By possessing the property of buying everything, by possessing the property of appropriating all objects, money is thus the object of eminent possession. The universality of its property is the omnipotence of its being. It is therefore regarded as an omnipotent being. Money is the procurer between man’s need and the object, between his life and his means of life.

Since the beginning of recorded history, man has been haunted by the intimation that he lives in a world of mere appearances. In every teaching and spiritual philosophy of the past we find the idea that whatever happens to us, for good or ill, is brought about by deeper forces behind the world that seems so real to us. We are further told that this real world is not accessible to the senses or understandable by the ordinary mind.

But, and this is a point that is not usually understood, we live in a world of inner appearances as well. We are not what we perceive ourselves to be. There is another identity, our real self, hidden behind the self that we believe ourselves to be.

On 7 March the K Foundation screened Watch the K Foundation Burn a Million Quid in the Northampton living room of writer and occultist Alan Moore. They were interested in his opinion of the burning within a magical context. The following is an edited transcript of his responses.

I thought it was awesome in some ways, very funny in others; quite liberating. It burned well - very clean flames. I'd like to know if it was Newton on the fifties, but he's represented anyway - he organised the Royal Mint, and that's interesting because Newton was kind of the bridge between Magic and The Age of Reason. On the one hand he was an alchemist and yet, on the other, he was the father of all contemporary science. He had the last remaining stone maypole in London made into the base of his telescope.

To reflect on the relationship of religion to money, there is no better starting-point than “to go beyond time.” In returning to the origin of the question, we may find a grain of truth and thus turn towards the remedy for an otherwise intractable problem. Countless volumes have appeared about the Church’s attitude to war and sex but very little has been written about money.

 This document takes an informal look at non-bank digital currency payment systems, online valuetransfer software and digital precious metals (DGC). Focus is placed on the evolution of these systemsover the past decade along with the developments of new models including software, products and regulations.1. Banks did not create the Internet and don't own or regulate it. Credit card companies don't havean online payment monopoly.2. Consumers & merchants around the world should have as payment options a selection of convenient online payment methods other than restrictive bank products such as credit cards.3. The global marketplace created by the World Wide Web provides an ideal commercial platformfor privately issued digital currencies.

Hawala,  an ancient banking  system that  originated in the Middle  East  and  South  Asia,  has  spread  around  the  world.  Secretive by nature, hawala  remains a mystery to most people outside  of the ethnic communities that  use it.  It is fast, inexpensive,  reliable,  convenient,  and, most  notably,  discreet.  These  qualities  have  earned hawala  many  legitimate  customers,  not  to  mention  money  launderers  and terrorist financiers.Since its transactions leave  little  or no trace, hawala  bedevils  financial  auditors and law  enforcement  officials.  It also  poses  considerable  challenges  to  existing  legal and regulatory  regimes  on money  laundering  and  terrorist  financing.  These  regimes  rely upon factors  that  hawala  usually  lacks,  namely  detailed  records, registration  with the government, and  connections  to  mainstream banking.  Accordingly,  some  law  enforcement  efforts  against  hawala  will  fall  short. 

Information, knowledge, and culture are central to human freedom and human development.
How they are produced and exchanged in our society critically affects the way we see the state of the world as it is and might be; who decides these questions; and how we, as societies and polities, come to understand what can and ought to be done.
For more than 150 years, modern complex democracies have depended in large measure on an industrial information economy for these basic functions.
In the past decade and a half, we have begun to see a radical change in the organization of information production.
Enabled by technological change, we are beginning to see a series of economic, social, and cultural adaptations that make possible a radical transformation of how we make the information environment we occupy as autonomous individuals, citizens, and members of cultural and social groups.
It seems passé today to speak of "the Internet revolution."
In some academic circles, it is positively naïve.
But it should not be.
The change brought about by the networked information environment is deep.
It is structural.
It goes to the very foundations of how liberal markets and liberal democracies have coevolved for almost two centuries.

What role does money play in generating an overall order in society?  Is a monetary order necessary for a free society?  S. Herbert Frankel (1977: 12) argued that “there is an intimate relationship between money and freedom; between the keeping of promises and the certainty of contracts; between social function and the rule of law.” While many would agree with his statement, modern monetary theory and practice is at odds with it.

Bitcoin is a “peer-to-peer electronic cash system” that gained certain acceptance as of early 2011. I review the system, mostly based on its description in the original article and the project's wiki. To the best of my understanding, the sentiment about this particular system is mostly groundless. The key three features of the system, namely (1) peer-to-peer architecture, (2) anonymousness, and (3) cryptographic security are only met if their definitions are somewhat relaxed. The key point of Bitcoin is eliminating double spending without resorting to trusted third parties. An actual system, if only any popular, will have de-facto third parties, but it is unclear, how reliably double-spending is eliminated.