So, I uploaded the video that you guys saw in this article, about the coming bank “collapse”. Everyone has been watching it and talking about it, yet, they are still talking about bailouts. Essentially, they are falling for the lies in the Jewish mainstream media and from Biden and that skeksis cunt, Janet Yellen.

Why are people still talking about bailouts? It is because they do not comprehend the differences and how the banks operate. I’ve explained in several recent articles how banks work and for those of you who still don’t get it; it is quite simple—all of it is fake! All of it is fake and requires faith—stupidity and gullibility.

Men who contort their voices to sound like women (faggots), discussing Bailouts

As a reminder, when you deposit your monies into the bank, you are actually lending your monies, the money becomes an “unsecured debt” and you an “unsecured creditor” and so on. The question still remains, “why are you lending your monies to the banks without any collateral or interest?

A bail-in approach is in part due to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This act was put in place in response to the 2008 financial crisis, passed in 2010 by the Obama administration. It includes provisions such that if you hold money in checking or savings accounts at a particular bank that happens to “collapse”, your funds may legally be frozen and confiscated to retain the bank’s financial solvency.

In other words, rather than rely on “taxpayer money” to prevent bankruptcy, the bank can depend on your accounts [you are still a tax payer] for stability. Then, as compensation, the bank exchanges your money for company shares in the same value. This may not seem ethical, but in fact, THIS IS NOW LEGAL! Consider a banking institution [your neighbor] that takes on too many risks and faces “bankruptcy” [from gambling]. If the economy takes a nose-dive, the simple truth is this bank now can confiscate your funds to save itself [your neighbor, by law, gets to get away with gambling away your money]. This may not seem like an ethical process, but the Dodd-Frank Act legalizes what is called the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA). See Dodd-Frank: Title II – Orderly Liquidation Authority. In layman’s terms, this all boils down to theft.

The provision under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act allows for Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs, basically the biggest banks) (the Big 4 mentioned in earlier articles) to bail-in or expropriate their creditors’ money in the event of insolvency. The problem is that depositors are classed as “creditors.” What banks and the FDIC do not want you and I to know is that WE are the “uninsured creditors”, “uninsured debtors” and depositors. All one and the same. Another important factor is the main group affected are the wealthy—those who had more than $250,000 on deposit.

Last week, the Bail-ins did occur, now, there are talks about “bailouts” of which I opine are not going to happen and the “authorities” and the media will continue to use terms the public is familiar with.

You see, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 claims it is to “protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts.” But, it does this under Title II, by imposing the losses of insolvent financial companies onto their common and preferred stockholders, debtholders, and other unsecured creditors, through an “orderly resolution” plan known as a “bail-in.”

The point of an orderly resolution under the Act is not to make depositors and other creditors whole, as the media and the Fed says. It is to prevent a systemwide disorderly resolution of the sort that followed the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008. Yes, they are lying spitefully and only the wilfully ignorant gullible will believe what is said in the media.

Under the old liquidation rules, an insolvent bank was actually “liquidated”—its assets were sold off to repay depositors and creditors.

In an “orderly resolution,” (OLA), the accounts of depositors and other creditors are emptied to keep the insolvent bank in business and even if you are getting only a few cents a month on your deposits, you are a creditor of the bank. This was explained in a December 2016 article in the University of Chicago Law Review titled “Safe Banking: Finance and Democracy.” An excerpt reads as follows:

A general deposit is a loan made to a bank. This means that the bank is the general depositor’s debtor, but that the bank has legal title to the funds deposited; these funds may be commingled with the bank’s other funds. All the general depositor has is a general, unsecured claim against the bank …. [T]he bank is free to use the deposit as it sees fit. [Emphasis added.]

Fortunately, bail-ins do not apply to deposits under $250,000, which are protected by FDIC insurance. That is true in theory, but as of September 2021, the FDIC had only $122 billion in its insurance fund, enough to cover just 1.27% percent of the $9.6 trillion in deposits that it insures. The FDIC also has a credit line with the Treasury for up to $100 billion, but that still brings the total to just over 2% of insured deposits.

If just one or a few banks become insolvent, the FDIC fund should be sufficient to cover the insured deposits (those under $250K). But under the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, derivatives creditors (which are considered “secured”) are first in line to recover the assets of a bankrupt bank; and the Dodd-Frank Act followed that practice. So if a bank with major derivatives risk collapses, there might be no bank assets left for the non-insured creditors; and a series of major derivative cross-defaults could wipe out the whole FDIC kitty as well.

That’s right, my dear reader. The FDIC only has $122Bn and cannot cover the $9.6Tn of deposits, including the ones once held at SVB.

In addition, the FDIC only has a $100Bn credit with the US Treasury.

That ain’t shit, Jack! And as of May 2022, according to the most recent data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the total notional amounts outstanding for contracts in the derivatives market was an estimated $600 trillion; and the total is often estimated at over $1 quadrillion.

No one knows for sure, because many derivatives are “over the counter” (not traded on an exchange). They are given privately, without going through a broker or any record. In any case it all spurious, promissory nonsense and more importantly it is a bubble of an ominous size, and pundits warned it is about to pop.

Topping the list of U.S. derivatives banks are J.P. Morgan Chase ($54.3 trillion), Goldman Sachs ($51 trillion), Citibank ($46 trillion), Bank of America ($21.6 trillion), and Wells Fargo ($12.2 trillion). A full list is here.

On Nov. 9, 2022, the FDIC held a 3.5 hour webcast discussing the bail-in process among other topics. I hosted the video, here, in this article. In this hair-raising clip, Donald Kohn, former vice chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, said, “…it’s important that people understand they can be bailed in. But you don’t want a huge run on the institution. But they’re going to be…”

Richard J. Herring, co-director of The Wharton Financial Institutions Center said, “I would think your strategy ought to be to disclose as much as possible to people who professionally need to know about it …”

Gary Cohn, former director of the National Economic Council, said, “I almost think you’d scare the public if you put this out—like, ‘Why are they telling me this? Should I be concerned about my bank?’ … I think you’ve got to think of the unintended consequences of taking a public that has more full faith and confidence in the banking system than maybe people in this room do …we want them to have full faith and confidence in the banking system. They know the FDIC insurance is there, they know it works, they put their money in, they get their money out…”

Admittedly, this is taken in context, where the entire video is a recording of a meeting held by the FDIC to discuss transparency; that the general public needs to know of what’s to come—economic collapse—and how much they need to know. To their credit they were “trying to be accountable”. This last week, we saw exactly how they chose to handle things—keep the general public in the dark—ensured those with “a professional need-to-know” for their monies out, before the SVB crashed.

One important takeaway from all of this is how amazing it is to see celebrities having the same confidence in the banking system as we in the general public do. Furthermore, the media lies and these celebrities believe it just as the regular person does. This should inform us as to how deeply embedded the Jewish banking scam is in the fabric of all societies.

What’s to come out of the media in regards to the financial collapse will be performative. The bail-ins are underway and they will continue to mask it as a “coming together of banks to save the little banks from going under. This is to ensure that commercial banks can continue to effectively serve the general public.” If you haven’t yet figured it out, the Federal Reserve has taken over.