Crime Against Humanity: Banking Reflux, Clearing House, Criminal Conspiracy, 3

Financial statements are public documents. Anyone can scrutinise them, but it’s no picnic. However, they say that things can be hidden by putting them in plain view, and there’s also an old joke where an ant bumps into an elephant, the elephant says, “Take care!” and the ant replies, “Excuse me, I didn’t see you.” So let’s step back and take a broader look.

Money is the banker’s raw matter and loans are his stock−in−trade, hence they play a leading role in his business and in his financial statement as well. If the “ashes to ashes” thesis were true and the banker deleted his loaned “money” into nothingness upon repayment by not transferring it to his cash, what difference would this entail compared with the current situation?
With banking reflux, every time the banker creates a quid, loans it, and it is repaid, he pockets it and it continues to exist forever.
Without banking reflux, every time the banker creates a quid, loans it, and it is repaid, he pockets it and it ceases to exist forever.
Think of it for a moment. See the difference?
Accrual.
In the medium term, naming as medium term the average duration of loans, every single quid ever created out of nothing by the banker, letting aside the interest yielded during the loan which compared to this becomes a minor benefit, will pile up in his pockets.

As I said, money is the banker’s raw material and loans his stock−in−trade, and as such by far the main entry in his business; this means that without banking reflux there would be by far less money in circulation overall, and in particular by far a much smaller percentage of the circulating money would be in the banker’s pockets.
As I said, if anyone is allowed to create purchasing power out of nothing, sooner or later that anyone will seize anything and anyone. With banking reflux, this inescapable curve is infinitely faster and exponential.