Crime Against Humanity: the Holy GAAP, 38
And now I would introduce my conclusions by observing that how bank money comes into “existence” is a dogma comparable to that of the conception of Jesus and the virginity of the Virgin. What is blasphemous is not comparing them, but how much the comparison is fitting. And it’s not the Virgin’s virginity that is questionable, whether in value or in pausibility; it’s the banker’s that is definitely to be questioned – in both value and plausibility.
Bank money is there, which contrary to the moneypulators’ dogma means it was given birth, but the banker is extraneous to that: bank money was born, but the banker is virgin; virgin of whavever guilt, virgin of whatever act.
In my opinion, the strategy of bankers, moneypulators, manipulators of purchasing power, and of their mates producing the legal basis of their operations, that emerges from the analysis of data, is a strategy of concealment and invisibility through omission and code of silence, with even the loophole cavils reduced to a minimum as less eye−catching and as best dissimulated as possible.
The object of the “dogma”, and of the strategy of concealment and invisibility, are the three key foundations of the whole house of cards: the nature, the birth and the persistence of bank “money”.
The NATURE of scriptural, bank “money” is ambiguous: is it money or is it not money?
If it is money, why do bankers are not prosecuted for counterfeiting? Or, if as it seems they’re not, where is the law explicitly stating that, contrary to the principle that all are equal before the law, some citizens are more equal than others and are granted as a privilege the right to exercise monetary sovereignty, while the rest of the citizens are deprived of that same right by that same state which then makes that good use of monetary sovereignty that we have seen?
If it is not money, why is it treated as if it was? Why do the law backs up the banker in every possible way in keeping up the pretence of a promise of payment passed off as payment?
If it is not money, could it be somewhat assimilated to the promissory note? Well, maybe… if it wasn’t for the negligible details that ordinary mortals’ promissory notes do not pretend to be money, and do not last forever because they have to have an expiry date. If it is money, under a jurisdiction that does not explicitly grant monetary sovereignty to some citizen more equal than others, isn’t it counterfeiting?
