The fictions of a gold backed system

This was a response detailing the fictions still embedded within ‘lawful money'(gold backed), how there is very little difference between a gold backed system and a fiat system:

I note that in your response you did not address the points regarding *conversion* that I have made nor the underlying fiction that allows these conversions to occur and be accepted by the majority. I’m going to re-state these because they are pertinent to the discussion *I’m* having which is about getting to the foundation of the fictions that are being pointed at individuals all over the globe.

Let’s look at what I was *actually* talking about: the fiction known as ‘gold backed money’. You said “gold is money because it has intristic [sic] value since it is rare and it takes a lot of work to dig it out of the earth.”

There are two broad issues embedded within your statement here: the first is, who says the gold is the money? Who decreed that the world needed money and that this was how it had to be? Who sets the intrinsic ‘value’ of gold in order to make it the money standard? Who is it that decides ‘this is how much it shall be worth’ and how is this value enforced?

In earlier histories on this planet gold was considered important because it was *beautiful*, it was easy to work and it was considered to have other properties that some would call ‘metaphysical’ (and others would consider part of the quantum mechanics of the multiverse). These properties resulted in gold being dedicated to various spiritual pursuits, to temples, to the craftsmanship of the gold as an expression of spiritual and artistic perspective.

The relationship to gold morphed alongside the rise of civilisations: gold became ‘money’, the tool and standard of those with the forces, the right of rule (by whatever rationalising that fictional ‘right’ was founded on and which in the beginning was *always* by claim of decree by some ‘god’ or another). Gold and the fictional ‘right to rule’ are intertwined, yet the ‘right to rule’ is a fiction.

Gold backed ‘money’- which is what *I* was talking about in my original post- is an essential part of this fiction. Why do I say this? Because *any* decree of ‘standarisation’- the mechanism of being able to control the ‘worth’ or ‘measure’ of anything, including the value of gold- requires some way of enforcing this standard. This in turn requires a ruling heteronomy of some kind. Always. ‘Democratic’ rule is a heteronomy, the ‘right’ of 51% of the group to dominate and control the other 49%. Always.

Does anyone believe that ‘democratic’ processes are effective? That such process of domination cannot be perverted? Has ‘democratic’ anything at all demonstrated itself to be an effective, intelligent way of doing things? We are now discussing a system whereby a group – in secret or ‘democratically’, both systems being inherently corruptible- ‘decides’ that money is a great way to steal resources from those without money. Money is the fiction that they created in order to achieve this.

It doesn’t matter to me that the majority of individuals have adopted the fiction of money and regurgitate the heteronomy’s propaganda about how money is ‘necessary’ and about how the ‘redistribution of wealth’ is possible and all the other nightmares-dressed-as-fairytales that individuals unthinkingly spout about ‘money’ (in part because they are fundamentally afraid of losing whatever economic advantage *they* have in relation to the world of poverty that is readily observable)- this thought process based on fiction is as ridiculous to me as the mythology of ‘trickle down economics’ has consistently proven itself to be- yet there are those that insist on taking that mythology and applying it to the fiction that ‘gold backed money’ is better because it’s *real*.

Money isn’t real because the concept of a ‘monetary system’ is a fiction based on underlying fictions of ownership, property and the right to rule; ‘money’ is an idea that some have agreed to because it serves their desires and goals. It’s a fiction because it’s not how the world- or the multiverse- behaves: just because millions of people agree that something is so- like the world is flat, like the earth is the centre of the universe, like individuals have the right to rule over other individuals because of force, that little bits of paper have intrinsic value because a group has a big pile of gold and they’ve decreed that paper to be valuable- doesn’t make it so. This is at the heart of ‘fiction’ and consensus reality. The dominant paradigm is a consensus reality, which is one of the reasons why the enforcers of the consensus reality dub those who do not agree as ‘enemies’.

This same group decides what the gold standards will be; they have the necessary ability to enforce these standards-often brutally- and we know such systems always end up being corrupted. The whole banking system *started* with gold and has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be both corrupt and corruptible, for many reasons.

Perhaps the second issue in your statement has a clue as to one of the many reasons why: “it takes a lot of work to dig it out of the ground”.

Are the individuals who are going to profit from the gold doing the digging? Is that how it worked historically? No, it didn’t, and it still doesn’t: the majority of individuals who work the mines are in wage slavery to those who have learned how to play the game, how to be better Alpha predators and amass more at the expense of the lives of other individuals. The gold on the planet now has been mined through the slavery and entrapment of others; those who are not enslaved rarely wish to spend their lives miles underground in deadly conditions for the sake of a metal, unless their *passion* is metallurgy or some other calling. Those who would have to mine the gold in order to profit hugely from it on a grand scale opt for other ways of getting their hands on such gold- stealing, war, secret dealings etc.

Who has decided that ‘money’ is the way resources are going to be ‘managed’ on the planet?
Who are the individuals who are profiting from this?
What fictions have been sold as ‘truth’ in order to support this idea of ‘how things are’?
Who decides what ‘value’ gold has, what value ‘money’ has, what value a life has? Even under the common law gold backed money systems ‘life’ had a value- that’s how ‘justice’ was done.
How is all this fiction enforced?
What kind of heteronomy needs to be in place in order for this enforcement to happen?

Show me a gold backed money system, ANY money system, that does not- and will never- need some kind of ‘authority’ to enforce ‘the rules’ of that system. Show me ANY kind of heteronomy- the domination by *whatever means* of another individual or group- that does not need an ‘authority’ to enforce it.

I continually refer to the original fictions of heteronomy; in your response to my observations and exploration you used a strawman fallacy- a fiction- by ignoring the subject matter- gold backed money- and suggesting that I was saying gold was a fiction and then suggesting that I try ‘printing some’ when in fact that wasn’t what I was talking about at all.

Is this how ‘truth’ is arrived at? Or is it only certain kinds of ‘truths’ that are permitted?
The body of my discussion was completely ignored: why was that? Particularly given that I was talking about the original fictions that all other fictions have been built on.

You talk about how hard gold is to obtain, yet you ignore my observations regarding the fiction that has allowed certain individuals to presume that they have a ‘right’ to obtain it, be it by mining or anything else. What do we know about presumptions? They are fictions. These days ‘the law’ is used by the converters to enshrine their fictions as ‘law’- but does this make it so? Does the enshrining of fiction by a group into ‘law’ make it law? Make it unchallengeable? There are many such fictions known as ‘traditions’ that allow the committing of all kinds of atrocities- these fictions have the justification of being long held traditions of particular groups, societies or cultures but does this make them acceptable? Unchallengeable? Immutable?

When you talk about a ‘gold backed money system’ you are talking about a tradition built upon other traditions: one of those ‘traditions’ is the ‘right’ by some to take by force, trickery and enslavement that which is not theirs. This ‘gold’ that is the money standard that is being suggested we ‘need’ to go back to- where did this gold originally come from? Where does it come from now? Who decreed that anyone had the ‘right’ to this gold? Who enforced this right and how was it enforced?

If we look at the situation logically- using the idea of ‘ownership’ that you have put forward in other posts- then those who control the gold *should be* those in whose lands it is mined: those whose lands provide the natural resources *should be the ones that ‘profit’ from it the most*. Hmm- where have we seen this before?


Look at what’s happened in the world because those who *have* the oil weren’t prepared to be bullied into giving it away for free- how many wars has the US overtly and covertly started because it wanted the resources from countries that didn’t like the US’s shitty ‘terms of contract’? How much vicious rhetoric has been spouted against the Arab world, how much hatred and vitriol has been manufactured because the Arab world controls the majority of the world’s oil? How many individuals now eagerly spew poison about ‘murderous Muslims’ while being utterly ignorant of the way they’re being used to promulgate a perspective for the sake of controlling resources? The US has a long history of being prepared to shed rivers of blood- how much of this has been done in the name of getting their hands on resources that don’t ‘belong’ to them?

How many Americans still think that stealing what doesn’t belong to them under tortious conversion and then claiming this ‘tradition’ as ‘the way things are’ means it’s ok? Because, you know, that’s what they did to the Native Americans- and Canada is still doing it, and so is everywhere that Empire in any of its forms has ever been, or where any global corporation thinks it can lay claims to resources that they can make a profit from.

Does this mean it’s ok?

The USSR did the same thing regarding stealing resources wherever it could- so if a country’s government does it, does this make it ok? What about corporations, such as NestlĂ© purporting to be able to ‘own’ the water because it says so?
Do individuals wish to grant these corporate fictions the freedom to tortiously convert- steal- the planetary resources in exchange for being able to maintain their *own* tortious conversions?

All these fictions based on corruption, force, domination and control. ‘Gold backed money’ is just the same as oil- who actually owns the gold? The dominant group in the area that can take the resources by ‘tradition’, force or persuasion? The individuals or dominant groups who have obtained stolen goods? All gold on the planet is stolen if one is going to maintain the idea of ‘ownership’ based on tradition: *all* gold is stolen because it does not remain with the traditional indigenous groups whose lands were mined for the riches that then were exported to the homelands of the gun wielding dominators.

Can anyone argue with this IF they are maintaining the traditional fiction of ‘ownership’? Can anyone *intelligently* refute my premise in such a way as to prevent their logic being applied back to them by the heteronomy, using the points that I have actually demonstrated, rather than useless strawman fallacies or any of the other rubbish ‘logics’ so often put forth as ‘discussion’?

Who ‘owns’ the resources of the planet?
Is the planet itself sui generis, one of a kind, unique?
Is every eco-system unique in and of itself and thus sui generis?
Are all Beings on the planet sui generis?

If this is so, how can ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP say they OWN the ‘resources’, including the gold?

If this idea of ‘ownership’ of that which has been stolen is acceptable then individuals need to stop complaining about what the corporate world is doing: the corporate world is only continuing the traditional fiction of Empire- that it can take whatever it likes because it has the ‘right’, declare that it ‘owns’ that which it has stolen and that by its ‘right to rule’ it can MAKE the rules- in a new way. If you want to use this logic, you have no grounds to bitch when it’s applied to YOU.

Native individuals grokked that just because they’d MADE an object this did not mean they ‘owned’ it- they knew that they had used materials and resources that had been freely gifted to them and that in turn they were simply taking care of that object for awhile- they did not identify psychologically or emotionally with these creations and thus they were not materialistic. They knew they did not OWN anything, especially the land and resources around them: they were born into a world where the means to meet their needs was freely and abundantly provided to them, they recognised their interdependence within their eco-system (family/tribe is also an eco-system) and they did not create fictions or delusions about their ‘right’ to ‘own’ that which was not theirs.

This is one of the things that differed massively in native systems when the controllers arrived- native cultures had no concept at all of ‘ownership’ and thus the invaders gloated while they stole enormous tracts of land and resource wealth from the inhabitants with a few trinkets and beads (if they even bothered with that mockery- most of the time they just used genocide or massacre to take what they wanted): the thieves knew what they were doing in these sham ‘exchanges’ but the natives had no concept at all: the idea of ‘owning’ the creation was so outside their mindset they didn’t have any point of reference.

Is the mindset of thieves the one upon which you are advocating creating a ‘new’ banking system? Isn’t that what the church did when it claimed all the global wealth and ‘souls’ ‘in the name of god’, appropriated pagan traditions and said these were ‘washed clean’ because they’ve been adopted by ‘the church’ which then tried to wipe out the past? Was it acceptable when the church imposed its system and perspective on the native inhabitants of the entire globe?
If not, then why is it acceptable to enforce a ‘money’ system on a global scale?
Why is it acceptable to continue to put forth a fiction- that ‘money’ WORKS- because some are in a position to take advantage of that system?

Is this not again simply domination and control by one group over another- in this case, the group that does *not* have money- on the basis of the fiction of ownership and property?

Is this fiction- of the ‘right’ to ownership and property- a dominant paradigm creation that never, ever works because it requires heteronomy in order to enforce it?

Are you suggesting that under the old gold backed systems there was no poverty? No inequity? No mass starvation, no domination and control by those ‘with’ the forces (in this case, money) of those without? If not, then how is a gold backed money system superior to the devastation that the FRNs are creating? Is it the illusion of superiority because the money is backed by something ‘real’?

“FRNs are fiction since they have no intristic value, and can be printed in any amount for next to nothing.”
This is interesting to me on a number of levels, particularly because of the massive technological infrastructure that is necessary in order to print money on such a scale and the natural resources that need to be plundered in order to do this. Do you think the environmental devastation that is required to create an FRN money system is ‘next to nothing’? I don’t. There are whole dimensions of wrongness in this statement but I’ll contain my Self to the ones that I have been pointing out: your declaration that the FRNs can be printed out in any amount ‘for next to nothing’ just demonstrates that you are only looking at the span of issues through a very, very narrow aperture of perspective. I don’t do this, because I’m interested in a remedy to the heteronomy, the *entire* Matrix, not just certain elements of it. This is, of course, a very different purpose and intention from the majority of those who are looking at only remedying *their own* part of the situation.

If anyone wishes to pretend that ‘gold backed money’ as a form of domination and control- remember, standarisation and enforcement of this requires *some form of domination and control*- is more ‘legitimate’ and less fictitious than FRNs because it’s based on gold and gold is ‘real’ so therefore the money is ‘real’ they are of course utterly free to maintain this traditional fiction. The points I have raised above and prior have not been refuted, not even in your response, Jaro.

Individuals are absolutely free to ignore the foundations of the traditions they wish to maintain, but what they are *not* free of is the result of clinging to such traditions. Any individual might mock me for pointing out the fictions upon which their traditions are built but that will not protect them from the outcome of their choice to ignore the fictional foundation upon which they stand: if you sow heteronomy, it will always be what you eventually reap.



  1. bodhisattva November 28, 2013 9:37 am  Reply

    Ah, now I know where I have seen this… “Jaro”.

    Songs: You have my email, so feel free to re-connect if you wish. Another member of the other forum sent your blog link to me, for which I am grateful, as I was not aware that you were no longer connected to the other forum. I wanted to follow-up to a previous Anunnaki exchange wherein you mentioned to didn’t feel the story Sitchin relayed was accurate; you were correct.

    The second hour, Chris Thomas explains the discrepancy: {}

    Best regards,
    Danielle (aka: bodhisattva)

  2. Songs Moon November 30, 2013 2:05 pm  Reply

    Hello Danielle, yes, I’ve been banned from that forum because I wouldn’t adopt the party line. :D

    I’m writing a lot, thanks for the link regarding the Anunnaki material, I’ll look at it although I’ve never really gotten into the material of others regarding the entire topic: the commenters are usually utterly embedded in heteronomy and therefore so is their interpretations. I remember what I remember and I’ve evolved a LOT since then. :D As have all involved.

  3. bodhisattva December 9, 2013 11:47 pm  Reply

    Songs… Alas, I am now banned as well. ;) I called ‘him’ out on deleting comments and then banning a person for NOT supporting bitcoins, another form of control… And, for ‘his’ own actions that did not match with his ‘intentions’.

    I’m focused on my sui generis (healing based on my genetic blueprint) and seeing the world without ‘their’ filters…

    I look forward to reading more of your writings… :)

  4. Songs Moon December 12, 2013 12:10 pm  Reply

    Bodisattva- lol, the heteronomy really rears it’s head when even mildly challenged, doesn’t it? Would have loved to see that one unfold- the masculine control signal is really going to have to confront its own crap if it has a snail’s chance at a Mexican hat dance of surviving the shift. :D

    Nothing of interest in the heteronomy now- I’m moving on from the extinction signal, turning my face towards where the LIfe is. :)

  5. Jim Farley December 29, 2013 4:02 am  Reply

    Sorry to hear of your abuse at the hands of *him*, bodhisattva. But I’m also glad to hear of your release from the heteronomy.

    It’s so clever. It has so many heads. It will never do to strike them down one at a time, because for each one you strike down, two more rise up. One must kill the heart. That’s what the eneris does. (Notice I didn’t say that’s what the eneris is for. That would imply a delineated and therefore limited purpose.)

  6. Hellena Post January 28, 2014 7:15 pm  Reply

    Loving this conversation, and loving the simple questions that I’ve been asking myself for a long long time. Why is it like this? Who benefits? Who gets to say how it’s done? And Why??

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *