Was it the bank's intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan? Yes. Do you believe that it was the borrower's intent to fund his own bank loan check?
Speaker 1: I was not there at the time, and I cannot know what went through the borrower's mind.
Speaker 0: So if a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?
Speaker 1: If the loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged.
Speaker 0: So is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?
Speaker 1: The bank returns the funds.
Speaker 0: Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took, or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower? As a loan. So how did the bank get the borrower's money for free? That's how it works. No more questions, your honor.
Speaker 2: This video is between a man talking to a judge and asking him questions about how banks work, and we're gonna cover a few things here that are very important. But first, we're gonna go through all these screenshots. I give you the equivalent of $200,000. You return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you 200,000 plus interest. The judge's response is, all the banks are doing this.
Congress allows this. The guy says, does congress allow the banks to breach written agreement, use false and misleading advertising without your written permission or authorization, and without your knowledge, transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank? So what happens is you go into the bank and you apply for a $200,000 loan, they get a check with your name on it after you gave them your Social Security, and they then take that check for $200,000 with your name on it, and they give it back to you as a loan plus interest, but they got it from you. And then, again, like I said, return it back as a loan. The judge's response is, but the borrower got a check-in house.
So when you even go to finance a car, you give them your Social Security number, your credit. You're there all day because they're waiting on the check with your name on it to come through so that they can then give it back to you as a loan. So then he asked, is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from you because your name was on it? It's your money. And that the bank got that money from you for free.
No equal consideration. They got it from you for free. And he says, this is true. That is the section that you hear in the beginning that I stitched. He then asked, is it the bank's policy to transfer the actual cash value from the check to themselves and then keep the money as the bank's property, which they then loan out as bank loans back to you as if they actually owned it and that they actually loan their own money.
And he says, yes. I mean, there's really nothing else to say. It's been proven time and time again. They get money from you, your money, then give it back to you, and somehow you have to pay them interest. It doesn't make any sense.
It's your money. What they're actually supposed to do is give you the check with your name on it when it comes in house, which is why if you go and watch that video, the judge says, I don't know what's going on in the borrower's mind, but they also know that you're not reading your contracts. You have no idea about truth in lending, and you don't know anything about money. For if the people understood the financial system, there would be a revolution before tomorrow, but y'all don't care about that. Y'all just wanna dance.
@SimonDixonTwitt - Simon Dixon
Banks don’t lend savings. They create money, lend it to you as a mortgage, then sell the debt to your pension fund. That’s the system. https://t.co/nnXXjSm2ZL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: So who are the people that actually get to be inflation? Well, they're the ones that are climbing up the network. They're the compromised ones. Why? What do they get? They get 0% money. The most corrupt money in the world is quantitative easing. Right? You essentially get the banks to buy the government's debt, and then central banks, put it on their balance sheet. So this is just pure corruption.
This is below interest money. What about the banks? They get to create it for free. You know, they actually get to create it. They get a thousand decks on you you're paying 10%.
They get they get to lever that up a 100 times. They get a thousand percent. And remember, this is all a debt based Ponzi scheme. The money to pay the interest doesn't exist, so you gotta find another person to take on the debt. You're either if you have a positive money in your in your bank balance, it's because somebody else is in debt.
The money doesn't exist unless somebody else is in debt, and the money to pay the interest doesn't exist. So we create this economic environment where your money is continually being debased, and then you need to speculate in order to beat inflation. Now if you do a bit of speculation and you just invest some of your money in stocks, what happens? You're suddenly like, I don't know what stock to buy. I'm I'm not a professional trader.
So there's a company out there, BlackRock, that will just buy all the stocks for me, and I just can give them a £100 a month or something. And, now I don't need to figure out what stock to buy. Okay. So now BlackRock is taking everyone's investment money that can't be bothered to figure out what stock through ETFs and index ones. Then they're taking everyone's pension.
Then they're taking everyone's insurance contributions because you're trying to hedge some of the risk. And then when you get your house, you have to have insurance. And so where did BlackRock and all the asset managers in this financial industrial complex get all the money? It's your money. You paid for it.
So then what do they do? Well, the banks create all of these. They they create new money every time they issue a mortgage. And then they say, do you know what? I don't even wanna take the risk of these mortgages anymore.
What if can I just package it up and give it to someone else? So Larry Fink says, yeah. I've got all this money. All these people are putting these pension money in. Why don't we create something called a mortgage backed security?
Let's package up all of these mortgages. Just put them into one product. And then what I can do is we can slap a credit rating on it. And if everyone complies, then they get this credit rating. Credit rating is not it's about compliance with the network.
So now you've got all the banks are creating the money, and then they create these mortgage backed securities that allows them to control effectively all the real estate and transfer it. But who do they sell it to? They sell it to you. And so they created the money. They created the mortgage backed security, and then they sold it to your pension.
So you paid for the very system for them to get the 0% money in the first place, and they're charging a fee for it. And what else do they get? They get a board seat on every company.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So who are the people that actually get to be inflation? Well, they're the ones that are climbing up the network. They're the compromised ones. Why? What do they get?
They get 0% money. The most corrupt money in the world is quantitative easing. Right? You essentially get the banks to buy the government's debt, and then central banks, put it on their balance sheet. So this is just pure corruption.
This is below interest money. What about the banks? They get to create it for free. You know, they actually get to create it. They get a thousand decks on you you're paying 10%.
They get they get to lever that up a 100 times. They get a thousand percent. And remember, this is all a debt based Ponzi scheme. The money to pay the interest doesn't exist, so you gotta find another person to take on the debt. You're either if you have a positive money in your in your bank balance, it's because somebody else is in the is in debt.
The money doesn't exist unless somebody else is in debt, and the money to pay the interest doesn't exist. So we create this economic environment where your money is continually being debased, and then you need to speculate in order to beat inflation. Now if you do a bit of speculation and you just invest some of your money in stocks, what happens? You're suddenly like, I don't know what stock to buy. I'm I'm not a professional trader.
So there's a company out there, BlackRock, that will just buy all the stocks for me, and I just can give them a £100 a month or something. And, now I don't need to figure out what stock to buy. Okay. So now BlackRock is taking everyone's investment money that can't be bothered to figure out what stock through ETFs and index ones. Then they're taking everyone's pension.
Then they're taking everyone's insurance contributions because you're trying to hedge some of the risk. And then when you get your house, you have to have insurance. And so where did BlackRock and all the asset managers in this financial industrial complex get all the money? It's your money. You paid for it.
So then what they do? Well, the banks create all of these. They they create new money every time they issue a mortgage. And then they say, do you know what? I don't even wanna take the risk of these mortgages anymore.
What if can I just package it up and give it to someone else? So Larry Fink says, yeah. I've got all this money. All these people are putting these pension money in. Why don't we create something called a mortgage backed security?
Let's package up all of these mortgages. Just put them into one product. And then what I can do is we can slap a credit rating on it. And if everyone complies, then they get this credit rating. Credit rating is not it's about compliance with the network.
So now you've got all the banks are creating the money, and then they create these mortgage backed securities that allows them to control effectively all the real estate and transfer it. But who do they sell it to? They sell it to you. And so they created the money. They created the mortgage backed security, and then they sold it to your pension.
So you paid for the very system for them to get the 0% money in the first place, and they're charging a fee for it. And what else do they get? They get a board seat on every company.