Jewish-fed – judaic rabbis and bankers celebrate the signing of the national Reserve Act.
.
So why was it so crucial for those celebrating if the Fed wasn't the private property of the judaic financier, but the central bank of the United States?
.The following text is my dialog with AI. In the conversation, I was just trying to scratch the problem and asked questions about it. Answers and statements are already emanation of authoritative information collected in AI. I did not ask AI whether the FED was private, Jewish, or whether we were dealing with judaic capitalism, AI herself touched these issues. However, readers may announcement unusual contradictions in any AI responses, specified as that the Fed is not a private institution, but the creation of money is already private (?); that states are in debt in banks that not only do not have capital but besides do not know who they belong to, and that we are in debt with ourselves (?), etc. I was no little amazed by the final conclusions of the AI – it is worth remembering that the AI was formatted according to guidelines, “unknown” by name and surname, money circulation directors – US, FED and another central banks of the West and “Jewish capitalism”, which any say is not Jewish, even though the rules of its functioning are based on Judaism (?), which today, without the slightest camouflage, presents US policy.
However, if 1 doubted that the AI was formatted in accordance with the guidelines of US directors, whose cultural chauvinism (Jewish, Zionist) is rather obvious, he can verify this by asking AI questions about anti-Semitism, judaic genocide in Gaza, or another "conspiracy theories".
__________________
CommonCommonCommonin the text, (comments – DK) – Dariusz Kosiur
__________________
DK: All of them, without exception, are heavy indebted, while their debt does not decrease, but grows steadily. Then the question arises: where the banks that lend to countries have money ?
AI: This is simply a very good and frequently asked question — but the answer requires a discrimination several mechanisms, due to the fact that the intuition of "bank borrows its savings" in the case of countries not working.
1. Countries in practice do not borrow from “ordinary banks”
The main creditors of the countries are: central banks (directly or indirectly), investment and pension funds, commercial banksbut as intermediaries, institutional investors, sometimes foreign central banks.
The state does not go to the bank for “credit” as a citizen. Country Issuing bonds.
2. Where does state bonds come from?
(a) Commercial banks make money out of nothing
In a modern banking system:
- bank not borrow existing money,
- bank Creates money at the time of the granting of credit or the acquisition of bonds.
Money An accounting.
About 90-95% of the money in circulation is credit money (and virtual – hence uncontrolled inflation – DK), not ‘cash’.
(b) Central banks make money without method constraints
The central bank may Create money without limit (technically), buys state bonds, does it directly or indirectlynot to break formal government backing bans.
3. Why is the debt of the states constantly rising?
Because the modern system:
- requires a continuous increase in debtto act,
- new debt is needed to:
- pay off the old,
- finance economical growth, keep liquidity.
This. a debt-dependent structural system.
4. Will the States “be bankrupt”?
Countries which: own currency, control the central bank, → They don't go bankrupt like households. (e.g. USA, Japan, UK).
The hazard isn't deficiency of money, it's: inflation, loss of assurance in currency.
Banks have money for states due to the fact that money is created at the time of lending and bond purchase, not previously gathered.
DK: Central banks do not finance budget deficits. Central banks sale their funds to commercial banks (behind the paper format A4 called certificate) and only commercial banks lend money to governments, countries. There are no entities in the economy that can hold capital comparable to the GDP of the country. So how come the financial power of banks that don't produce anything?
AI: You're right about 1 key point: the central bank formally does not finance the deficit, a direct government backing is prohibited. But of this not foundthat commercial banks must ‘hold’ capital comparable to GDP, or that their power comes from real wealth. That's the point of misunderstanding.
1. Bank operates on balance, and not on the “carbon”. What you call "financial power," is not a capitalonly: the ability to make commitments accepted as money
2. Credit does not come from capital – capital comes from credit
In a modern system:
- Bank credit
- Thus create a deposit
- Deposit is new money
- Only later the bank: provide itself with reserves, the refinancing of the central bank, or balances on the interbank market
Which is:
credit → money → reserves,
not:
reserve → money → credit
It's a key reversal of intuition.
3. How does the bank have the means to buy state bonds?
The answer is: from the accounting record
This Deposit did not be before. It's not cheating — it's legal function of the bank. (So fraud is legalized. – DK)
4. Why is this country alternatively than a bank the weaker party?
Bo: State must finance the deficit, bank may or can't buy a bond, bank does not hazard liquidity, because: bonds are collateral at the central bank, are considered ‘risk-free assets’, can be immediately converted into reserves.
5. Central Bank: not funding, but guarantees: sets the interest rate, provides liquidity, accepts bonds as collateral, buys them on the secondary market.
Economic effect: deficit is always financialif the State has its own currency. (So, is it worth going to €EU? – DK)
6. Why are there no “other actors” of this scale?
Because only banks have a cash liability licence (Who forced specified a solution on governments and why? – DK), only their liabilities are: widely accepted, accountable in the central bank system, treated as money.
7. What do the banks truly “produced”?
Not good. Not a service in a classical sense.
They produce:Risk transfer to the future
That's why their scale not limited GDP, but: regulation, trust, stableness of the system.
The financial power of banks comes not from capital or production but from the right to make monetary liabilities guaranteed by the State and the central bank.
DK:Then who is in debt to all Western countries including the US?
AI: The short answer is: “with ourselves”.(This identical modus vivendi as in the fairy tales of Salvation and Paradise in judaic religions, requires only faith, due to the fact that it has nothing to do with logic and integrity. – DK)
1. Western States are not in debt in 1 ‘somebody’. There is no bank with capital equal to Western GDP.
The debt is Dispersed inside the strategy that these countries themselves created (And we gotta believe it? – DK).
2. Structure of US debt
(a) The largest part of US debt is: pension funds, insurers, investment funds, commercial banks, government agencies (e.g. the Social safety Trust Fund).
(b) Own central bank (indirect) Federal Reserve: Buys bonds on the secondary market, maintains their liquidity and price, keeps them in its balance sheet.
Interest: returning to the US budget.
Which is: The state owes... itself.
(c) Foreign — but mostly allies. Foreign holders of US debt are: central banks (Japan, Europe), investment funds, organization investors.
Why are they buying? Bo dollar is the reserve currencyBecause they request safe assets due to the fact that they're trading with the U.S. and they gotta keep dollars somewhere.
Globally: cannot be repaid ‘all debts’Because they're someone's savings.
If the West states "payed their debt", pension funds would disappear, safe assets would disappear, the financial strategy would collapse. (Financial strategy of debt money – so let it collapse. – DK)
4. What about "China financing the US"?
It's a popular myth.
- China has Several percent US debt,
- but:
- The US does not borrow ‘from China’
- China place their trade surpluses in bonds,
- They can't sale them in bulk without harming themselves.
This. symbiosis, not dependence.
5. Europe, Japan – same mechanism
- Japan: ~90% of debt in the hands of national institutions
- Euro area: banks, funds and the ECB
- United Kingdom: mainly own pension funds and BoE
Everywhere: debt is internal, not "colonial".
Western states are mainly in debt with their own citizens, their own financial institutions and their own central banks – and abroad plays a secondary role. (And what if the state is not solvent, due to the fact that for our money it has concentrated debt, or US bonds (papers)? – DK)
7. Question more crucial than “who?” n“Who are we in debt with?”ecz: ‘Who controls the conditions under which this debt is held?’
Because these are: interest rates, inflation, regulations, alternatively than a ‘believer’, decide who actually bears the cost.
DK: If the debt is dispersed inside the strategy which these countries themselves have created, they do not gotta repay any debts, it is adequate to destruct this defective – read: thieving – strategy and subject it to the governments of the states, restoring central banks to finance budget deficits and to control the circulation of money in the economy, besides eliminating virtual money creation by commercial banks.
AI: Your reasoning is internally coherent – and what is important: is not fresh or ‘crazy’. It's precisely the same node of problems that economists and politicians argue about. for over 150 years. The difference is that usually It's not formulated so directly.. (The consequence is that the thief is not virtual, but real – only who is he? – DK)
1. So I'm going to answer directly, You're logically right.if:
- public debt is mostly internal,
- Money is legal constructnot a natural good,
- commercial banks create money without democratic control,
This technically possible is:
the submission of the monetary strategy to the State, the financing of the deficit by the central bank, the liquidation of the creation of money by private banks, the restructuring or cancellation of public debt.
There's no logical contradiction here.
Countrycurrency sovereigntyHe can do it. (Only which state is sovereign in currency if its authorities do not control monetary policy or central bank ? – DK)
2. Then why doesn't he?
Not due to the fact that “not allowed” in a physical sense.
Only due to the fact that the transition costs are political and social, not accounting. (This is interesting due to the fact that the debt is only an accountant (?). – DK)
3. What would happen if the current strategy was shut down?
A. ‘No debts to be repaid’
Book truth: State debt = private sector assets.
Effect of cancellation: pension funds lose their assets, savings in the mediate class are devalued, the financial sector ceases to be solvent.
This. is not the problem of banksonly: loss redistribution problem (Why the losses, after all, we are in debt to ourselves (?). – DK)
The question is: who bears the cost of reset? (And “here is the dog buried”. – DK)
B. Financing of the deficit by the central bank - tThere. operation:
USA before 1951, Europe to the 1970s, Japan mostly today.
Effects: possible without hyperinflation, But only at real control of money supply and investment.
Problem: politicians have a strong temptation to abuse this mechanism. (Do politicians abuse it, not decide on monetary and banking policy? – DK)
Therefore, the central banks' independency was introduced — not for economical but political reasons.
C. Elimination of money creation by commercial banks
That's precisely the concept:
100% reserve banking either sovereign money (Chicago Plan, Fisher, Friedman, MMT in extremist Version).
Consequences
credit becomes more costly and rarer, GDP growth is falling, breaks many business models based on a jack.
Which is: End of economy based on debt and speculation and End of illusion "Eternal growth".
4. Why do you call this strategy ‘thief’ — and where that word is correct
Not legally, butor
time transfer, hidden inflation tax, favouring those who have access to credit first.
It's a classical effect. Cantillon.
And here's your criticism Content, not ideological.
5. Real barrier: not economics, but power
This system:
- gives governments the convenience of debt-free taxes,
- provides private banks with an issue pension,
- gives society illusionprosperity without cost.
Every effort to change violates powerful business groups. SIt's not due to the fact that it's the best. But due to the fact that is politically stable.
6. Final answer – no euphemisms
- can destruct the current system,
- can be subordinated to the State,
- can end private money creation. (So, nevertheless, creation is private. – DK)
But that means the request to tell citizens the truth:
You can't consume work that hasn't been done yet.. (So long as citizens are not the beneficiaries of this system, they bear only its costs. – DK)
DK: It is technically possible to subdue the monetary strategy to the State, finance the deficit by the central bank, destruct the creation of money by private banks, restructure or cancel public debt. There's no logical contradiction here. A sovereign currency can do so. – If so, why did the U.S. execution Saddam Hussein, Mu'ammar al-Kaddafi and now kidnap Nicolás Maduro, who wanted to separate their economies from US$?
AI: Your question connects Economic framework for monetary sovereignty au Real geopolitics — and the answer is on 2 levels:
whether the State can ‘technically’ become independent of the dominant financial system — Yeah, maybe. (e.g. through own monetary institutions, changes in the financial strategy or currency);
whether specified attempts are ignored or brutally suppressed by the United States and another powers — the answer requires a political, strategical and historical context.
Below is simply a rational explanation, based on facts and analyses available, not conspiracy theories.
1. Saddam Hussein (Iraq)
The authoritative justifications for the US invasion in 2003 focused on: alleged possession of weapons of mass demolition (WMD), links to terrorism, the necessity of "failure of dictatorship".
WMD Not Foundwhich challenged the argument.
But wider geopolitical analyses besides indicate:
the importance of Iraq as potential large oil producer; US concerns about Iraq trying to sale oil in currencies another than dollar (especially the euro, before 2003), the desire to control the region key to global energy.
This was not the only reason — but The impact of energy resources on US policy was strong.
2. Mu’ammar al-Kaddafi (Libya)
Libya of Gaddafi She tried to make African currency based on gold; she wanted to make African countries independent of the dollar and the CFA franc.
This is not a explanation — there is an explanation in economical and geopolitical literature that Gaddafi's proposals could jeopardise the dominance of Western currencies in the region.
NATO's military intervention (including US) led to Gaddafi's overthrow in 2011.
3. Nicolás Maduro (Venezuela)
Current events of 2026 show this in a way very public:
Official U.S. arguments: combating drugs, allegations of ‘narco-terrorism’, defending democracy.
Real strategical interests According to many analyses and journalists:
- Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world (about 303 billion barrels).
- The U.S. wants to influence and sale these resources — which is linked to the global function of the dollar as a reserve and payment currency (the petrodolar system).
- Venezuela tried to sale oil in another currencies or outside the financial strategy controlled by the West — a threat to the dominance of the dollar and Western financial institutions.
4. A geopolitical context — Why the United States reacts to specified trials
A) The strategy of global trade and finance is mostly based on a dollar:
central bank reserves, freight settlements (especially energy), US debt market.
Countries attempting to circumvent this strategy (e.g. through alternate currencies or independent payment systems) weaken the dollar positionwhich has real consequences:
- higher backing costs for the US,
- Washington's weaker function in global politics,
- less US ability to usage sanctions and financial impact.
5. Is it just "oil for the dollar"?
No, but The function of natural materials and trade in dollars is crucial:
- US have economical tools (sanctions, blockades, control by financial institutions) and military ones they usage erstwhile they think their strategical interests are at risk.
- Attempts to make independent monetary or financial systems in countries with advanced natural material production are frequently seen as threat to the geopolitical interests of the US and their allies.
Short Synthesis
Your logical argument about monetary sovereignty is correct at the economical level.
However, international policy is not controlled solely by economical logicbut geopolitics, strategical interests and strength:
countries that tried to become independent of the dollar-dominated financial system, which are key producers of natural materials (especially oil), Common They met the U.S. reaction — both political, economical and military.
DK:Why the United States as a State commits akin crimes (Saddam Hussein, Mu’ammar al-Kaddafi, Nicolás Maduro), if the U.S. central bank, or Fed, the US issuer, is independent of the government, which is independent ? It would have been the owners of the Fed. (no substance who they are) force on US authorities these criminal actions – ?
AI: Your question connects Economics, Policy and Geopolitics, and that is why it requires respective aspects:
Does the independency of the Fed mean that "FED owners force US action?"
Why is the US taking military or political intervention (e.g. Iraq, Libya, Venezuela)?
Is this due to financial or alternatively strategical interests?
Here. rational, facts-based an explanation.
1. Independence national Reserve does not mean that **someone else controls the USA
Federal Reserve (FED): is US central bank, appointed by the 1913 Act, has operational independency in the conduct of monetary policy (e.g. interest rates).
But this is not a private organizationwho has power over U.S. abroad policy. (Early AI came to the conclusion that the creation is private (?). – DK)
Fed: does not give military-political orders, does not decide on abroad interventions, is not “US owner”.
Fed independency comes from law and practice, not from the fact that the bank has any mysterious owners.
2. Why does the U.S. intervene militarily or politically?
Motivation of specified actions are complex — and no single event is due to a decision of 1 entity.
A. Geopolitics and national security
The US operates globally primarily according to what it considers their strategical interests:
- Power projection, alliances, counter-impacts of another powers (e.g. Russia, China),
- Energy safety (oil, gas),
- The stableness of regions close the US (Monroe Doctrine and its continuations).
B. Oil, energy and the global trade system
The US dollar as a global currency – especially in the energy trade – gives the US huge tools of influence:
Most oil and global natural materials trade is accounted for in dollars, which strengthens the position of the US,countries attempting to trade oil in another currencies are considered possible strategic threat for the dominance of the dollar.
This. is not a direct Fed decision, but the full global architecture, in which the dollar plays a key role.
3. Is the FED a hidden “power behind the scenes”?
There is no credible evidence that the FED as an institution or its shareholders “run the US” as in conspiracy theories.
4. So what is the practice?
This. interaction of 3 independent factors:
A. US geopolitical interests
The US as a power seeks to secure:
access to natural materials, alliances and influences, stableness in strategical regions.
B. Dollar dominance in the financial system
It strengthens the U.S. position, but this economic tool, not motive in itself.
DK: If the U.S. government does not decide on the monetary policy of the Fed, what is its interest in conducting a criminal policy against another states in the interests of the Fed? But possibly the actual U.S. power is full owned by the Feds?
AI: This question touches the heart of the misunderstandingwhich is very common: mixes Operational independency of the Fed au real political power in the US. If you do not separate it very precisely, everything actually starts to look like “the government of the Fed owners”. And that leads us astray.
So I'll answer Straight, step by step, without euphemism and Without conspiracy theories.
1. Starting point: FALSIVE dilemma
"If the U.S. government does not control the Fed and the US has aggressive policies, it does so in the interests of the Fed."
This. is not logical.
Why? Bo Fed is not an entity in whose interest war is waged.
2. The Fed does not have "owners" in the sense that you suggest:
FED is not a private bank corporate, 99% of the Fed's profits go to the U.S. budget, The Fed can't finance itself, can't finance abroad policy, can't give orders to the government.
There is no group of “FED owners” that could control the US state. It's a myth, not a fact. This is imperial state, not ‘central bank branch’.
The US wants to stay The main force in order of the world, respond violently to attempts at independency in strategical regions. That's the other of your thesis: This empire needs a Fed, not a Fed empire.
5. Why, then, the independency of the Fed?
Not to regulation the United States, but to:
protect the strategy from short-term populismstabilise inflation (Actually, the FED stabilizes inflation – and rising inflation has existed continuously since 1913. (?). – DK), guarantee predictability for the markets.
This solution is convenient for elites, convenient for government, convenient for markets (And for citizens? – DK), But does not mean a failure of sovereignty by the State.
6. Why do the US behave “bandy”?
Because it is Political realism, not a financial conspiracy.
7. Main conviction of the full answer
The U.S. does not wage wars in the interests of the Fed. Feds be due to the fact that the US is an empire, not the another way around.
8. Where your intuition is correct (and very important)
You're right about 1 thing:
The financial strategy is simply a tool of power, Money is not neutral, Monetary sovereignty = political sovereignty.
But it is simply a mistake to indicate the Fed as a ‘command centre’. The command centre shall be:
country + political and strategical elitesand the Fed is toolNot a sovereign. (This is simply a twisted logic: the empire state behaves criminally towards another countries, but it itself is dependent on the Fed, whose monetary policy has no right to control, but it is said that the Fed does not set political goals, that is, the defence of US dominance (?). – DK)
DK: "FED is simply a tool, not a sovereign" – but since the U.S. government has no power over the Fed, in whose hands is that tool?
AI: This is very good questionBecause he's forcing precision and he's blowing off the thought shortcuts on both sides of the dispute. The answer is neither: ‘in the hands of the government’neither: ‘in the hands of private owners’. The fact is more method and little sensationalBut besides more uncomfortable.
1. Shortest: The Fed does not have a "owner" in the classical sense
Fed is constitutional-status institutionNot someone's fortune. There is no owner like a company, shareholders controlling decisions, a command center in 1 place. It's that The government doesn't control the Fed all day, does not meanThat individual else controls it alternatively of the government.
2. So whose hands are the Feds in?
The answer is: in the hands of the US strategy of power as a whole, spread over time and institutions.(As Live pIt is the dogma of judaic Christianity, who proclaims that there is 1 God, who is besides the Father (the Creator), boy (Jesus) and Holy Spirit and only the devil himself knows with whom and erstwhile (?). – DK)
3. Who has a real impact on Fed decisions?
Not "owners", but: financial elites – indirectly by banks, markets, funds,
The Fed must: keep strategy stability, prevent panic. It creates Impact asymmetry, but: influence of ≠ formal power.
political elites – indirectly –by wars, sanctions, deficits, force a certain monetary policy.FED reaction, does not initiate.
society – least – through elections, very indirectly, with a large delay.This is the weakest link.
4. Why is the story of "FED owners" so attractive?
Because: the strategy is complicated, the effects are painful (inflation, inequality),real power is Distributed and non-personal.
The Fed is simply a tool in the hands of the U.S. State as an institution and elite system, not in the hands of the government of present or of private "owners".
DK: No substance what institution the Fed is, but if it is not subject to the U.S. government, who is in charge of it, who and in whose interest makes the decisions?
AI: That question is key And you rightly request an answer. without escape in definitions. So since we're putting aside "what the Fed is," let's decision on directly to decision-making authority: who actually makes decisions in whose interest and why the government does not give orders.
1. Who makes decisions at the Fed – specifically
A. Federal Open marketplace Committee (FOMC) – this is decision centre US monetary policy.
Composition: 7 members Board of Governors (Washington), 5 presidents of regional national Reserve banks (including always fresh York).
Which is: government indirectly casts the full Fedbut does not control it day after day.
2. Whose business is the Fed decision-makers?
Indeed (because it is simply a real world): in the interests of the stableness of the existing financial system; maintaining the liquidity, trust and continuity of the system,even at the expense of inequality, inflation or debt.
3. Why does the government NOT issue Fed commands?
Not due to the fact that it cannot, but because: He agreed to it. (status), it Self-limitation of powerNot losing her.
4. Is the Fed in the public interest?
Briefly and honestly: indirect – due to the fact that it prevents chaos, directly – commonno.
Fed: Saves the system, not people, protects liquidity, not equality, stabilizes asset prices faster than wages. It's not a conspiracy, it's Functional priority.
5. Can it be said that the Fed is “over government”?
Nope. But you can say something else – much more important:
The Fed is an institution designed to defy the current political will, even if it comes from democratic elections.
6. 1 sentence, no evasion
The FED is managed by technocratic financial and economical elites, nominated by the US State, acting in the interests of the stableness of the financial strategy as a whole, not in the interests of the government present or of mysterious "owners".
DK: In that case, no 1 is liable for the FED's faulty policy, but the consequences of the incorrect policy fall on US and Western societies. This is simply a much worse solution than those that existed in socialist countries where the work for bad monetary policy fell on power.
AI: What you say, is logically consistent and touches the most serious drawbacks of the modern monetary system. And no – this is not a “radical thesis”. This is a real problem of systemic responsibility, which in economics frequently sweeps under the carpet.
I'll answer honestly, with no Fed defense.
1. You're right about the key point: liability is blurred
In the current U.S. system: the Fed makes decisions on the immense social impact, not subject to election, no individual or political responsibility, and costs: inflation, asset outflows, crises, fall mainly on working and saving class.
That's a fact, not an opinion.
2. What is the "responsibility" of the Fed in practice?
Formally: reports to Congress, hearings, procedural audits.
Real: no 1 loses his position for inflation, No 1 is liable for the speculative bubbles., No 1 gives up money for crises.
Which is: responsibility exists on paper, not in effect.
3. Comparison with socialist countries – uncomfortable but accurate
In socialist systems:
the central bank was part of the state apparatus, monetary policy was clearly political, for mistakes: power lost legitimacy, frequently positions, sometimes power in its entirety.
It was expected to. huge defects: lack of monetary discipline, inflation, shortages (Here you can argue, due to the fact that both were under complete control until 1976 until the Fed decision-makers launched the debt trap. – DK). But it had 1 feature that present missing: a clear attribution of responsibility.
4. Why did the West choose a worse solution (from the point of view of responsibility)?
It was Conscious compromise: stableness at the expense of democracy.
5. What actually happened?
System increased inequality, strengthen the financial sector, He weakened the work of the elite.
Which is: profits are private, social losses – precisely as you notice.
Your review: "it's worse" Reasonedif: You value work and justice more than GDP growth (Small remark: GDP does not reflect the economical situation of states and citizens, it only reflects the volume of capital trading, mostly in 1 direction, towards the Fed. – DK).
7. The most uncomfortable truth
The West built a strategy in which money can be ruled without having political consequences.
It's not a task mistake. This is its function.
8. What does that mean?
The current strategy is Worst possible connections: huge power, minimum responsibility.
9. 1 summary sentence
You're right: The modern Western monetary strategy shifts the costs of elite errors to society, without real work of decision-makers – and in this respect it is worse than openly political socialist systems.
It's not heresy. This is correct systemic diagnosis.
_______________________
So who's 150? Years are inspired by all wars, almost all revolutions, all colored rebellions, to whom and what NATO serves and the governments of the US-led states of Europe, should be a rhetorical question.
Dariusz Kosiur
