Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

To suggest banking can exist free from interest is failing to address the banks first crime of theft when a bank pretends to loan you a sum of principal in the first place.

This is where those promoting such nonsense are going critically wrong by denying the contract essentials regarding consideration of value in contract law, that otherwise proves we the people are the true creators of money, where there never was or ever will be any loan of borrowing, which of course those who promote banking (public or private) will never concede — only to preserve the crime of banking — particularly the banks first crime of theft, which allegedly loans you a sum of principal, that precipitates the further crime of theft by unwarranted interest as a result, only AS IF the bank is giving up consideration of value in the purported loan to begin with.

Logically you cant just eradicate the banks second crime of theft (interest) without eradicating the banks first crime of theft (loan), which is an *alleged loan* that does not ever transpire anyway, which is a crime of theft these pretenders want nothing more but to preserve by putting a public stamp on the exact same crime of theft & calling it a solution. All along evading the consideration question that proves banks do not ever create or even loan us money.

THE CONSIDERATION QUESTION.
The question of “Consideration of Value” is not only deadly to banks (public & private) but it acts much like a doubled edged sword. The forward swing proves banks do not ever loan us money, but the back swing ultimately proves we are the true creators of money, where there never was or ever is any loan or borrowing.

One might even conclude public banking a form of communism under the same old kleptocracy (rule by thieves).

Logically you have to eradicate the first crime of theft to eradicate by default the second crime of theft , by which a matter of consequence eradicates the criminal practice of banking altogether, therefore making any idea of “interest free banking / interest free loans ” or “debt free money” an oxymoron, regardless if the thieving bank is public or private.

Usury is not just the further imposition of interest or riba, simply because the imposition of interest precipitates from a former crime of theft in the form of a purported loan that neither ethically or rationally transpires, so if you are not addressing the fact banks do not ever loan us money in the first place how can you be rationally or ethically addressing the resulting crime of theft by unwarranted interest? Unless of course you want to preserve the banks very first crime of theft, which by default preserves the banks second crime of theft by interest, only AS IF the bank is legitimately loaning you the principal to you in the first place, which they clearly do not. Banks never have or ever will, because banks or mere publishers neither risk of give up consideration of commensurable value, not in the banks pretended creation of OUR money, not in any pretended loan, not even in any debt, trade, transaction or sale.

AGAIN : The business of banking (public or private) is not commerce, but PIRACY.

David Ardron.
Advocate / mentor, Co-founder, Co-director – Mathematically Perfected Economy™ (au)

Advertisements