Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Money-anity

Lots of people will tell you that money isn't a bad thing, just a tool that can be used for good or ill. I don't agree with them. I don't think they've really thought it through. You see, money, all money, is the representative symbol of a belief system, and that belief system is toxic, in and of itself.

It's true that the monetary system currently in use is an especially virulent version of the disease. It is a pyramid scheme and it will end the way all pyramid schemes do. Thus far, that collapse has been deferred only by increasing it's scale. That's what is behind the push toward a centrally controlled global economy. Some people will tell you that debt-based issuance of money is the cause of our trouble. Some say that a return to the gold standard would suffice as a solution. They don't seem to understand that evils such as debt-based and fiat monies are implicit in, and inevitable developments of, the belief system that money represents.

The most important question that needs asking in order to see the truth about money is: "Why do I believe that money is necessary?" It's fear of scarcity, isn't it? We think that, without money, we'd have no way of demanding that our needs and wants will me met by others. We don't feel secure in simply asking. What if the answer is no? With money, we don't have to ask. We can instead present the other with enough magic tokens, and then they will have to give us what we want. This is assuming that you have some magic tokens. Money makes interpersonal trust irrelevant and unnecessary. The primary, bottom line tenet of the religion of money is: Other people can't be trusted and shouldn't have to be.

This is an incredibly destructive belief. All by itself it is sufficient to condemn the use of money. We see the result of it everywhere. Our societies don't expect, much less require, any sort of communal responsibility or standards of fairness on the part of individuals. They allow predatory psychopaths to flourish without fear of repercussions from the saner majority. Provided only that they have enough money, they can do as they like. This is freedom, according to those who own the system.

What if all the money disappeared? What if, for instance, a massive EMP burst were to wipe out all electronic records so no one knew who owned what anymore? What would we do? Sit around with our thumbs up our asses while we starved to death? Maybe we would, given the level of idiocy that Money-anity has reduced us to. Then again, we might have a collective epiphany and decide to do what people did for untold ages before money existed. We might decide to voluntarily cooperate for our mutual benefit. We could raise our children to be responsible, trusting, and trust-worthy.

Socialisation is a powerful force! Just look at all the irrational, crazy shit we've been socialised to accept. If children were daily witnesses to their elders' voluntary participation in the common good, they would copy that. Of course they would. The best evidence now indicates that psychopathy is largely biological, caused by injury or malformation in certain parts of the brain, so such individuals will probably always exist. But they are rare, and without the protection of money, the harm they could do would be small. In a society of mutual trust and responsibility, they would stand out as the moral cripples that they are.

Another belief implicit in the use of money is the legitimacy of assigning relative value to human beings. In other words, some people are worth more than others. What I find really horrifying is that this belief is presented as a justification of money. It's apologists claim that money serves to reward those who contribute to society and penalise those who do not, and that this is a good thing. For one thing, it doesn't work that way in practice. For another, they are wrong to assume that they know what counts as a "contribution". A person who has disabilities that make them dependent for life is simply assumed to offer no benefit to society. I would argue otherwise, since that person serves to teach others about compassion, generosity and responsibility, and those lessons do benefit society.

Money is just not benign. The only way it could be, is if it's use were confined to trade in inessentials. Current monetary policy is demonstrably heading in the opposite direction. As I write, the would-be rulers of the world are meeting to design a new economic system to take the place of the one that is about to collapse. It won't really be new. It will be same system, only global and centrally managed. Either the IMF, the World Bank, the BIS, or some combination of those, will be given the power to issue the world's new reserve currency: the Bancor. After that, all nations will have to hold Bancors in order to trade internationally in certain essential items. If the issuers of the Bancor do not like the policies of a government, they will have the unchallengeable power to impose economic sanctions unless it's demands are met. Expect global austerity and the privatisation of everything.

Those in charge of fixing the economic crisis are the last people we should entrust with it. They were the ones who presided over the failure and profited from it. They failed to predict this crisis. Why? I predicted it. I told people ten years ago that this would happen. I even told them when it would happen: now. I didn't have to be psychic to know what was coming. I based my warning on the realisation that the system is a pyramid scheme. Those who designed this system knew what they were doing. The evidence is right there on the American dollar (present reserve currency of the world), a pyramid with a capstone not yet in place. The Bancor is that capstone. Either the masters of the old and new financial order are incompetent, or they are liars and thieves. In neither case should they be trusted.

The good news is, we can end their predation any time we choose, if we act in solidarity. We don't even have to do anything! We can accomplish it by not doing something: not supporting the banks. If enough people refused to pay their mortgages, loans and credit-card debt, the banks would fall, just like that. I've been telling as many people as I can about this option, planting seeds in their minds for the inevitable future time when the status quo is no longer tolerable for the majority. In my estimation, that future is not far off, because the global elite have no self-restraint. They will never decide that they have enough power. They'll just keep pushing and pushing, and their arrogance will make them overstep the limit of human tolerance. The tipping point will come when the imagined burden of adult responsibility becomes less than the experienced cost of childish submission.

14 comments:

  1. Heard in my head today while contemplating the state of this mad world: "It's the fucking goddamn money. Screws up everything."

    I'm grateful that you wrote this to express so much more precisely and eloquently the how and why of it, the fact that it's an invention based on myopic self-interest and the assumption of a hostile universe. That what we need is mutual trust in each other and in the ability of universe to provide for us based on metaphysical principles. I envision a world where goods, services, and ideas flow freely, because that's how nature intended it. A world based on ever-expanding love and awareness.

    Thank you, sister. All the best to you in these times and always.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi BCth. Thanks for understanding.
    In Lak'ech.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I guess money is a response to fear, scarcity and mistrust. But it feels like a natural response, except that it's counterproductive (totally destructive in the long term). I think what's required is more than /not/ doing something: the promotion of an /alternative/ response to fear, scarcity and mistrust. Money is a product of our wonderful ability to abstract. It's just that it's a perversion of that ability, which obscures the truth.

    Oh, and it's an interesting exercise to attempt to translate that Latin inscription at the top of your page :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi speedbird. I agree that more is required to create a non-suicidal system. That can't really happen though, as long as the psychopathic elite remain in charge, and so the first step is to remove their power source, which is money. After all, they are helpless without it. Most of them probably couldn't even dress themselves without help. Who would be willing to do their bidding if not for money or the fear of it's lack?

    " Money is a product of our wonderful ability to abstract."
    Absolutely! It's a brilliant piece of magic. If only more people could see how it's done...
    In lak'ech

    ReplyDelete
  5. An interesting connection between psychopathy and the concept of money. And I'll tell you what the connection is between the two--it's confidence, and the confidence game.
    Don't think for a moment a psychopath is crippled without money, because they'll still play their game to get what they want from you whether they have your lolly in their sights or not.
    Take for example a society without money as we traditionally understand it, say the Aztecs. Where were the psychopaths in that scenario? Literally at the top of the pyramid, worshipping a god carved in their own blood streaked image, as still beating hearts thumping, roll down. Just as they are today.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Lukiftian. Good point. What you say is true; psychopaths would exist, with or without money, as will their prey, until society recognises them and takes sensible precautions.
    On the other hand, money does serve to normalise, conceal, and instutionalise their pathology. Religious dogmas have been used in much the same way, (and I guess you know where I stand on that,) but money has increased the scope of their power beyond any previously known limit. I mean, they have never succeeded in taking over the entire planet... until now.
    So yes, abolishing money wouldn't be sufficient, but at this point I think it is necessary, if only temporarily. I can't imagine how they can be restrained as long as their claim to own EVERYTHING is recognised as legitimate.
    In Lak'ech.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "they are wrong to assume that they know what counts as a "contribution"". Great post. I'll read more! All The Best.
    The Truth Seeker's Guide
    http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Postscript: It occurs to me that a problem with ALL economic systems is that they reward obstruction. If you have to go through me to get something, I can get 'rich'...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Truth Seeker. Thanks, and congratulations on your new blog.

    Hi Speedbird. Again, good point, although I'd say "monetary systems", since economic systems need not include money and could avoid that very unfortunate and destructive design flaw.

    ReplyDelete
  10. >> economic systems ... could avoid that very unfortunate and destructive design flaw.

    I'm having trouble seeing how! Even barter allows this. (I'm thinking back to the Bronze age, where massive wealth accrued to those who could control the tin routes). You have to go right beyond it to a different approach to society, based not simply on trading.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Speedbird, there's Mino, for example. In a system like Mino, the tin would not be intended for sale, and couldn't be sold. So disrupting the tin route wouldn't lead to profit. It would only hold up projects and piss people off.
    A completely different, but more beneficial, approach to society would absolutely be required. We'll probably have to hit bottom first. But the alternative is extinction, or worse.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Money is an ideology. I recently wrote about it, too, in reference to the idea of P2P. http://dreamandculture.blogspot.com/2011/05/monetary-systems-p2p-economy.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Genesis 47:13-26 is most enlightening.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's deja vu all over again!
    In Lak'ech.

    ReplyDelete