The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is the principal institution of the international financial fraternity. This fraternity is made up from a collection dynastic families which have merged into a modern oligarchy begot from the surplus derived from the period monopoly capitalism, spanning from the early 19th century until current day.

Rather than attempt to illuminate the balance of power between these families, which is flux, intermingled through marriage, and largely unaccountable; the focus should be on the form of unity they assume within a number of financial institutions, primarily the highest asset holding custodian banks, but of course primarily the BIS.
For this reason, and for the sake of simplicity, we can assume that the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Mellons, Mirabuads, Foulds, Sterns, Lazards, Van Zeelands, Schröders, and so forth—bred themselves, gentile jew alike, into a family stump. From this stump there grew a tree, a giving tree, called the BIS. Only it doesn’t grow its own apples, and an owl peaks out from its hollow trunk.

The BIS is the prime mover behind the upward transfer of wealth to those minuscule percentiles. How this is done is both simple and complex. It can simply be conceptualised in a three step process:

  1. Money is created from debt and loaned out on generous terms to those with “access”.
  2. The debt which created these loans is then sold to middle class pension funds.
  3. The debt is never repaid.

That is, middle class savings are loaned to those in privileged positions who never repay it. However, the process through which this takes place is complex, as it must be so the mechanism isn’t exposed. This process is made up of three parts working together:

  1. The use of modern monetary policy via central banks to create cheap credit out of bonds and mortgages.
  2. The fraudulent rating of this debt by credit rating agencies.
  3. The commercialisation of this debt into bonds with fraudulent ratings sold onto pension funds.

There is no romance or explosive conspiracy here. This conspiracy is open source, secret only through the mundane, bureaucratic obfuscation of a dense policy framework. The smoking gun is latent and unapparent within the clauses of lawyer prose inside the documentation. And beyond this documentation are the informal traditions of those who follow these guidelines, their unspoken understandings, their practises ‘more Honoured in the Breach than the Observance’. It is through this, and on top of it a low profile, the BIS remains hidden in plain sight carrying out an open source conspiracy of wealth consolidation, only illegal to the sensibilities of a natural law.

The BIS continues on its operations with an OpSec strategy focused on being extremely boring:

  1. By maintaining a low profile so no one looks for its documentation.
  2. By making its documentation long and dense.
  3. By writing its documentation in bureaucratic jargon.
  4. By using lawyers prose to hedge the interpretation to the meaning of certain powers and authorities.
  5. Through a tradition of unspoken understanding which allows for the plausible deniability of intent between two parties.

These measures inoculate people to the discovery process. Should they know where to look they won’t read what they find. Should they read what they find they won’t understand it. Should they understand it, the lawyers will say they’ve misunderstood it. On top of that the BIS functions to inform international law, not conform to judgements made by lesser jurisdictions, so there is no recourse. So because of this the BIS happily makes available the white papers to a macro economic conspiracy facilitating the greatest transfer of wealth in history. It calls these the Basel Accords.
The Accords are a set of globalised policy frameworks that conform regulatory law across multiple jurisdictions applicable to financial institutions operating across borders, being all worth mentioning. These Accords are implemented through membership status within economic groupings such as the G7 and G20. For the latter the BIS uses a subsidiary called, the Financial Stability Board (FSB), to push its measure through. There have been three iterations of the Basel Accords: Basel I 1988, Basel II 2004, and Basel III 2010.

Since 1988 the BIS has used the Basel Accords to simultaneously:

  1. increase the amount of debt central banks and commercial banks loan out.
  2. decrease the risk attributed to this debt by ratings agencies so that it could be sold.

Basel I of ‘88, backed by new modern monetary theory, minimised the amount of capital reserves banks required to make loans. The effect of this is observable in the rising trajectory of debt levels after Basel I begun to be adopted by G10 countries through the early 90s.

Basel II of ‘04 then minimised the associated risk of this debt created via Basel I, through consolidating the international credit ratings industry to within the control of three firms. These are Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings. Together they rate over 90% of global debt, S&P and Moody’s making the majority of that.

A measure within Basel II, CRE21 – Standardized approach: use of external ratings, outlines criteria determining the use of ECAIs, or External Credit Rating Institutions:

“National supervisors are responsible for determining on a continuous basis whether an external credit assessment institution (ECAI) meets the criteria listed in the paragraph below. National supervisors should refer to the International Organization of Securities Commission’s (IOSCO) Code of Conduct Fundamentals for Credit Rating Agencies, when determining ECAI eligibility."

– https://www.bis(dot)org/basel_framework/chapter/CRE/21.htm?tldate=20191231&inforce=20191215&published=20191215

It gives six criteria a credit agency must meet for eligibility: Objectivity, Independence, International Access and Transparency, Disclosure, Resources, and Credibility. Each G20 nation then appoints a national supervisor, who applies IOSCOs ‘Code of Conduct Fundamentals for Credit Rating Agencies’ to the BIS ‘CRE21’ criteria to determine ‘eligibility’. Of course, only three credit rating agencies manage to keep up with this Code of Conduct:

“In 2009, the CRA Task Force completed a review of the level of CRA implementation of the IOSCO CRA Code and, in particular, the 2008 revisions.8The results of the review showed that, among the CRAs reviewed, a number were found to have substantially implemented the IOSCOCRA Code, including the three largest CRAs –Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”), Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”), and Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (“S&P”). In addition, a large majority of the remaining CRAs had implemented the 2004 iteration of the IOSCO CRA Code but had not yet implemented the provisions added through the 2008 revisions. Only a handful of the CRAs reviewed were found to have not implemented the IOSCO CRA Code in any meaningful way.”

Code of Conduct Fundamentals for Credit Rating Agencies, IOSCO

And so the three agencies responsible for 98% of sub prime mortgage ratings, responsible for the 2008. . .sub prime mortgage crises, where also the only ones compliant with the new measures put in place due to a crises they created. Standard & Poor’s is owned by the private equity firm Apollo Global Management. Its founder Leon Black recently resigned as CEO after his business ties to Jeffrey Epstein were made public. Moody’s on the other hand is likely controlled by one of the major custodian banks through the trustee rights of index fund stock held by Vanguard and Blackrock funds. Finch Rating is owned by the Hearst family trust.

The BIS uses the FSB and IOSCO to push through policy which ensures the debt created by G20 nations, both public and private, is regulated by one of these three firms. In exchange for the BIS barrier to entry allowing them to operate as a global oligopoly, these firms perform various services, such as allowing non-performing loans to be rated as performing loans so that they can be sold onto pension funds who take the losses.

Proving these agencies act fraudulently is difficult, as it must be proven they “knew” their ratings were false. They preempt such a thing in their terms and conditions by stating the ratings given are expressions of their informed opinions. This gives them protection under freedom of speech laws within most jurisdictions, and certainly the most important one, being the United States. Though no country would ever really prosecute them since they also rate government bonds, thus controlling the rates which nations borrow at.

This is the modern boom bust cycle. S&P and Moody's are given a global credit rating duopoly and in exchange they rate non-performing loans as performing ones so they can be sold onto mutual funds made up of middle class savings. The debt owed from these loans is then minimised in a number of way. First it can be restructured over longer periods which minimises it through inflation. Then when a critical amount comes due, all that happens is a market collapses like in '08. The mutual funds take a hit, effectively paying off some the debt with working class savings. The banks take a hit too but are bailed out with public debt so they don’t mind, and this further minimises existing debts through more inflation, which is yet again rated by the agencies so it can be sold once again to the mutual funds, who will once again take another hit during the next bust.

The boom is cheap credit going to the wealthy being laundered through the markets, blowing bubbles in them. Then the bust is wiped out pensions. And modern monetary theory is just an elaborate cover story for this, the greatest transfer of wealth in all of history. Just look inside the stimulus bills, the money being created isn't being spread, but the debts made to create it are. Who's been taking out all these near zero interest loans hmmm?

When was the last time a major corporation went bankrupt. . .it hardly happens—yet many are insolvent. Instead of bankruptcy, these days we have what is called a leveraged buyout. When a corporation becomes insolvent, instead of going bankrupt, it is acquired by another corporation using a bank loan, called leverage, to pay off its debts. Thus, the debt is paid off using a loan created from new debt, which means the debt is just transferred to the acquiring company, but with an extended due date. However, as this process continues, all the debt acquired from these insolvent corporations begins amass within a few becoming too big to fail. The endgame here, should it be reached, is that all debts accumulate within a single corporate conglomerate, which has acquired all other debts yet can never be allowed to go bankrupt, as the entire industry relying on it would collapse. Other options would be explored.

The above process can only exist through a creative policy framework allowing banks to make perpetual corporate loans using the non-performing loans previously given as reserves to meet the requirements needed for the new loans. This book keeping is as close to arts these people get when they aren't aundering money through it.

Follow the credit peaks along the timeline. These peaks are the Savings and loans crises of ‘88, dot com crises of ‘99, and subprime mortgage crises of ‘08. The credit goes up, the credit plateaus, then bust in ‘88. Basel I is introduced. The credit creeps up, the credit plateaus, then bust in ‘99. Basel II is introduced. The credit creeps up, the credit plateaus, then bust in ‘08. Basel III is introduced. The credit creeps up, the credit plateaus. then boom in 2020. . .wait what? Oh yeah pandemic. They call this uncharted territory.

Basel III was meant to be a policy remedy to address ‘shortcomings’ in Basel I and II which had ‘contributed’ to a policy environment which had incubated the ‘08 global financial crises. It left the ratings agency agenda untouched but proposed tightened reserve requirements for bank loans. The reforms were agreed upon in 2010, but implementation has been delayed, as right now until 2023. It appears to have been implemented in half measures, though the restrictions on credit lending were meant to be done by 2019 and have clearly not been as number of central banks, including the Federal Reserve, decided to abolish reserve ratios completely in March 2020 when the pandemic was acknowledged and the market began to the crash.

CBDC is a classic institutional response to a new, but weak, wave of economic reformation surrounding the new anonymous and decentralised nature of digital currencies such as Bitcoin. The kernel technology here isn’t the digital currency itself, but the transaction ledger behind it, which in the case of bitcoin is the block chain. The BIS doesn’t care so much about digital currency as it does the infrastructure it transacts across. It wants a completely centralised digital global economy monitored in real-time. This would allow it to usher in a new era of macroeconomic management, possibly allowing the BIS to reinvent itself into a new instrument with some non-parasitic purpose, giving the vested interests behind possibly another century or two of hegemony. The stakes are high on this one and crypto-activitism is mistaken if it thinks an internet protocol is an irrefutable threat to what amounts to a near 200 year power structure in the midst of trying to manufacture a civilisation circumvention of the dire state of late-monopoly capitalism. The interests within the BIS will brick the internet before Bitcoin/Blockchain becomes a universal exchange currency or facilitates one. Though of course it won’t have to, as the political institutions will handle it for them.

This CBDC agenda was underway as early as June 2019 when the BIS announced the establishment of a network of innovation hubs throughout its member nations. In Jan 2020 it announced these innovation hubs would start research on various potential applications for CBDC.

Since then three projects have been developed to ensure BISs place in the coming era of digital currency markets.

The art of money laundering through art has become ham-fisted, its inside joke shared openly now. It used be something was created, became valuable through some human process of distinction, and from this was derived scarcity. But this took too long and so it began to become manufactured through artistic idol like Warhol. Artists became brands. Their performances and personas marketing. And progressively their art became side projects, mere tokens for an abstract storage of value. Even Banksy’s performance of a shredding of his work right after it sold at auction was a marketing spectacle, not to destroy its storage of value, but to add to it. It is either this, or he was under the false impressive that the form in which his work existed mattered more than his brand. If he really wanted to make a point, the work should’ve been framed inside an oven an incinerated out of existence. And even then the value would just transfer to the oven via historicity, so it would have to be written into the contract that the oven’s not included in the purchase.

An original and authentic copy of Crrptopunk-7523, worth 11,754,000 USD.
Feel free to right click and get your own copy too.

What a strange strange world we’re living in. Everything becoming a copy of a copy and yet more scarce. Like woman with blue hair showing how unique they are not. It’s the framework system. Everything fitted to a framework. Best practise. Best thinking. Best opinion. Best dressed. If you need to know something there’s a guide to look it up. How knowledgeable we’ve all become through not understanding. Leave that to upper management. Those managers in the high branches of the BIS giving tree.