Next he will explain the same thing with ordinary banks, which also create new money (bank deposits) whenever they lend, and will then pretend that bank customers paying the bank with their own debts have given nothing in return for that money. You can tell, because mortgages aren't liabilities of their issuers, you see.
Every scrap of it is one entry accounting. They imagine their top line nominal investment returns unchanged and think any reduction in those is a theft from them, blissfully unware of how lethargic their top line would be without modern finance.
There is in fact a principled Austrian case against any net new issuance of fiduciary media, but these rubes do not know it, let alone know the first thing about what it wrong with that case. There is also an entirely sound case in favor of price stability as a monetary policy target, but it is pragmatic and not an absolutist justice claim ("pickpocket", "robbery", etc, etc). And it runs not through the Misesean wage fund theory mistake, but effects on price signaling and the efficiency of private, intertemporal planning.
This kind of pseudo sophistry an appeal to your own supreme knowledge above and beyond all of us peons out here is just the kind of montebank quackery that has characterized the state of the US financial system for years.
It and you are one great big puffed up rhetorical fallcy.
If you have an actual point to make, make it. Start by writing down a subject, a verb and an object. Use words that have dictionary meanings that we can look up in an economics or financial dictionary if we are too unsophisticated to udnerstand them. Connect the thoughts from one sentence to the next to create through cause and effect a logical argument that sustains a bigger point that you are trying to make.
The idiocy and ignorance of your audience is not one of those points you are allowed to make as an argument for why you are right. IOW, to demonstrate you are right you need to prove you are right through well-posed argument, in the English language, and not by heaping scorn on the fact that you are an intellectual fraud.