The Great Taking: Custodians Are Entitled By Law To Use All Securities As Collateral. Think What This Means For Bitcoin After BlackRock's ETF

By law, US and European citizens do not own securities.
We do not own our stocks, bonds, shares in mutual funds, notes, CDs, and ETFs

When you buy shares through a broker or other intermediary, you don’t directly own the underlying physical shares . Instead, you acquire a security entitlement, which is a legal claim against the intermediary to hold and manage those shares on your behalf.

The problem is, recent law allows the custodians like BlackRock and central banks to use your securities as collateral against their other financial products. And in the case of market failures, which are certain because they are engineered, the custodians must (by law) give your securities to the clients who bought the failed financial products. And these clients are the custodians and central banks themselves.

The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers was used to establish case law precedent that the “protected class” of secured creditors ( the central banks - J.P. Morgan in that case) have an absolute priority claim to client assets, and that, potentially and practically, only they will end up with the assets

So after enough Bitcoin has been purchased on behalf of pension funds, institutional investors, and individuals there is powerful incentive to engineer a controlled demolition of the collateralized products so that the central banks can legally sweep up all the ETF Bitcoin and all other securities which are used as collateral (practically every security).

This is the mechanism which will likely be used to direct all wealth locked up in securities (practically everything) to the central banks to force CBDCs upon the world. The system is now in place and has been fully tested. The trap is set for the next financial collapse.

Self-custody of commodities outside the control of the central banks might be prudent at this time.
It would seem that ADA holders are well positioned to survive and thrive during the event.

A documentary called The Great Taking discusses the issue.

The PDF file of the book “The Great Taking” is found at the link below:

The audio book “The Great Taking” is found at the link below.

An interview with the author, David Rogers Webb, is found at the link below:

Below is a link to a conversation with Bard (google’s ai) which seems to indicate what the author says in his book is true.


As you found out during the Bard discussion you can still personally hold share (stock) certificates. Most people don’t do this because they have their brokerage account hold them on their behalf, for ease of trading.

Furthermore, you can do off-market transfers of personally held stock certificates from one person to another. You can do this by submitting paperwork to the company’s share registry for them to update the company’s books with the new holder details for the shares. In other words, you can hold and transfer shares without using a brokerage service, but it is inconvenient and almost nobody does it. Usually such off-market transfers are only done between entities that know each other, like husband to wife, or individual to family trust.

I am not a lawyer, but the risk that a custodial service may refuse to release your shares (stock) to you on your demand, may be even be greater than people are aware. Check out this legal judgement in the case between Lehman Bros and JPMorgan which adjudicated over the effect of the “safe harbours” provisions.

Page 5:

This is a case that examines the conduct of a giant lender at a time when the financial markets were in turmoil. JPMC grabbed assets for itself at a critical time in its banking relationship with Lehman. The timing alone – weeks before bankruptcy – is reason enough to question the circumstances of what occurred.

Page 7:

JPMC submits that the safe harbors were enacted to provide needed incentives to lenders to extend credit without having to even consider the risk that a bankruptcy court might later review and order a “claw back” of assets that were transferred under any of these protected transactions. Because market participants rely upon the safe harbors, and this reliance promotes essential liquidity and market stability, JPMC also argues that covered transactions should be immunized from further scrutiny under any legal theory, including several theories of recovery arising under state law, because to allow the safe harbors to be circumvented by such indirect means would frustrate the central purpose of these protections.

JPMorgan successfully argued that the safe harbours provisions apply.
Page 8:

The Court agrees with JPMC that the safe harbors apply here, and it is appropriate for these provisions to be enforced as written and applied literally in the interest of market stability.

In summary, JPMorgan put pressure on it’s borrower (Lehman Bros), to hand over collateral (which could include your shares), just before it’s bankruptcy. And, JPMorgan got to keep this collateral it had obtained using coercion during a time of market stress, in the interest of market stability. JPMorgan had inside knowledge, and was in a dominant position, and it “grabbed” assets (collateral) that other entities had claims over. This collateral (which could include your shares) was not possible to be “clawed back” from JPMorgan to be distributed between the other creditors (which could include you). If JPMorgan hadn’t seized the assets from Lehman Bros just before it’s bankruptcy it is likely that other creditors (which could be you) would have had a higher claim to these assets.


Comments on “The Great Taking”:
I listened to the whole video because I thought the interview was a fascinating look into central bank corruption, but the link is queued up to the moment Catherine Austin Fitts comments on the book “The Great Taking”.

From her bio
Catherine served as managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc., as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration, and was the president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. Catherine has designed and closed over $25 billion of transactions and investments to-date and has led portfolio and investment strategy for $300 billion of financial assets and liabilities.

Catherine graduated from the University of Pennsylvania (BA), the Wharton School (MBA) and studied Mandarin Chinese at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She blogs for the Solari Report at

While crypto isn’t mentioned, Fitts has used her life to fight centralization in TradFi.
Her own story is fascinating and it shines light on exactly what the crypto community is up against.


Charles also made a recent video which shows we need to pay close attention to TradFi maneuvers in the crypto space and how our own priorities determine our future.

1 Like

I think this economist explains what is happening really well and why the wealth divide will continue to increase until there is some sort of reset.

How COVID-19 MAKES the Rich Richer:


That guy in the video above says the central banks are printing money out of thin air which makes our savings valueless and that we should tax the rich to make up for the difference. He wants to tax people for being wealthy so that the super rich central bankers and friends who keep them in power can continue the Ponzi scheme which pays for research in biological warfare at Wuhan and for the money laundering operation in the Ukraine.

That guy in the video above is calling for a class war.

This is what happens when you start a class war.
Spoiler Alert! Millions of people die and the poor people are far worse off than before

Argentina’s President Milei is sponsoring a bill in his country that puts central bankers in jail for printing money out of thin air. This cures the disease rather than trying to hide the problem.


That red scare still works with US-american GOP simps seventy years after McCarthy is astonishing.

1 Like

If you listen to more of his videos you will find that is not what he is calling for. But he does point out where the money, that was handed out by Govts during Covid, ended up:

  • It ended up with the super-wealthy.
  • What do the super-wealthy do with excess money? They buy houses and all other assets which bids up prices.
  • As the economy grinds and doesn’t function well for young people to build businesses then increasingly banks only want to lend for physical collateral. This means that when Blackrock looks at the economy and where to invest the vast amounts of money it has, it decides to invest in housing. So the wealth divide increases with asset prices up and wages flat. Increasingly young people are priced out of owning an essential human need (shelter).

I worry that a class war is coming because most young people don’t understand how the financial incentives have been designed badly and how it means that this wealth divide is going to increase. As an example, the Australian Govt has put in place many incentives that have advantaged housing as an investment for decades. There were “first home owner grants”, and there are tax incentives. Capital gains tax on investment property is discounted by 50%. And, if you sell your primary place of residence then you pay zero capital gains tax. There have been house renovation shows on TV for decades. It is ingrained in the mindset of Aussies, probably more than most other countries. People that earn millions per year, buy lots of property so they can minimise their tax. Basically they are converting income tax into capital gains tax where they then only pay half the rate. It is a tax arbitrage.
Every Aussie now believes that the only way to build wealth is to buy a house. 70% of private lending in Australia is for housing. You should compare that statistic with America. Now banks in Australia will basically only lend for housing. If anyone does come up with a business idea, they only get a loan from the bank if they provide their house as collateral. Housing in Australia is now “too big to fail” and every politician knows this.

I think we need a politician to come along and say: Housing is shelter and shouldn’t be the primary investment asset of a society. Housing is an essential human need and ordinary people should be able to own their own home. This politician should then say: I am going to remove all the tax incentives on housing and tell banks that their purpose is to lend for building businesses that make stuff, provide goods and services and employ people. Banks should also take risk and lend for business ideas. Then you will see the house prices in Australia fall by 50% overnight and another 25% the following day. Unfortunately this guy/gal won’t be elected. Instead everyone will vote in crazy political leaders that say they are going to fix things when they won’t. I fear that this housing Ponzi scheme will continue until eventually the system breaks when the super-wealthy own all the houses.

Jeff Snider ( also points out how the Eurodollar system is no longer working. How the central bankers don’t know what they are doing and are instead usually making the problems worse through their attempts to manipulate interest rates.

I don’t know how it is all going to play out but I worry when I see that most young people will never be able to own their shelter. It is a fact that the wealth divide was markedly increased by the Govt actions in the Covid lockdown period.


You don’t necessarily have to be super-wealthy to be on the winning side of capitalism, wealthy is mostly enough.

…, which is a good example for that. Blackrock and other investments instruments are not only used by the super-wealthy, but already by the ones that are a lot better off than the median. Those that imagine that they belong to the middle class although they clearly aren’t.

And those, of course, also have to be taxed more. Equally of course, it would be good to finally get the super-wealthy, but that should never leave the merely wealthy of the hook.

And all these fringe conspiracy narratives that the problem is not capitalism in an of itself, but some cabal of central banks, banks, and super-rich and the monetary system are made to have a bogeyman, to continue the “Oh, no, you can’t tax the run-of-the-mill upper class, they honestly earned that they are better than thou!!!” story of the 80s and 90s that is slowly starting to wear off.

1 Like

Insults do not help you make you make your point.
Insults only make other people afraid to speak with you.

The Red Scare mentioned in your insult refers to events in the United States.
Please do not confuse that with the the Cultural Revolution which happened in China.

The video above (linked here again), is a witness account of the Cultural Revolution in China.
The witness describes this as a class war.
Millions were killed.

As the witness tells it, the Red Guard was nothing but gangs of young people that beat and killed those who appeared to be educated or wealthy. The police were commanded to stand down and allow it to happen. After all the educated and wealthy people were killed, the Red Guard (the young people) were rounded up and sent to camps for indoctrination.

This is not an issue of political ideology.
The same thing happens under all types of governments when the powerful wish to consolidate power.
Look at United States domestic policy now.
What is the purpose of US domestic policy if not to destroy what makes us Americans and then replace that with something more manageable?
How is this not the beginning of a Cultural Revolution in the United States?


Yes, and you are equating what has happened in China with every try to get higher (wealth) taxes to let the ones who can afford it finance the common society, equate everyone who wants a strong enough social welfare state with communism. That are exactly the methods of McCarthyism.

Your collection of right-wing YouTube propaganda that you obviously fell victim for won’t change my mind on that at all.

1 Like

Before you confused The Cultural Revolution with The Red Scare

Now you are confusing the Cultural Revolution with communism.

I never mentioned Communism.
The following is what I said in my last post:

I am not speaking about communism.
You are imagining that I am.
I am describing US domestic policy designed to destroy the culture here in the United States to be replaced with something the central banks will have an easier time managing. I am comparing current US domestic policy with the Cultural Revolution, I am not comparing it with communism.

The President Of El Salvador (The Bitcoin President) warns us that collapse happens quickly once it starts. He knows because his country went through it.
He urges the U.S. to reverse domestic and monetary policy while we can still prevent the central banks from causing a full collapse.