the root of all money: evil

Reality quiz:

Prince Nikola III Zrinski thaler minted in Gvozdansko castle, Croatia, in the early 16th century (until 1534)

Money can be very useful. Money allows for reliable access to things of value.
Paper money only has value when there is an organization enforcing it’s value. If the organization ceases to function to enforce the value of the paper money, the paper money has no value, like with the Confederate Dollar when the Confederacy collapsed or a casino’s tokens when the casino stops operating as a business.
The enforcing of the value of money involves force, like arrests, evictions, repossessions, foreclosures, levies, garnishments, and so on. When there is a revolution, like in Cuba, or when the US invaded Iraq or Vietnam or Korea etc, then that new pattern of force can change the possession of property (through a new redistribution of wealth as well as destruction and death) and will influence the enforcement of the prior currency systems of organized violence, similar to when the Union army defeated the US Confederate army and the prior currency system of the Confederacy ceased to operate.
In summary so far, currency systems are systems of organized violence. Even when dictators (called kings) instituted systems of claiming various amounts of wealth from various other people, the establishment of a particular new currency as the “lawful money” or “coin of the realm” was based on the actual operation of organized violence upon which the claims of tax liability were enforced.
No one already wanted to give up a bunch of livestock or produce for a little shiny coin or a casino token accepted at any of the dictator’s court outlets. The masses gave up those useful things for currency because of the threat of violence if they did not pay taxes or other tribute and the only way to pay those taxes was to buy the coins or tokens or currency of the dictator from the dictator’s outlets and at the exchange rates set by the dictator.
Obviously, a competing dictator or operation of a currency system of organized violence could influence or even overthrow a particular currency system, as when the US Confederacy “seceded.” Actually, “seceded” may be the terminology used by the winner of that dispute. Maybe the Confederacy was attempting to continue to operate under the Articles of Confederation from 1777 while the Union was claiming authority under the later Constitution of 1789. Maybe “secede” was a term that the Union used to label their colonial target’s “disloyalty,” like if the UN invaded China on the basis that China was seceding from the UN without getting proper permission from the UN. Or, consider if the UN invaded the US based (allegedly) on the US threatening to secede or withdraw from the UN.
So, why is it that the various currency enforcement systems of organized violence have used various substances as the selected material for minting a “coin of the realm?” Silver and gold have long been used as currencies. These substances were relatively durable (at least if alloyed with other metals) and were also rare. That is, it was not easy for just anyone to find a lot of gold, at least not in the places where gold was used as a currency. When large new sources of gold and silver from the American continent upset exchange rates in Europe, such as the California gold rush around 1849, new currency systems that did not use those substances were naturally explored, developed, and established.
The value to the operators of the system of organized violence was that access to the gold mines could be monopolized. The military dictators could assemble an army and take over all of the local mines in the area, then strictly limit the supply of minted “coin of the realm.” They would strictly limit the supply because they were the only ones with the technology and organization to monopolize access to the mines, to melt the metals and mint the coins, and of course to force the populace to exchange perfectly good livestock and produce for little casino tokens or coins of the realm or lawful money.
Next, unlike casinos, which may operate against other nearby casinos, governments violently discourage competition. Governments create criminal codes that criminalize unlicensed racketeering (AKA unlicensed taxation as in extortion) as well as unlicensed creation of money (counterfeiting). These criminal codes are enforced by organized violence. Similarly, if someone tried to “break in” or trespass on the government’s mines and steal some unminted metal, that would be punished by organized violence, such as prompt execution.
Once the consistent nature of all currency systems and governments is clear, there is the additional subject of propaganda. Just as governments can declare that a neighboring geographical region is attempting to secede and must be annexed to insure for the freedom of the populace there, like if the UN announced that it is invading or occupying or “liberating” the US in it’s entirety (or even just Texas, like the US previously “liberated” Texas from Mexico), governments can also declare unlicensed operations of organized violence to be criminal, corrupt, evil, immoral, and so on.
One of the most universal taboos of propaganda would be propaganda itself. While organized violence is terrible (according to propaganda), nothing is quite so vile as propaganda. Anti-propaganda propaganda is essential for most any other propaganda to be accepted. If the masses go around creating and publicizing competing systems of propaganda, that can be very unfavorable for the economic interests or national security of a particular operation of organized violence.
By the way, here is apparently a real gold coin, but counterfeit in that it was (to the best of my knowledge) not issued by the Confederate States of America (and perhaps by the Union):
Once propaganda is monopolized, then various branches of propaganda can announce that they are unrelated. For instance, the churches and the media outlets can all issue statements declaring the separation of church and media. Further, the government and the public school system can issue statements that they are entirely isolated operations.
Actually, propaganda may not even really focus on certain issues. Propaganda has to be believable, like the saying “a war to end all wars” or “peace-keeping” missiles.
However, if the masses can be distracted and confused in regard to enough issues of hysterical drama and controversy, then it may not be required to indoctrinate the masses specifically to be morally repulsed (ashamed/terrified) by any mention of the possibility of the existence of propaganda. The masses may be adequately trained to be reactively outraged about new revelations (press releases?) concerning how a particular currency system has been discovered to be a racketeering fraud from the start or how a particular government has been accused of being an operation of organized violence from the start or how a particular politician is accused of being corrupt or manipulative or just a little bit too pre-occupied with PR and public perception. The masses, in order to be properly influenced or governed in terms of their perceptions and behaviors, can be propagandized about morality, criminality, spirituality, and so on.
Finally, consider the global diamond cartel DeBeers. They may have used deceit and blackmail and violence and so on to establish and maintain control of the supply of diamonds worldwide. They hired Edward Bernays (a famous propagandist) to help them place their products in movies, even having movies written around the entire subject of an emotionally-moving scene in which the handsome leading man presents a huge diamond to the female lead actress as he asks her to marry him (the actor). After dozens and dozens of movies repeating a female lead actress being receptive after being offered some large piece of diamond jewelry, then Bernays arranged to have the actresses (and eventually the British royalty) to wear elaborate diamond jewelry at press events where the media photographers would be photographing them in their diamonds.
Of course, it is all a scam (as in an advertising campaign or propaganda campaign). Diamonds were not widely available until recent centuries. There is no inherent connection between romance or getting married or sexual receptivity. The connection was indoctrinated on to the masses of movie-goers and then swiftly accepted by the culture overall.
Similarly, if DeBeers had the military capacity to dictate to the various governments of the world that those governments owed DeBeers taxes of 75 million carats of diamonds per year, that would be a lot like how kings dictated systems of currency on to their target populations. DeBeers could then dictate the exchange rate between “officially acceptable” units of diamonds relative to ounces of gold, barrels of oil, or bushels of corn.
Again, that pattern precisely parallels the origin of all currency systems of organized violence.  Dictators say if the standard of value is gold or diamonds or whatever thing for which they control the supply, such as crude oil. If the dictators can maintain a system of organized violence to enforce the exchange rate that they set, then that exchange rate persists.

Examples of German and Austrian Thalers compared to a U.S. quarter (bottom center)

In closing, let’s review the origin of the word “Dollar.” It refers to a particular amount of silver.

“The Thaler (or Taler or Talir) was a silver coin used throughout Europe for almost four hundred years. Its name lives on in various currencies as the dollar or tolar. Etymologically, “Thaler” is an abbreviation of “Joachimsthaler”, a coin type from the city of Joachimsthal(Jáchymov) in Bohemia, where some of the first such coins were minted in 1518. (Thal is German for “valley”. A “thaler” is a person or a thing “from the valley”. In 1902, the official spelling was changed from Thal to Tal.)”
Below is the image of the currency of an organization that previously operated a sovereign currency system of organized violence which no longer functions independently. That organization is called the United States of America, which was functionally superseded by the Federal Reserve in 1933:

This is a silver certificate which was, at least in the 1910s, redeemable for a Silver Dollar (coin) from the United States of America and it's outlets.

The above image is from an article I wrote in 2005 in which I detailed the future of the US economy as rising fuel prices would continue to rise and eventually would “pinch” (or pop) the economy, thus slowing credit trends (borrowing and lending), decreasing real estate prices and stock prices, and other producing predictable results as indicated therein (which have been manifesting in precise accord with what I indicated). See:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “the root of all money: evil”

  1. jrfibonacci Says:

    PB replied:

    Nice work… So, what are you saying exactly, JR, I don’t understand; there is no such thing as “right” or “wrong”? There is no such thing as more stable and more just social order based on natural law? There is no such thing as natural justice? What you are saying is absolutely true: About the coin of the realm, about coercive powers of the various governments, about courts, about diamonds, gold, monetary systems, violence, history of conquest, history of North America, even lions… This is all true, and most of it publicly known, I am sure, by the majority of the educated readers on this blog…

    What is even more disturbing are the conclusions you draw from the bloody history of organized violence. You conclude and encourage your readers to continue in the same vein, to become violent, deceiving or a slave. What you preach is the inevitability of the system and such social order at large, and you preach submission to its inevitability. You have a special gift of finding and emphasizing all that is wrong with human society… Your writings are dark, and almost make me wish I was a lion living in a pride — anything, but a human being, in fact…

    Well, let me respond to you by pointing out that the conclusion you draw from the history of Mankind are neither singular nor immutable, and even more so, not necessarily unique or even objectively true.

    The conclusions you draw essentially can be summarized as “become an unruly, conniving animal; steal while you can, lie if you will, kill if you must” (well, and don’t forget to invest all your life’s savings into some mutual fund, and swing trade if you’d like)… Not much of an alternative you leave us with now, do you?

    So, let me repeat myself, what are you saying? So what if all of what you are quoting and saying is true?! Does it really change who we are? What is your advice for us other than swing trading and investing in stocks? I do not see you have much to say other than “the world is bad, so be bad, and try to benefit from it.” Not much of a philosophy let me tell you that… Not much to go on… I say who cares, after all? We are going to do, what we are going to do in the end. No one really cares about the propaganda in the long run…

  2. jrfibonacci Says:

    I replied to PB:

    In a private email to you (the newest one in the dialogue between myself and the local deacon), the deacon made use of the term “faulty judgment,” I replied that the phrase “faulty judgment” reminds me of the phrase furniture chair and the old proverb about which chairs are more furniture and which are less furniture. It goes like this:

    “This chair is a furniture chair while that chair over there is not a furniture char.”

    Now, all judgments are interpretative as in symbolic. There is no such thing as a literal symbol or a literal interpretation- and of course I am just being playful with the words here to make a particular point which is not any more or less pointy than any other point that anyone else might make.

    Why do I mention all of this- well, that is a very questionable question, Mr. P.B.! However is it the right question or the wrong question?

    In fact, can you give me an example of a lion behavior that is wrong and a lion behavior that is right. Perhaps you will recognize that right and wrong are terminology used to encourage or discourage a particular audience in regard to a particular behavior.

    It is not wrong for lions to eat gazelles and right for them to eat baby elephants. They just eat whatever they eat. Since you do not direct the behavior of lions through propaganda models of conceptual morality, you do not identify any lion behavior as right or wrong FOR THE LIONS.

    That does not mean that you might not find it pleasant to see a movie of a lion and a lamb or gazelle cuddling together. That might be very soothing to you. Cool- that is whatever you make out of it for yourself.

    All chairs are equally furniture (for purposes of this pointing). All judgments are interpretative or symbolic or relational, and judgments of how flawed or perfect something is are also judgments. Thus, if I judge a particular judgment faulty and a particular judgment flawless, that is just another distinct new judgment- entirely valid, but not inherent to the thing being related to.

    Judgment is relational. Morality is relational. Interpretation is relational.

    Do you relate to money as something evil that you should avoid? Okay!

    Do you relate to money as something useful and interesting to study? Okay!

    You can relate to lions are wrong and clouds as right or to bacteria as wrong and to chairs as right. You can relate to patterns of behavior as wrong or right.

    If traveling down a one way street, there is such a thing as the wrong way (especially if there is oncoming traffic or even just a cop watching you). However, the street is just a street. It is just a social construct as to whether north is the right direction or south. Localities can change the direction of a street if they want, right?

    Two-way streets are often made in to one-way streets as urban centers get more and more busy. In Phoenix, we have something called “suicide lanes” which are two way lanes for turning most of the day, but one way toward the city center in the morning rush hours and one way away from the city center in the evening rush hours.

    Which is the right way to go in that lane? It depends.

    Court systems establish penalties and rewards through the use of organized coercion and, in recent centuries, typically some amount of propaganda. Is it right or wrong for court systems to do that? Can the constitution be unconstitutional? Who says that the constitution is valid? What about the articles of confederation?

    Which one is “right?” Well, what if might makes right?

    Certainly the US Constitution may not have had the support of the Iroquois Confederacy. To the Iroquois Confederacy, the US Constitution (and Articles of Confederation) may have all been “illegal” or “illegitimate” imperialist colonialism.

    As for “inevitability,” I preach that whatever is here now is inevitably already here as of now, but will eventually change radically. Is that clear?

    Also, P.B., I do not recall encouraging any of the things you said that I encouraged. Feel free to quote me.

    As for addressing my issues that you have been trained to be ashamed of or terrified of or disturbed by, that is precisely how it has been for me as well. I was exposed to training extremely similar to your own- even if thousands of miles away and decades apart.



    “The conclusions you draw essentially can be summarized as “become an unruly, conniving animal; steal while you can, lie if you will, kill if you must”

    Well, that is quite interesting. Since I am very confident that you did not listen to the youtube audio (yet), then you must have only read the text. So, I invite you to review what I wrote and copy and paste whatever conclusive references you might find therein which fit your references above. You may find that the conclusions which you claim that I made were actually conclusions that you made entirely on your own.

    Consider a compromise: I could have asserted that animals can be unruly as well as conniving and that humans are one type of animal. Some humans might admit that and others might focus on other topics and some might suggest other interpretations, but that is because humans have one thing that makes them quite distinct from the other types of animals: language.

    Furthermore, as for your conclusion to “kill if you must,” I find that quite preposterous. How can you possibly do something that you must do? It is morally wrong to do what you must. You must not do what you must do. Is that absolutely clear? 😉

    As for benefiting from the world, I remind you that I am an Austrian Economist. We are absolutely morally repulsed by the idea of benefiting from the world. [JOKING!]

    Furthermore, I have consistently and publicly discouraged people from most mutual funds for at least 10 years. I do not encourage people to try swing trading on their own as most people are not competent in that activity. If they want help, I can help. If they want to try it on their own anyway or over time learn to do it, I could repeat some of the many authors and service providers that I have already referenced.

    So, as for my advice to you, it is to study Austrian Economics if you like and consult a competent advisor to give you personalized recommendations if you like. You can determine for yourself who you consider to be most clear and calm amongst possible advisors or business partners, and I do not know if you will associate clarity and calmness with competence, but I certainly do.

  3. J R Fibonacci Hunn Says:

    PB replied further:


    re: “In fact, can you give me an example of a lion behavior that is wrong and a lion behavior that is right.”

    Oh, yes I can: a lazy-ass alpha male lion who sends the lionesses to hunt the zebras, while staying back and slapping around the cubs and stealing their meal, and then when other male lions attack the pride, he hides in the bushes until it is all over, and when the drought comes, he trades one of his lionesses for a mouthful of water to the crocodiles. A kind of a male lion who hangs out with hyenas and profits by selling them orphaned cubs and receives carryon kickbacks from the vultures…

    re: “It is not wrong for lions to eat gazelles and right for them to eat baby elephants.”

    Of course not — IF they are doing it because they are hungry, and not just for fun… I wouldn’t mind them eating the baby elephants or even Bambi, for that matter, for as long as they didn’t offer to babysit for them, and then turned around and ate them…

    re: “That does not mean that you might not find it pleasant to see a movie of a lion and a lamb or gazelle cuddling together.”

    For your information, I would find that deeply disturbing and unnatural.

    re: “Do you relate to money as something evil that you should avoid? Okay! ”

    Oh, I love money, and I need lots of it, and I do not want to part with it by voluntarily giving it to somebody else, such as for investment or sefkeeping… No, I do not find it inherently evil, although the means of obtaining it often than not — are…

    re: “Do you relate to money as something useful and interesting to study? Okay!”

    Not really. Money is just means towards ends to me…

    re: “You can relate to lions are wrong and clouds as right or to bacteria as wrong and to chairs as right. You can relate to patterns of behavior as wrong or right.”

    Again, a Strawman! I do not consider lions or bacteria or even clouds wrong. They are a fact of life for me. I kill them or hide from them if they annoy or try to get me… Now, the patterns CAN be wrong or right. You just need a context to make this judgment…

    re: “However, the street is just a street. It is just a social construct as to whether north is the right direction or south.”

    Well, again, you need a context to make a judgment. The North IS the right direction if the French Bakery I am headed to is located north of where I live…

    Again, if there is such a thing as rain, it doesn’t mean I have to get drenched every time it rains. Why not get an umbrella, try to hide away under the tree, or build a shelter?! You’re like a guy who says that the rain is inevitable, so one must adapt and get used to getting soaked to teh bone in rain water… Why?! Why not try to change things for a change?! JR, I think you went down to such a low level in your quest for truth that you’ve lost the track of basic truisms of this fascionating condition called “life”…

  4. J R Fibonacci Hunn Says:


    “You need a context to make a judgment.”

    That’s a fascinating theory, darling. However, I just do not know what to say about it though because I just do not have any possible context whatsoever from which to judge it.

    “J.R., why don’t you try to change whether or not it is raining by sheltering yourself by opening an umbrella?”

    PB, you are up to your old trickery again. You know that I would never try to change whether or not it is raining by opening an umbrella. That would be immoral. It is better to get soaked down to the bone than to open an umbrella in order to valiantly and patriotically try to change whether or not it is raining as well as whether or not anyone gives Ron Paul a thousand umbrellas as a campaign donation. 😉

  5. J R Fibonacci Hunn Says:

    I only touched quickly on the issue of “inevitability” so far. Here’s more.

    If humans continue to exist, which isn’t inevitable, but close enough to inevitable for now, then there’s the issue of language which these humans encounter. Other species don’t encounter language as an issue, but we do, right?

    Language involves symbolic codes of sound (and even involves written symbols that further represent the symbolic vocalizations). Language is interpretative or relational. There’s no inherently right or wrong way to spell or pronounce a word, like color or colour are British and American variations, and then other similar languages may have similar variations. In fifteen years, it may be acceptable within some subculure to spell it kuh-ler as in “hey, mommy, look at my art in the kuh-lering book!”

    So, language allows for variations in the interpretations of the symbolic codes of language. One can relate to the kuh-lering book in many ways. The same book may be called childish, amazing, interesting, boring, corrupt, holy, unconstitutional and so on. Different ways of relating are what Petros mentioned as the “context” behind any judgment (as in a way of relating to something).

    In 1 context, the kuh-lering book is a prized possession with sentimental value. In another, the book is excellent kindling to start a fire. Those are two entirely valid ways of relating to the book, both involving language.

    Another thing that language allows for is variation in the publicity of a communication. If I tell only you about a particular book, then we might call it “our secret.’ If I tell lots of people, it is not a secret anymore. So, virtually all communications begin as secrets and then slowly or quickly get publicized or not. Further, stories can be changed as they get publicized. You may read something of mine while however distracted or focused and he may then talk about it a few weeks later but leave out parts of it and emphasize parts of it and even distort or re-interpret parts of it. Variation between what I wrote and what he says is inevitable.

    Language can also include variations in sincerity. A joke may be nonsense as in pretend or pretentious or fictional or mythological or proverbial or imaginary or lying or deceptive. Again, most constructions in language contain a degree of ambiguity and inaccuracy and a degree of specificity and accuracy as well. It varies. That variation is inevitable.

    Lots of variations are inevitable in language. It is also inevitable that lions will hunt and that humans in the midst of scarce resources will compete, at least to some degree, such as in capitalist competition or in warfare. There are lots of ways of competing.

    Humans compete for access to food and sexual partners and things like that plus they have trade secrets and spies and propaganda and disinformation and courts systems of organized violence. One company or organization does not share or lend it’s “peace-keeping missiles” to the folks they are trying to exploit or kill. The European colonists did not partner with the natives and the Israelis do not partner with the Palestinians (and I could use thousands of other examples like when the Boers and British were competing for dominance over the region at the bottom of Africa rich in gold… and diamonds).

    When there is a huge imbalance in military capacity, like between the US-backed Israelis and the Palestinians, exploitation is predictable if not inevitable. Or, when there are able-bodied lions near some wounded young gazelles, the gazelles are likely to be targeted for lunch.

    However, ultimately, “inevitable” is just another word. My relatively dismissive treatment of it yesterday was partly because I am not so committed to arguing about language as some may be. If PB wants to argue that I argued for inevitability of this or that, so what? I figured he would be more interested in other things because I know that I am.

  6. J R Fibonacci Hunn Says:

    I took the above comment and made this webcam video from it:

  7. the linguistic isolating of justice from money « power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci Says:

    […] the root of all money: evil ( See also my website: […]

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: