So, more evidence of how languge has been used to disguise the realities of the money-managed world. Usury is still in use to define an excessive rate of interest on a loan. However, that charging any fee for a loan was once prohibited in Jewish and Islamic law (or still is) is conveniently ignored by pretending that the usuror (the perp) and the usurand (abused) no longer even exist. This omission, to my mind, is comparable to the omission of deprivator to identify someone who deprives. It may be a consequence of the belief that “if we don’t name it, it does not exist.”
Perhaps I should be content with loanshark to identify the perp, but tagging a sea creature which, unlike the mosquito, has no interest in exploiting humans, serves to deflect what the usuror is actually about–exploiting his own kind. Are we to conclude that exploitation of one’s own kind is inoffensive, as long as it does not go too far?
If usury was once considered immoral and now, having been re-christened as investment and interest, why should we not argue that our standards of morality have decreased? “If there is consent, it is not a crime.” Where did that logic come from?
The trajectory of abstraction from manipulating matter to manipulating man to letting money manipulate everything is based on the notion that the idea, what the human intellect detects, is definitive.