I. Invocation.

We all worship money, believers or atheists, smart or stupid, holy or wicked, strong or weak, rich or poor, men or women. One way or another we submit to this lesser god of Plutus and his stone age ancestors no matter how much we deny it. But why we worship something, a blind chimera-child no one has courage to see for what it truly is, an illusion, magician trick, a cruel joke pulled over destitude population.

Let’s not be afraid and look deeper into blind eyes of this innocent looking coin, paper or digital beast that makes many of us lose all vestiges of our humanity in a futile quest for seemingly noble causes made up by strangers and in the process makes us stoop to appalling attitudes or actions against another human being with good intentions of mislead heart.

And what do we see? A horrifying reflection of a money monster-child dwelling in our crevices, powerful mythical monster we willingly feed. But did why we end up with such unquestioned acceptance of this seditious myth of money and all its transmutations and how did it all happen? It’s a long story.

II. Human Society.

It’s hard to believe but long, long time ago, say hundred thousands years ago, there was no money and there were no gods of money among all gods. Our mostly black ancestors were frolicking over African Savannas or more often than that running for their lives from the beasts threatening their fragile, 4-5 feet tall bodies having hard time to survive to the old age of twenty. These were successful hunters and gatherers organized in communities of tribes, serving the purpose of common physical safety and food security while engaged in a nomadic lifestyle driven by the astronomical seasons of biological renewal.

These were egalitarian societies, unique in the animal world, practically without any social differentiation among their members, not even along the gender lines. They were based on sharing duties, responsibilities and benefits almost equally distributed as needed without regard to any specialization or particular function. The wealth, money, or any property had no social function back then since life was so precarious that even concept of an ownership of anything, even a child, was impractical when living brutal and short life that could end anytime on a whim of too slow defensive reflex, misjudgment or slight injury. These were egalitarian societies of sharing.

These tribal societies however, have been continuously changing over thousands of years, perhaps due to dramatic development of a human language about fifty thousand years ago, previously seemingly absent from oratory/articulatory modes of communication, enabling more conceptual planning among groups of hunters and gatherers. Perhaps, those developments brought significant demographic success, moderating need for precarious nomadic migrations and enabling temporarily settlement in the special locations, which could provide good climatic conditions, water and physical safety for a while.

Among other factors, such as hunting skills or gathering methods determining success of these nomadic tribal societies, a distinct intellectual and organizational prowess of some tribal members, was likely instrumental in continuous improvements of the standard of living of these egalitarian tribes. With such improvements modest beginnings of a process of division of labor was initiated. The process of division of labor increased tribal specialization devised for sole purpose of maximizing effectiveness of a tribal member contribution and realization of the common needs of society through socially beneficial labor, while preserving equal worth, usefulness or value of all tribal members’ contribution regardless of their type of work, always treated with equal importance. In other words initial introduction of the division of labor did not automatically result in an increase of social inequality.

Over following tens of thousands of years in some tribes however, division of labor deteriorated into the process of individualization, differentiation of how tribal member’s contribution to the society was judged or valued and in a sense prompted a gradual abandoning of the overarching egalitarism of ancient tribes. Such processes of a tribal valuation consequently resulted in a new attitude allowing some skills and experiences to be valued higher than others within a tribe, classifying some labor as essential and some as superfluous. Such, often arbitrary classification of the social value of labor eventually spearheaded reintroduction of a, previously considered detrimental to interest of society, concept of individualism and elitism within a tribe and by that challenging the legacy of tens of thousands of years of successful egalitarian societies.

From that moment members of a tribe were not only judged by their capacity and past record of the contribution to society but by their fitness or perceived role in the longer time scale plans set up by the tribe. In other words for the first time not only people’s past contribution was being evaluated but the tribal members themselves were being evaluated as suited or not for the future tribal objectives. Those developments occurring perhaps ten to twenty thousand years ago, in addition to the dominant social relationships of cooperation and sharing, introduced a new type of human relationship, within some tribal societies, negotiated via concepts of distinct individualism of basic human needs and a social competition.

During that period many temporary sites occupied by the tribes became permanent agricultural dwellings and developed associated social hierarchy based on a real or perceived individual characteristics of tribal members and that was the beginning of a slippery slope toward the autocratic rule and worshiping gods of wealth and money such as Plutus in the ancient Greece thousands of years later.

The differentiation among the egalitarian tribal-societies, proceeded over thousands of years from a social valuation of particular skills or abilities of socially equal tribe members into arbitrary valuation of individual members themselves, independently from their contemporary skills or abilities and separately from their tribal role or identity. This resulted in a slow process of stratification of the society and development of the often semi-permanent division of casts not related to the division of labor but to ability to gather tribal support and hence promoting further division in the tribal society itself into the layers of what we would call psycho-political value contribution. This led to a differentiated distribution of benefits in some arbitrary ways related to the perceived value contribution, but not equally like it was in the egalitarian societies where benefits were assigned according to the members needs and not “who” they are or how “important” they are.

In the early elitist tribal societies some works or services rendered to the society were valued higher than others by applying a psychological rather than social or economic criteria, allowing some to benefit beyond their needs while the others benefited at a level below their basic needs which caused the emergence of a resentment and drove acute social antagonisms. Similar tensions can be observed in the contemporary hierarchical ape societies.

It was this psychological, ape-like differentiation among the members of tribal societies that brought into existence and utility a concept of individual property understood back then as an excess share of the tribal food and other production above the level of individual need for subsistence. It also inspired creation of the concepts of power elite, defined as those supposedly most “important” or “popular” or “best” in the organizational and management skills, set on dominance and control of the tribal society.

In fact elitist, stratified societies controlled by a small group of people, were proven, in a medium to longer term, to be extremely inefficient, destroying tribal economy, social relationships and often resulted in the social collapse in a form of aggression against their own tribal members or outward expansion by means of a warfare against other tribes.

Outside the unusually beneficial  environmental conditions, such a hierarchical societies never were structurally able to provide enough resources to cover often excessive “needs” or entitlements of the elites as well as were unable to satisfy minimum requirements of the ordinary tribesmen. In desperation, elitist tribes turned to violent conquest against the other tribes as a sole economic activity, abandoning hunting, gathering or agriculture and living off the spoils of war such as theft of crops, other foods or slavery of those defeated or cannibalism, a new historical development at that time. These tribes in effect introduced a new type of intra and inter-tribal relations liken to the parasitic social relations.

Fortunately, only a small fraction of the tribal societies went through this type social deprivation process fueling deep social inequality, while the vast majority held on to their egalitarian principles and refused to render assignment of a value to a human being based on a subjective or capricious psychological judgment of the elites while continue embracing some elements of the division of labor of equals. These were stable and economically successful societies based on the cooperation, mutual responsibility, respect, dignity and overarching interest of the community, that invented a revolutionary concept of the socially beneficial welfare, value of intergenerational learning, compassion and support for sick or injured in order to return them to the society as valued members, despite their possible long-term disabilities. It was a precursor to the ancient learning and healing or health care systems, surviving today on fringes of the society but rejected, criminalized and forsaken by the rulers of modern technological states. In contrast, the elitist societies promoted abandonment of the weak and sick as useless to the society, while encouraged and valued solely highest individual physical or military prowess.

Over following thousands of years, some tribes, promoting militarism and aggression fueled by the concept of individual ownership and the myth of unique individual capacities to rule, enslaved many peaceful egalitarian tribes that were unable to effectively defend themselves, as they were not specialized in the socially destructive warfare.

It was through the aggression and subterfuge that the social systems of individualism, individual property and legitimacy of the uniqueness and superiority of individual needs over the interest of community, were brutally imposed on the mostly egalitarian societies and were built upon an economic foundation of exploitation and slavery. It was a regressive historical process that paralleled, then contemporary, animal social organizations inferior to the humans. The ideology of individualism and elitism applied to the concepts of natural or abstract deities of fear constituted an intellectual foundation of all the monotheistic as well as polytheistic religions including the worshipers of gods of power, wealth and money.

III. Markets.

The first primitive accumulation of surplus goods was built on the foundation of an ancient social and later religious propaganda of a divine right of some selected tribal members to a distinct position, function or service, supposedly bringing to the society some unspecified extraordinary value. That led to the establishment of ruling elites and their political and economic support, namely warfare, religious functions of manipulation and propaganda and market/trade operations.

Those late Stone Age market participants were not producers that brought their surplus goods to the market. They were individuals belonging the ruling elite who brought to the market excessive share of the goods produced by their societies falsely represented as their own individual property, which much later under the government contract laws became the so-called private property with variety of strange meanings of this word.

The private property came to be as a ruler sanctioned individual property obtained by means of extortion of society’s common wealth or as spoils of direct violence.

Early markets were just convenient locations at which those controlling a “share” of tribal production could acquire from other monopolistic producers the vital nutritional items, required for health or survival, which in fact were used to control the population. First markets we just places where goods were extorted from those who brought them to the market to be exchanged for some rare or vital items like salt. Therefore, traders often were armed to their teeth while discussing a deal just to add weight to the economic persuasion. At that time the markets were places where robbery and murder was an integral part of the trade business itself, practices all too often present in the contemporary financial market operations.

These markets were not places where independent producers could freely exchange goods they produced with the goods they need for one simple reason. Most of the producers at this stage of development produced only what they needed and as much as they needed. All the surpluses were consumed or invested into the local society, used in a simple sustainable economic reproduction process and/or seized by the political and religious elites.

The first markets developed at least ten to twenty thousand years ago, were run not by producers or consumers but by the market makers, specialized subgroup of the local ruling elites which saw their market function as part of the ruling and security prerogatives and a way to create or nurture the political support for their rule. The dominance of the elite class as market makers and profit takers is true even more today.

Such markets were called the exchange markets, where the process of valuation was not based on a use-value of the goods i.e. their usefulness for the buyer, but instead were based on the exchange value, a value arbitrarily set by the seller/buyer expectation of how profitable the transaction could be or should be. For the market participants goods were no longer represented as something useful for the consumption or production but as certain items valued by their ability to produce profit or advantage i.e. simple commodities, “stripped” of the use-value of their natural form and character.

What was hidden however, in the exchange market valuation process was a fact that it indirectly involved an external third-party, not formally present at the market.

The third-party concerns that were considered in those simple commodity markets were for example: degree of the commitment and trust of seller/buyer at another outside market who ordered the commodities to resell or the commitment and trust or ability to purchase by the buyer who would invest in the commodities.

Also serious consideration were given in the transactional process of valuation to the series of risks involved in the trading investments such as rule of law, stability of the political and economic situation i.e. concern about safety of the commodities in the transportation, legality of goods at the destination location, tolls, religious limitations, ability to procure commodities likely to be resold back on the market, political implications to the trade in military goods or trading with enemies, commodity storage capacity, buyer limitations, monopolistic positions of buyer/seller, trade/business development strategies, ancient forms of sanctions or embargos, which would prevent otherwise profitable trades for reasons of the state policies or competitiveness, overall economic situation and many other considerations.

It is clear that even these primitive commodity exchange markets were not and could not be “free” markets since severe weight was always placed on the valuation process of simplest exchange transaction by the unrelated third-party considerations having nothing to do with the intrinsic value of goods or fundamentals such as production levels, weather, or ingenuity of the producers or skills of a trader who brought the goods to the market.

The third-party consideration made any practical market de facto “regulated” by the third-party conditions imposed on the trade.

But even if they would somehow eliminate most of the third-party consideration, practically “impossible” feat, still market valuation process would not have been free and egalitarian. Simply because of common and dramatic inequality of the market participants as far as economical as well as physical/mental strength to withstand a highly antagonistic valuation process is concerned, a process involving lies, manipulation, threats and intimidation or violence. The strong traders always could intimidate weak traders, who significantly depended on an outcome of particular transaction, and could have been extorted to pay much above and sell much below the fair or average market price, common feature of the real life market places even today.

Let’s examine how a valuation process was conducted using example of a rare type of market developed by some tribal societies that mostly rejected social differentiation and stratification. Let’s look at the so-called markets of interchangeable producers and consumers.

In such rare markets goods never turned into the commodities and always were considered in a form and character intended by the producers. The valuation process performed at such markets was reduced to the simple determination of a relative use-value of two goods exchanged. But how this determination was made? First, it was based on the fundamentals, meaning amount of effort or labor that was needed to bring the goods to the market, so-called absolute value. On the top of it there was a value component related to specialty or particular use-value of the goods such as rare or bigger beans or better sharper sickle or warmer cloth than offered by the other market participants.

At such markets the role of third-party was severely diminished or eliminated, allowing for broaden transparency of a trade, possible since buyer was sole judge of the goods’ ultimate use-value since he/she would be consuming it. What’s characteristic of those primitive producer-consumer markets is that they were stable with values having solid support by the local economy and community since no potential resell values to the outside markets entered into the valuation process. And hence there were almost no market instigated bubbles or crashes.

In contrast, all the commodity exchange markets were inherently unstable with no value backstop or limit since the only value ever considered was a value of potential profit on the commodity trade. If there was no profit potential, commodity value went to zero.

IV. Money.

Following millennia, there were specific political developments, namely increased concentration of the autocratic power and destruction of many egalitarian tribes and geographic expansion of the territories under unified power structure of a government or private tyranny that brought the concepts of wealth and money into the society and markets, through what would amount to regulation (taxes, fees, permits etc., in exchange for perceived lowering of some third-party risks by the market (physical) protectionism. The facilitation of the geographical expansion of trade was achieved by the ruling powers via devising and promoting the exchange of an abstract, illusory entity called compact “money” as a universal representation of any commodity, instead of exchanging of the particular bulk commodity.

The money construed by the ruling class as a universal commodity allowed something that could not be achieved before, namely almost unlimited primitive accumulation of the wealth, precursor to the accumulation of capital.

In other words, the idea of “ money” was an invention of the ruling class expanding powers and wealth accumulation via methods of a legal extortion or military conquest. The introduction of money was not a necessity required by the exchange markets since they thrived without using money for thousands of years. Definitely an abstract idea of money was nothing beneficial to the ordinary producers and simple consumer-producer markets or had any role in enhancing of the social order or economic efficiency.

The money was not needed by the ordinary people but was introduced as a controlling agent and sophisticated appropriatory (looting) tool by the ruling elites. The ancient markets were very successful using barter type of accounting for the trade of goods or commodity exchange that directly determined specific rate of exchange between two commodities such as for example two bushels of wheat for a “pile” of wood etc.

So why and how money came to be? While the rulers were more and more hungry for their lion share of the goods produced by the society which they could not consume or store in their natural form, they demanded other ways of payment of their ever-increasing share in the form of fees, taxes, vested interest or direct participation in the market/economic operations, etc.,

On other hand the trader elites, with extended reach of trading expeditions discovered social/economic/cultural disparities between distant regions related to the diet or type of production which required different tools, foods or goods in general. The traders often could not buy locally anything that would be of interest of buyers or traders in a distant locations hence their enthusiasm for the idea of a compact, so-called universal commodity which would be similarly valued at all locations, accepted by the local administrators, and traders, easy to transport and relatively scarce so it would hold its value long-term.

But there was a problem. There was no such a universal commodity accepted or needed by all. Some communities valued water, some certain foods, farm animals, fur, other stones, minerals, or certain tools or different metals depending on the local economy, ecology and climate with little in common among them. Therefore, the money in whatever form had to be imposed on the markets and societies against their will or need, which meant a necessity to write it into the people’s culture, religion and if this was ineffective to impose, useless for most, idea of money by means of the law or brutal suppression. What the ruling elites made sure of was that they monopolized, whatever material representation or symbolism of the idea of money was ultimately enforced i.e. gold, silver, shells, precious stones etc.

The reason why it took a forceful imposition of the money onto the human societies was that it is illusory, an abstract, intangible symbol of something, with no clear definition of meaning, purpose or consistent interpretation, that obfuscates and intervenes into the economic relations, important sub-category of the overall human relations. The money interpreted as an abstract representation of the power and opulence, was recognized long time ago as interfering with the intimate relations between members of the egalitarian society i.e. affects morality, sense of justice, equality, cooperation and support, love and marriage, sharing and sacrifice, all that by destroying a symmetry of those relationships, important balance between give and take.

To deal with a moral aspect of money, power infused religious authorities came up with assertions that through power, money, wealth and opulence bestowed on the chosen ones, gods express their will and consequently discouraged believers from questioning, in moral terms, money’s socially destructive power. Since then moral justification of the wealth and worshiping of godly gift of money began. As a result, an inequality has been embossed into the religions as a sacrosanct will of the All Mighty.

The fact is that money was an invention of the ruling elites by the ruling elites and for the ruling elites as three things in one. First, as symbolic means of a payment of dues or taxes extorted from the members of society, second as a symbol of a permanent, universal exchange commodity, facilitating the large-scale trade and huge per trade profits, and third as an abstract illusory instrument of storing, the rulers’ defined and determined, value of the wealth appropriated via political means from the producers or laborers, and hence enabler of the accumulation of wealth via persuasion or force by the ruling elites and affiliated courtiers of the system. These are three quite different abstract ideas of money forced upon the society and sanctioned under the governmental financial system.

The money was originally a creation of the governing bodies as a central part of a primitive financial system designed to subjugate the trade and economic activities towards political objectives of the ruling elite. Such a system became predecessor to the early banking and financialization of the trade where the accumulated money could be lent for exuberant profits using just discovered compound interest miracle of the credit expansion.

The money, in its reincarnation, as universal exchange commodity, supplied a mechanism for providing universal collateral for the longer term lending uncommon in the barter systems and hence unleashing the evil of money indebtedness for first time in the history of civilization. Money was used in variety of applications such as it could secure credit that could not previously be secured by a commodity and lowering perceived trading investment risks. What’s more insidious in the process of lending money, is that it required payback of a loan in the units of something most producers were not producing and hence were pushed into the volatile commodity exchange markets where they could suffer additional loses, in contrast to the barter trades which required payments of the due account only in a form of goods or labor received or close equivalents.

The ominous synergy developed between the lending of money in order to purchase goods, labor or investment and the commodity exchange market itself. All the investments had to necessarily come back to the market to be converted to the money or to generate money via some economic activity and to distribute the money profits, instead of directly used for the purchasing of goods and distribute the goods themselves as profits. These purposeful limitations were persistently creating an artificial demand for the money and in the process depressed the demand for most of commodities.

The process of forcing the money into the barter markets, what we would call an initial, ancient QE, by itself heavily depressed the demand for the commodities, a phenomenon widely observed in today’s advanced, computerized global commodity markets awashed with liquidity.

The money then and now is being quietly propagandized as a representation of an individual claim to the fruits of labor and ingenuity of the society as a whole, sanctioned by the system of political power. But if fact it often represents a false and unjust claim to the labor or wealth produced by others.

The illusion of money as a commodity, storage of value of appropriated (stolen) labor from the producers, laborers by the ruling elites via economic regulations, fees, taxes, rents, and tolls as well as volatile commodity exchange rates are imposed upon the people who are being diligently trained to believe or accept it as a natural and useful. The so-called hard money, subjected to the same rules as commodities; gold, silver, diamonds is an illusion of a store value or capital, and in fact as a commodity its value can go to zero if the possibility to make profit on it goes to zero which could easily be achieved by an arbitrary decree of the ruling elite.

If stripped from their “money” status and therefore regaining their physical characteristics, they may posses some use-value determined mostly by the needs of artisans, producers, culture or tradition, somewhat above value of metal/material itself. The money merely as a commodity was devised solely as the instruments of accumulation of potential profits into, what we would call, representation of a capital, a symbol of all the concentrated abstract value of the labor appropriated from the society by means of imposed economic and financial rules as decreed by the ruling power.

There was no country in the world, nor it is now, where the rich and opulent are not openly ruling or are in a close intimate financial, family, sexual (gay or straight) relationships with the rulers or power brokers. The so-called wealth is always sanctioned by the power. If rich fall out of the favor of rulers they quickly lose their legitimacy, or justification of their financial status. Their economic crimes of stealing from the people, are suddenly disclosed, and soon they lose their wealth by the appropriation of the assets by government/courts or are forced to transfer them as a distressed assets to those loyal to the power elite. On rare occasions they may even lose freedom or life.

The wealth is nothing but an abstract entity sanctioned by the power and expressed in the units of fictitious money. If the power says you are wealthy, you are wealthy overnight. If the power says you poor you are poor overnight regardless of your individual talents, skill or efforts, all your hard money, real estate, fixed assets and liquid financial assets return to their true form of merely worthless illusion. Because, the value of everything in the economy and society that is based on the money is an illusion made “real” by the ruling power.

The fiat money i.e. circulating currency was developed by the ruling elites as even more insidious form of already socially disruptive illusion of the hard money. Having practically no use-value, except for making short notes or emergency toilet paper, it could be proliferated among the unsuspecting population at little cost of the printed-paper while it can be made to “symbolize” almost unlimited (nominal) value.

It was extraordinary mind job perpetrated by the government propaganda to convince people that almost the same looking sheet of paper with different number of zeros printed on it means something different because the bank or government says so. It is a very well-known fact that the government decrees the fiat money; it is money because they say so. Any recognized or government sanctioned money is a decreed money, never mind if it is hard or soft and hence is an illusion, a conspiracy against ordinary people.

So why did plutocrats bother with an introduction of the fiat money? The main value of this “invention” or “disruptive innovation” is its hyper-ability to appropriate our wealth or labor, not only from us living but also from our yet unborn children and grandchildren with a high-speed ease and impunity through the evil of modern financial system devised solely for a convenient and efficient larceny. For this fictitious money, the ruling elites will undoubtedly wage more wars for more power and more theft and accumulation of a loot from new nation-slaves and their unborn yet children and grandchildren.

The only benefactors of the fiat money are those who print it. The only benefactors of the hard money are those who hoarded it. None of it has any use for the ordinary people who work for living.

Is the Bitcoin something else? Is it new people’s money, free from the government or corporate theft? No. Not at all. The transparent block chain idea has some applicability to secure the unique transactions however; Bitcoin has the same faults as any money implementation, gold, silver or fiat for most of us since it is an illusion of arbitrary or nominal value, beyond its commodity value, unless used simply as unit at transparent accounting ledger for our labor.

Nobody, except for those few, plutocrats or what they want us to call them; Wall Street entrepreneurs, who already hoarded most of the existing Bitcoins could benefit. Those government nurtured and funded plutocrats would be main beneficiaries if they are able to propagandize Bitcoin legitimacy into the gullible minds of desperate masses. Something which 50% of nominal value is in the hands of two people and at least 75% in hands of one thousand is not even money or currency but a craze liken to the beanie bears in nineties especially in context of hundreds of other digi-coins, equally useless as “peoples” money, supposedly government independent money since such a thing does not exist.

Some more insidious form of the block chain technology equipped with even more NSA designed thieving backdoors than original Bitcoin has, could likely be implemented by the FED and Wall Street banks as a global replacement for their cumbersome FX transaction processes as a result of ongoing government led destruction of the illusion of fiat money system that is rapidly loosing its spell over impoverished billions all over the world. But it won’t change anything. Only money, procured, promoted and fully controlled by the ruling elites local or global may be allowed and distributed among the population, via financial propaganda or under a threat of physical intimidation, prison or murder because the very power prerogatives rely on it.

V. Analysis.

Any objective analysis results in clear and obvious conclusion that money in itself is an illusion, creation of those who rule us to efficiently extract or steal our hard labor under a propaganda of equivalency of the material items we need or are conditioned to want and mere symbols of a vague and unverifiable commitment of the ruling power. In fact there is no equivalency between materiality and illusion. We do not work for money since we cannot eat it. We work for food and shelter, for our family and community basic needs; everything else is a pure propaganda that leads us astray from these basic truths.

They have to brainwash us to make us forget these fundamental truths and set us up for a chase after illusions of the promised land, wealth or opulence, or to satisfy our drive for the propaganda constructed orgasmic desires or lust for dominance or power, while they are robbing us blind. Yes, via the methods of propaganda, extortion, manipulation as well as brutal force they blinded us to their crimes, malfeasance leading us toward division, conflicts and destruction of our fundamental values of family and community. They want to destroy our ability to perceive true physical world where money does not exist, as a matter of an objective fact.

The propaganda of earthly desires is not enough to keep people in their torpor, hence the ruling power invented religions as to counteract moments of sanity and moments of human solidarity beyond money and power negotiated relationships in the society. Compassion, guilt, remorse, human feelings of common humanity had to be hijacked by the high priests who stole meaning of these words and concocted false narratives of the evil people and godly gods ruling from above of any scrutiny, above humanity, beyond any human judgment, the characteristics desired by the plutocratic elites and apparently already attained by some of them in their minds.

The complete fusion of the religion and power is a historical fact true even today if we include modern secular religions i.e. ideologies. Since the center of power revolves around the concentrated wealth and political affluence, money takes its place on altars in the churches, temples, mosques etc., via displays of visible and hidden opulence and/or as via imposition of a “divine” values of truth, fairness and justice through the appropriate monetary transactions.

Today’s TBTF banks are beneficent of those monetary morality plays by paying off a fraction of their stolen money to those in power who enabled it, to “morally justify” their past and the future hard-core crimes, while victims are punished and condemned as immoral. Neither forgiveness nor undoing of wrongs, or repentance or atonement is needed in these temples of money. All we need to please the modern Plutus, the global god of money is more money.

The idea of money is a historical, social product of the ruling elite drive to exploitation of their subjects and cannot be considered separately from the state bureaucracy and financial system run by the same ruling elites otherwise we won’t understand anything.

All other financial products, from the so-called deposits to loans to bonds, bills, stocks, futures, currencies, options, and all zoo of derivatives are nothing but forms of money illusion, created through the law and government policies or advertising, to exploit our creative labor, which constitute the only value, the only meaningful value in the economy and society, measured with passing time of our lives we forever sacrifice for sake of our humanity and betterment of our family and community. Everything else is an illusion to confuse us via fantastic narratives covering up secret machinations of the financial system.

One of the best-kept secrets is the fact that there are no banks; there only is one single bank, called financial system with worldwide reach through world central banking system. Hence, there is no circulation of any money or financial assets i.e. derivatives of money but just new entries in the obfuscated common ledger, multiplied by the fractional reserve scam, a private banking record that could be manipulated at will or erased with impunity without our knowledge.

When we take a loan, the bank does not create money from thin air, as common tale tells, since money itself is an illusion of value. What for gullible public is actually created is an illusion of bank’s wealth, a lie of possessing all the money to lend. The only value in the loan transaction is our government’s enforced commitment to enslave ourselves to the evil of compound interest at system determined rate, for the system determined amount of our labor and for the system determined years ahead, to give away our lives, believing in the propaganda that it is worth to be abused by the ruling elites often to achieve something illusory, meaningless, something we truly do not want or need.

The expose of the so-called wealth and opulence, high life, fake billionaires and oligarchs, mostly inbred retards, sick stricken by catatonia with brief murderous rampages of unwelcome conscientiousness are just propaganda excretions to fool us about existence of an unabridged wealth bestowed upon deserving few by the ruling power. In fact all those characters are just show puppets of their power elite masters. The MSM made-up stories about brilliance of some brain-dead, half decomposed oracles or socially diseased investment geniuses are just propaganda products, necessary to maintain an illusion of money and its supposedly unlimited power to realize our sickest dreams.

Another best kept secret held by the opulent is that the illusion of money may only bring illusion of easy life, illusion of influence, illusion of knowledge and wisdom, illusion of authority and respect, illusion of happiness via living large and an illusion of ecstatic experience of shitting into the golden toilet bowl in the presence of three foreign butlers inhaling stinky air, nothing else.

The only reality is power. The money is designed to buy momentary peace from unquenched desire of the imposed illusions for those who are exploited and robbed daily in this rat race called life. For the ruling elites money is nothing, simply a tool to control and exploit their slaves, the subjects of a brutal political power.

VI. Curse of Plutus.

The true problem is not a form of money, such as gold, silver coins, currency, bonds, stocks etc., or Bitcoin or other “net-coins”. The problem is in idea of money in itself. The money, brought to “life” via decrees of the power elites, asserts an arbitrary value over human being and that’s morally wrong. While we differ in physical statues, skills and specialized mental capacities, we are equal as human beings no matter who we are. This truism is being viciously and brutally eradicated from our conscientious mind. We are multidimensional in our environment and society and no single value can adequately measure or define us and no apriori value could be assigned to our life, existence or importance to the society. The money has neither use nor place in lives of the ordinary people.

However, money has an important role in the so-called “Trinity of Command and Control” reigning over society, a dogma sacrosanct within all the ruling elites. The trinity transposes the attributes of power over human society and represents the concept of unity of power: Power of Sword, Power of Word and Power of Money. All those three as one serve as interchangeable, complementary tools of control and hence are used for the purposes of preserving and/or expanding powers.

The story of money is a story of control and cannot be understood without understanding this unholy trinity as one, as unity of purpose, dialectic process of enslavement of a body and mind in order to construct a perfect individual biological machine unaware of the gruesome cannibalistic reality. By means of creating our wants and desires with the help of nurtured greed and opulence supported by the necessary brutality, rulers built a mental prison and chained our dying free will to the fallacies of free choice, bright future and unlimited opportunities; paranoid delusions of our strictly regimented and brief existence.

Plutus was a son of Demeter, goddess of the harvest, a blind child who drank from a horn of plenty. Against his mother warning he shared, with good people in need, the money, wealth and treasure his mother nourished him with. After many years, young Plutus, a divine child regained his sight and was traumatized to see how all the good people he gifted turned into the horrifying living dead, the slaves of greed. Plutus pleaded with his mother to take away from people the destructive power of money and return them to humanity, but she could not. She said; now they are on their path to the providence of oblivion and no god can turn them away from their fate. As a penalty for his deed, gods placed a curse on Plutus. The curse compelled him to proliferate an insidious mythology of money and opulence among good people and watch them destroying themselves. He continues to do so everyday.


8 thoughts on “PLUTUS AND MYTH OF MONEY.

  1. You miss from your preamble the critical role promiscuity played in intellectual development and social coherence. Man is the most sexually active of all mammals, and males and females are sexually aroused all year, and use sex as a recreation and pacifier. Because early tribes were promiscuous and shared mating they developed co-operation and this developed language which developed the size of the brain. all human progress starts with our huge sex drive. But it wasnt a possessive drive but a communal ‘group sex’ drive. Children would be tribal children as no-man could know which were his as all men coupled with all women so all men supported all children and all women. Human ascendency is based on frequent promiscuous sex.


    • Definitely, tribal sexual practices were very instrumental in formation of early tribal-society and ensured high level of cohesion. The importance of practicing promiscuity and sharing responsibility for offspring cannot be overstated. The Homo Sapiens in first hundred of thousands of years off emerging likely did not find safe niches in the animal ecosystems and lived precarious life. It was mostly due to lack of adequate physical attributes so fate of the species was always threaten and hence ability to proliferate when and with whom needed were together, with development of brain analytical capabilities and sophisticated forms of collaboration, major reasons why we survived at all. However, in this post I wanted to focus more on social/economic relationships a subset of human relationships within early society and today with just brief and obviously incomplete background about societal development.


      • Money can be anything.
        At some point, a tribe faces the following fork in its path: degenerate due to inbreeding or bring in (or go get) foreign blood. Trade is a natural consequence of human activity. Money becomes a consequence of trade.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Money is “a promise to complete a trade”. It is created by traders when they make a promise to deliver over some time and space. It is destroyed by traders when they deliver. If they default, it is reclaimed through interest collections equal to the default, guaranteeing INFLATION = DEFAULT – INTEREST = zero … all the time … everywhere.

    Knowing this, go back an read the essay again. Pretty ridiculous isn’t it.


  3. I understand that for some people, money is an emotional subject resulting in nervous reactions, confusion, and denial in order to hold on to their beliefs. That’s understandable. Anyone after being exposed to lifetime of lies about money spewed through MSM propaganda would at least initially resists acknowledging his/her indoctrination.

    So here is again major point in question. Money is not a promise to complete trade or anything, consult Wikipedia or other academic sources in that matter, but financial obligation is. The financial obligations are derivatives of money, not money itself, and are related to debt and credit, expressed in terms of money or not, and often are exclusively tied to particular transactions and/or persons involved and nobody else. The money in general is a financial medium/tool based on abstract concept of representation of a “VALUE” not commitment to any trade. The hard money is not destroyed, just like gold coins are not “destroyed” after transaction is completed but changed hands and instead may be withdrawn from circulation for a while, so-called savings. The fiat money is a coupon, a different story. It could be easily manipulated since it has no intrinsic value but it is just a symbol of some unspecified variable relative value determined at redemption as a legal tender.

    The post is aimed to spur honest discussion about role of money in our lives and in society at large, very controversial subject and I welcome all those participating.


  4. For the believers in the Bitcoin here is a link to the story about internal split among founders of Bitcoin that will likely spell the end to the Bitcoin as we know it and illustrates unfortunate trend to centralize the block chain processing power and hence to hijack, critical to Bitcoin, the peer-to-peer distributed network, by big banking interests as I was warning in my post.


  5. Hi. I was introduced to you by Information Clearing House which just published your latest post. Thanks for your writing. I want to read more of your posts before saying much more than thanks. This post on money is exciting because of its apparent truth value. There are practically no writings that I would re-read. Yours may be an exception but only time will tell. -Dennis Leary

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s