The “cancer stage of capitalism”, the idea of associating the concept of tumour to capitalism is already spreading, and with good reason, as you’re going to see. This is a step in the right direction that must be first prevented from being dumbed down, and then, quite to the contrary, further sharpened and boosted. To this aim, some preliminary calibrations are appropriate.
Both the terms “cancer” and “capitalism” are somewhat “charged”, and power surges are detrimental to the accuracy of our diagnostic tools, so let’s release any possible tension from the lines, first.
The term “cancer” is emotionally charged because life is at stake, the term “capitalism” is ideologically charged because it has been used factiously. Both the terms here are to be intended quite literally, in their strict, objective, technical, nearly mechanical sense, placed across all such charges. Cancer as the harmful or even lethal mutiny and misalignment of some parts to the whole, capitalism as profiting by handling means of credit, payment and exchange rather than work and production of survival factors, and the disused but precise term plutocracy as the rule by the ensuing power.

I previously drew your attention to two common denominators of life: the mission to survive and that survival is attained by production and exchange of survival factors. Well, with regard to the second, there’s an exception to the rule: the parasite.
The parasite lives in an out exchange condition – getting something for nothing – and that is its common denominator, that is what defines a parasite in every field the term is used. One may say that the figurative and the literal sense of a word have seldom been that close.

But what we face, both as individuals and as a society, is not just global parasitism. It's global cancer. The common feature is that it's always a suppressive burden; the difference lies in the higher slope of the suppression curve leading us through hell and to death.

We can consider parasitism and cancer as different degrees of the same thing; and we can consider the difference in terms of the speed and the prognosis of its course. And in terms of its goal, too.
What parasites and carcinogenic cells have in common is that both can place on the shoulders of the host organism any degree of burden, from the imperceptible to the unbearable. At least at the beginning, in that the differences turn up afterwards during the course of the disease.
We can consider that a certain percentage of parasites settle for an imperceptible burden, and that a certain percentage even takes care not to kill the host organism with too unbearable a burden, hence in parasitism a certain percentage of host organisms survives more or less indefinitly in more or less unbearable conditions, and a certain percentage of host organisms is killed rather slowly.
And then we can consider that the cancer uncontrolled growth rate at cellular level is way above the parasite growth rate at reproduction level as organisms, and that roughly all carcinogenic cells do not settle nor care, hence in cancer the course speed is usually faster, and the prognosis is most certainly lethal.
Because we can consider the parasite and the carcinogenic cell as having a different goal as well: the parasite wants to exploit the host organism; the carcinogenic cell wants to kill it. We may call that a poetic license in relation to biopathology in a narrow sense, and indeed our knowledge of the difference between a mere criminal and a suppressive falls outside of it, just as our field of investigation does.

Ok, so there’s some parallelism of sorts among moneypulation, parasitism, and cancer. So what?
So each dot, brought to light and connected, helps us bring to light and connect many other dots, until all together they reveal, clear and unmistakeable, the logic scheme connecting seemingly unrelated facts, and the purposes they serve behind their seeming haphazardness and senselessness.

The subject of moneypulation as parasitism and as cancer has been discussed in detail by many an author, of whom I would mention Vladimir Z. Nuri, Fractional Reserve Banking as Economic Parasitism, and Michael L. Rothschild, Bionomics – without this in any way diminishing the value of others not mentioned –. And as emphasised by Nuri, Rothschild pointed out how «discerning “right” from “wrong” in economics is a matter of distinguishing mutualistic from parasitic relationships», and how «identifying the economy's true parasites and writing laws that destroy their hooks requires a bionomics perspective», whereas he calls bionomics just that integrated perspective we’re discussing here.

But in the light of this parallelism and widened viewpoint there’s even much more in the offing: economy is the core, and around the core there is its fallout. The dots we’re going to bring to light and connect do not stop at the core; they are going to spread well beyond its borders to delineate before our eyes the overall picture.

First things first, though, let’s now put moneypulation under the lens of the parasitologist and the oncologist.

Parasitism is the most insidious form of slavery.
It has been said that none are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free, and indeed I previously pointed out how the easiest way to destroy you is stabbing you in the back.
We have seen how moneypulations enslave people, and how they do so invisibly, and it has been said that it makes sense to define invisible slavery as human parasitism.

Moneypulators are economic parasites.
Through the creation of purchasing power out of nothing in their hands, moneypulators leech purchasing power off the whole society, just as any parasite leeches lifeblood off its host; hence all moneypulators, such as for instance fractional reserve banksters, are economic parasites.

The parasite must be invisible.
The use of the term parasite in the socioeconomic sphere is commonplace, but usually aimed at the wrong target. For instance, some call parasites those who, for one reason or another, do not work; but regardless of the fairness of this judgment, these people are in plain sight.
On the one hand, if an opponent reveals itself openly, it’s because it has a chance to prevail in an open clash, while a parasite attacks covertly because in plain sight it would succumb. In fact, it has been said that if the people understood our banking and monetary system there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning, and that the best weapon against the suppressive is the unsparing light of the plain truth.
On the other hand, the overt “parasite” represents a threat nevertheless not anywhere near that represented by the real parasite as, while the first is content with some subsidy, the latter is after enslaving its host. Which in the case of moneypulators it happens to be the whole world and all of us.
Therefore the real parasite is invisible for the very good reason that it has to evade, deceive or hijack an opponent which is designed for the very purpose of detecting and destroying it: the host’s immune system. And indeed parasites quest for invisibility by hiding from the immune system, by decoying it into failing to recognize them as parasites, and even by taking control of the immune system itself, and of the whole host organism through it.
If you find this shocking in the parasitology sphere, then you will find it all the more so in the overall picture sphere ahead. Firstly, it is instructive to reconsider now in terms of parasitism all the mechanisms of moneypulation we have previously turned inside out; secondly, it will be just as instructive, as well as demanding upon our confront, to consider in the light of parasitism all the vast horizon of their fallouts.

As the duty of an immune system is protecting the organism from sneaky attacks, what is the immune system of the organism called “society”? In order to determine what such immune system is, it is useful to determine what is its exact purpose, before; which is equivalent to ask: how does one discern the organism to protect from the enemy to attack, exactly, when the organism is called “society”? We have been given the answer a little while back: “discerning right from wrong in economics is a matter of distinguishing mutualistic from parasitic relationships”. Survival is the result of both production and fair exchange of survival factors. So what elements in society have this exact duty?
The media, and the academia and research communities ought to be responsible for inspecting, identifying and denouncing both the attacks and the vulnerabilities; the legislators ought to be responsible for setting the rules to prevent and defeat them, the judiciary and law enforcement ought to be responsible for applying the rules and actually prevent and defeat them. And the individual citizen – you – ought to be ultimately responsible for seeing to it that anyone carries out one’s duty.
Hence, the immune system of society consists of media, of academia and research communities, of legislators, of judiciary, of law enforcement, and of you, the individual citizen, together with all your fellows and your willingness to confront and align shoulder to shoulder in self−rule. This is the immune system, therefore this is the target of parasites. These are the components of the society’s immune system, and therefore these are the targets of moneypulators: each one of them, one by one, without exception. Your very willingness to be free, and to protect your freedom, included and, indeed, on top of the target list..
If our own immune system were infiltrated by parasites, we would be sick; if the parasites attacked and jeopardised key vital elements, we would be critically ill, if not dead. If we observe society on the basis of what we now know, we can estimate the seriousness of the disease, and consequently the degree of parasitical infiltration on the part of moneypulators. I’ll discuss the details of the infiltration ahead; suffice here to say that in view of this state of things, and of the fact that you and I are ultimately responsible, the meaning of the old conundrum, “Who watches the watchman?”, takes on a new order of magnitude.

The parasite must be a skilful strategist.
As the confrontation between parasite and immune system takes place at the level of shrewdness and deception and not of brute force, strategy ensues as a key factor.
Deception is a broad term, in that it encompasses all types of strategy available to the parasite to hide its existence and its harmful effects.
Distraction aims at preventing the victim from discovering the existence of the problem by diverting its attention to something else.
Diversion aims at diverting the victim’s attention from the right target to a wrong one once it could not be prevented from discovering the existence of the problem.
Baitswitching consists of attracting the victim into a trap using something desirable as bait.
Frog boiling consists in attacking the victim slowly and imperceptibly enough so that it realises being attacked, victimised and destroyed as late as possible, when it has already been weakened, victimised and destroyed, exploited and reduced to apathy as much and as long as possible.
Attacking in waves consists in attacking the victim in a noncontinuous way, in periodic and sequential waves, to confuse, stun, weaken it, and induce and exploit its resulting misguided reactions and oscillations and those of its immune system.
Infiltration consists in deceiving the victim into accepting the parasite as part of itself instead of spotting it and rejecting it for what it is.
And as the parasite’s masterpieces we can mention deceiving, distracting and diverting to the point of masquerading as the cure for the disease it itself causes and obtaining unlimited leeway on this fraudulent basis despite all evidence, as well as infiltrating to the point of taking control of the very immune system and turn it against the victim.
Now, translating the concepts into examples of economic parasitism strategies…

On the basis of all we’ve previously seen, central banking is a pivotal example and case of masquerading as the cure and thus obtaining unlimited leeway. Central banks as the fig leaf under which moneypulation and its immense and never ending theft of purchasing power is carried out, and at the same time as the puppet passed off as the cure for the cancer represented and generated by its very puppeteers. And if we then broaden our view to include what strategy brought central banking into existence, not only we understand why G. Edward Griffin exposed it all as The Creature from Jeckill Island, but we gain a deeper insight into such strategy as a parasitic and carcinogenic one as well. Amongst its points Griffin reports: Avoid calling it a cartel, nor even a central bank. Make it look like a government agency. Establish regional branches to create the appearance of decentralisation, not dominated by Wall Street banks. Begin with a conservative structure including sound banking principles knowing that the provisions can be quietly altered or removed in subsequent years. Use the anger caused by recent panics and bank failures to create popular demand for monetary reform. Offer the Jekyll Island plan as though it were in response of that need. Employ university professors to give the plan the appearance of academic approval. Speak out against the plan to convince the public that Wall Street bankers do not want it. Almost all of the strategies above can be seen implemented into such points.
Still on the basis of all we’ve previously seen, the so−called “business cycle” is another pivotal example and case, this time of attacking in waves: to the previously seen moneypulators’ motives we can now add those of inducing and exploiting as carcinogenic parasites the resulting misguided reactions and oscillations in both society and its immune system. And indeed economic “fluctuations”, economic “ups and downs” can be seen and used as indisputable indicators, in that they are symptoms or consequences of parasitic attack, or even society’s immune system responses.

En passant, the subject of wrong statistics deserves a particular mention here for two reasons at the very least: their importance, and their being the point of convergence of several parasite strategies. Gauges on your dashboard are there to report the state of affairs under your bonnet and under your seat far sooner and far better than the smoke coming out from underneath does. Hence economic indicators are among the favourite targets of economic parasites. We’ll see later on how determining exactly what to measure, and fine−tuning accurately its measurement, to know the condition of an area is of the utmost importance; suffice here to say that gaining control of the economic indicators in order to tamper with them, by either skewing the correct ones or replacing the correct ones with wrong ones, is where many parasite strategies cross and overlap: getting there is a matter of infiltration, tampering with them is a matter of deception, distraction, diversion, frog boiling…
Another example of parasite strategies combined revolves around the transformative ability of the parasite: in order to deceive the immune system which learns to recognise its form, it goes through a sequential series of mutations to stay one step ahead of the immune system and at the same time overstimulate it into attacking its own body to death by dint of chronic overstimulation. This is also, by the way, a very precise mechanism in terms of deliberate third party action to turn two or more parties against each other by reducing their ability to differentiate une thing from the other, to discern friend from foe. A typical suppressive combination of deception, diverting and attacking in waves.

The parasite quests for vital flows
Just as it is interested in wrong statistics to cover its back with them, the parasite is interested in the right ones to target them. The right statistics identify the vital flows: vital for the victim, vital for the parasite. The victim’s vital energy flows along its vital flows, the parasite aims at stealing it, the suppressive aims at suppressing it.

Hence it has been pointed out how the natural nexus for parasites and suppressives, the place where you must expect to find them more than anywhere else, is in the victim’s vital flows: its circulation system; the victim’s circulation system is the means for the parasite−cancer to eat and spread its hijacking, and just as the circulation system of a living organism is its bloodstream, that of a group, community, society, is its exchange system, and particularly its money system, when the key advancement of split barter has been achieved thanks to some form of money.
We have here a major case of a basic fact that I would point out: It has been said that amongst our highest abilities and duties there are that of discerning good from evil, and that of recognising differences as subtle as possible. Well, one of the reasons for this is that, particularly in the presence of suppression, where there’s good there’s evil.
And this occurs because both criminals and suppressives won’t waste their energies where it’s fruitless, but on the contrary they concentrate their efforts where they can produce more destruction, and that is where there is more positive energy or potential to pervert in the first place, and because in order to bring about the greatest destruction with the least risk and effort they pursue deception and infiltration rather than frontal attack.
Aesthetics and economy, art and money, are two major cases.
And, needless to say, the parasite−cancer quests for monopoly and monopolistic control over vital flows. Suppression and monopoly go hand in glove: the hand of suppression in the glove of monopoly. The victims want to survive, the suppressive wants to kill them; it is obvious that the suppressive must cut off every possible escape route.
A significant case of deception, distraction and diversion to dress the wolf in sheep’s clothing is how, the more the parasite achieves monopoly, the more the very laws that purportedly ought to protect from parasitism become themselves parasitism enforcement and protection mechanisms.

As a representative of both enforcement and protection categories we can mention all the legislation and measures propagandised as aimed at fighting crime by tracking circulating money: as we have previously seen, on the enforcement side their real hidden purpose is enforcing the parasite’s monopoly on circulation of purchasing power and the taxation power that goes with it, while on the protection side their other hidden purpose is providing the parasite with enough power to nip dissent in the bud. And since their goal is absolute monopoly, hence their constant pressure towards the expansion of such legislation and its scope of application.
And the study of economic parasitism and cancer has further pointed out how the three major requirements of a parasitical money system are now already fully in operation worldwide: any money exclusively in the form of state−authorised currency, all economic transactions subject to taxation, loss of monetary sovereignty on the part of the governments in favour of private moneypulators. If you mesh these gears together, you have the whole vital flow from the victims to the parasite. It is from this point of view that the real meaning can be understood of the “right of individuals to make economic transactions between themselves free of state surveillance or interference”, of the “no taxation without representation” founding constitutional principle, and of the constant and increasing hostility of legislation and legislators toward those foundations.

The parasite quests for increased metabolism
And just as it is interested in covering its back with wrong statistics and in targeting the right ones, the parasite is interested in maximising its exploitation of the latter. Here’s where parasitism and cancer really become interchangeable synonims. And this is a key point where parasitology and oncology shed light on economy as subject to economic suppression: an increase in the victim’s vital flows is an increase in the parasite’s vital flows; and an increase in the vital flows beyond what is good for the victim, where that increase becomes pathological and detrimental, if not lethal, for the victim, is still good for the parasite. At least as long as the victim survives; after which a biological parasite may even starve to death, whereas an economic parasite will devour the remains of its host and then will find its next victim.

Things do not happen spontaneously: things are caused. And there are those who have interest in causing things, who can and do cause them. The parasite feeds off the vital flows of its victim, which are known as metabolism, hence the parasite has interest in increasing the victim’s metabolism. Unfeasible? Parasitology has discovered that there are parasites in nature which can and do increase the victim’s metabolism – and to quite incredible an extent. Which has opened our eyes to how a major way economic parasites carry out economic suppression is by increasing their victim’s metabolism, that is, by causing and pushing both rapacity and consumerism in economy and society.
The economic parasite sucks the society’s vital energy through its pyramid of increasingly evil drains: the profits of its monopolistic corporations, the taxes of its governments slaves to debt, the usury of its banking partners in crime, and chiefly the debt money and the infinite debt trap stemming from its moneypulation out of sheer nothing. But quite in addition to that, the evolution of its power is such that the result is what we familiarly call our hamster wheel: our economic and existential strain is not only heavy; it is also increasing. Among our faults there is that of being reasonable and of bestowing our nature to the world around us, therefore we may think that strain being spontaneous, somewhat normal, and just the way it is. Well, it’s not; the way things are is deliberate, artificial and suppressive. The power of the economic parasite is such that it can progressively increase the economic metabolism of society in both amount and velocity.
But this is not even limited to pushing the current metabolism to its physiological limit; oh no, not at all. Parasitology taught us the parasite can rob its host organism well beyond the amount allowed by its current level of metabolism, too. How? By forcing it to, as they say, mobilise its reserves: that is, economically, to drain its savings. An organism does not have just the energy currently in circulation; it also has additional energy stored in its reserves, which are a very important survival factor. The parasite wants that, too, and in order to steal it it must hijack and speed up the host’s metabolism so that it draws upon those reserves, transferring that energy into the flows, where the parasite can steal it.

The energy reserves of a biologic host are its fat deposits; those of a socioeconomic host are its savings and properties. A vast and penetrative textbook case of artificially increasing the socioeconomic metabolism is what they call “monetisation”, and it is pointed out, described and documented by Marco Saba in his Moneta Nostra, Our Money.
Reality is basically agreement: things are real because we agree they are real. And ownership is no exception: someone owns something, and someone transfers one’s ownership of something to someone else, because we all agree that ownership and that transfer are real. We may even disagree with that ownership of with that transfer, but this is quite something else than disagreeing with the fact that they are real, that they do exist.
Two concepts come in handy here: non−monetary economy and registered property.
Imagine a peaceful community in which everyone has a house and agrees that everyone owns one’s house, and such agreement is not registered anywhere because no one would ever dream of trading houses, and because one’s word and handshakes are enough anyway. As one’s house is considered a basic survival factor rather than an asset likely to be traded, consequently the very idea of quantifying its value is absent. In that community, houses are a part of its reserves embedded so deeply that only on the occasion of a natural disaster people would start to notice it. Because only a natural disaster could take their houses away from them. Those houses, that reserve, are non−monetary economy: survival factors with the interesting qualities of being non−quantified and non−tradeable.
And then imagine that someone begins to push the idea of “economic development”: this means more trade, more production, greater use of resources, a general increase of economic flows. In other words, a mobilisation of resources from reserves into flows. To hop aboard the economic development, to participate in the increase of flows, people must exchange more capital, and to exchange it they must put it on the plate.

And it is at this point that they turn around and look at their house through different eyes. What does “capital” mean? The keystone is in the ambiguity of its definition: one is, “resource, asset”, while another is, “monetised resource, monetised asset”, and the key of this passage is exactly in the monetizability and monetization of resources, of assets. And their monetization is achieved by registration and quantification of properties.
The concept of registered property consists in delegating our community agreement to a registration; your house isn’t yours because we all know that and take it for granted anymore, it is yours because a certifying authority says so. And you can easily see how, should someone say that your house isn’t yours anymore, in the latter case people are much more liable to agree, while in the first they are much more liable to tell that someone to shove it. In the same vein, registration and quantification go hand in glove: if property is liable to change hands, then it is liable to be exchanged for something else, hence it is in this order of things that what is to be exchanged be quantified in a uniform unit of measure.
And as non−monetary assets go through this monetisation process, they are going to be used as collateral, and forfeiting that collateral is the parasite’s ultimate goal. Here’s why you hear intellectuals and economists call “dead capital” or “legal failure” the fact that in “underdeveloped economies”, figuratively speaking, houses are not registered nor quantified nor traded; that is, there is a part of the resources which is not readily available to be channeled into the flows: is it “dead capital”, or is it capital that is escaping carcinogenic parasitism? As usual, in the presence of suppression, where there’s good there’s evil and our most important task is discerning them; monetisation of resources in the presence of moneypulation is no exception, and there are lights and shades in it; what is the net result on a case by case basis – the net result in the long run and behind the curtains, liabilities included and nobody and nothing lef out of the picture?

All in all, that the parasite has the power to artificially increase its host's metabolism is a decisive factor to understand the huge scope of the ensuing economic and social fallout of suppression perpetrated through moneypulation. Mobilisation of host's reserves to rob them, in economic terms means, namely, rapacity and consumerism with all their ethical, social and environmental pathological and destructive side effects. As much as the effects, rapacity and consumerism, have to be carefully studied in order to see all their scope and fallout, in terms of both amount and different facets, in the same way, in order to understand their cause, economic suppression through carcinogenic parasitism has to be carefully srudied.

The parasite quests for host zombiefication
Not only has parasitology discovered the physiology of parasisism; it has given us the psychology of parasitism, too. Or, rather, the zombiefication. Because the subject of parasite psychology discusses the modifications in the host’s behaviours as a result of the parasite interference and control, and such modifications are not exactly in the best interests of its host. We’ll dispense with the unpleasant details of the examples of that in nature, and we’ll sum up here their common denominator: in order to feed but also in order to breed, the parasite can turn its victim into a zombie and thus push it into self−defeating and even self−destructive, suicidal behaviours, whereas for instance such suicidal behaviours can even lead the victim to get eaten by what is going to be the parasite’s next host. What I mentioned above as a significant case of deception, distracion and diversion, I will mention here as a significant case of zombiefication, too: the legislation and measures propagandised as aimed at fighting crime by tracking circulating money and actually aimed at the parasite’s monopoly and monopolistic control over the circulation of money.

The sheer “economic” power of moneypulators, despite its fabrication, added to carefully fostered humanoid faults, results in an order of magnitude of zombiefication that can well be described as a carcinogenic snowball effect, whereas increasingly vast numbers of human “cells” are enticed into corruption, in what can be also seen, from another viewpoint, as an unaware, foolish, suicidal and homicidal zombie−like shift from “losing” personality to “winning” personality; as usual, in their hypnotic unawareness, both the arrogance of the “winning” and the submissiveness of the “losing” implement behaviours destructive to the host organism: the community. And such is the size of the avalanche, that it engulfs the whole pyramid up to its top echelons, as put into perspective by the words of Thomas Jefferson as early as around 1814: “I have ever been the enemy of banks; not of those discounting for cash, but of those foisting their own paper into circulation, and thus banishing our cash. My zeal against those institutions was so warm and open at the establishment of the bank of the U.S. that I was derided as a maniac by the tribe of bank−mongers, who were seeking to filch from the public their swindling and barren gains. … The mania is too strong. It has seized by its delusions and corruptions all the members of our governments …”
And since the snowball effect is one of exponential nature, and the strength of the parasite is also built on the psychological weakness of the victim as much if not more than on its physical weakness, the psychological side of parasitism, that is, the zombiefication, has to be considered for what it is: not only a crucial factor, but a crucial factor undergoing an exponential expansion. Hence, many a “sign of the times” surrounding us these times will fall into place in light of that, and not only within the category of “panem et circenses”, bread and circuses. Quoting the short representative summary outlined by Vladimir Z. Nuri will give you an idea:

Greed vs. honesty: The tactful Rothschilds did not explicitly mention greed, but it’s implicit in the class “dependent on the favours.” Honest individuals would reject the so−called "bargain." Greed is the foremost disease of money.
Profligacy vs. conservation: Or “irresponsibility vs. responsibility” relative to money spending tendencies. Government indebtedness is just the macrocosmic mirror of individual debts on the microcosmic level.
Apathy vs. concern: If the public is apathetic toward its institutions, they will deteriorate. How much does the public care about its own government or banking system vs. extracting gains from either?
Ignorance vs. education: As Adams (John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers and Presidents of the United States, author’s note) warned, the public must understand basic money and banking concepts to be able to fight off parasitical infections.
Dependency vs. autonomy: Entire nations can be composed of dependents and their “enablers.”
Passivity vs. action: If the public “gives away its power,” i.e. delegates its authority and takes a passive role, a parasite may arise to take the active one.
Reactive vs. proactive: As Griffin (the author of The Creature from Jeckill Island, author's note) has documented, the public can be manipulated via crises and a false “problem−reaction−solution” cycle.
Delusion vs. rationality: The public must understand “there is no such thing as a free lunch” or they will become one for the parasite.
Credulity vs oversight: As Ronald Reagan remarked on his philosophy over a nuclear arms treaty with the Soviet Union, “trust, but verify.”
Distraction vs. vigilance: “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.” Mass sporting events and internet pornography are probably in the first category.
Groupthink vs. leadership: Some derisively refer to the public as “the unwashed masses,” “cattle,” or “sheeple.”
Cowardice vs. courage: It is possible that some have glimpsed the parasite firsthand but lacked the nerve to confront or challenge it.

The parasite expansion: the spread of infection, the metastases of cancer
The ability to recognise the problem depends completely on what point of view one looks at it from: either from a relative or absolute, from a partial or global ethics. As previously seen, the common denominator of any relative, partial ethics is: one cares about the survival of just a part of the whole, by nature a small subset, and to hell with all the rest. And despite any and all propaganda to the contrary by suppressives, potential trouble sources, criminals, cynical, apathetic and morons, nothing short of global ethics will do, eventually.
If one looks around from the viewpoint of a relative, partial ethics, through the eyes of one of the above, everything is normal and that’s just the way it is, homo homini lupus. One must realise that homo homini lupus is not normal, that it is not just the way it is, that survival is the product of honest cooperation, to begin to see things take shape through the fog. And since that is not just the way it is but things are caused, any inclination to any of the above attitudes is a symptom of contagion. A metastasis, however small.
It is in fact in terms of metastases of cancer that parasitic economy becomes evident: absolute ethics means that economic flows are at the service of people, while the other way around, when they are at the service of the parasite and feed the cancer, is suppression. It only takes the guts to confront the fact that honesty is survival and dishonesty is suppression.
It is at that point that you can ask of whatever flow of resources, whether they be financial or material, what’s its purpose? What benefits does it produce for whom, and in exchange for what product for whom? And what damages does it produce for whom, if any? Is its yield the deserved reward for production of survival factors or the tainted loot for their theft and destruction?

It is at that point that you can see clearly in the flesh and at work the metastases of what is variously called plutocracy, capitalism, financial speculation: wherever you see someone playing confidence tricks with moneypulation, and wherever you observe what John McMurtry and Vladimir Z..Nuri outline in the following words. “The comparison with a carcinogen is starkly evident. A cancer pattern of disease and metastasis is confirmed when money capital lacks any commitment to any life−organisation on the planet, but is free to move with increasing volume and velocity in and out of – but not to sustain – social and environmental life−hosts. On the contrary, ever more social resources and protection are being diverted to assist the capitalist cancer to multiply.” “McMurtry's immune system analogy also applies paramountly to economic science, which absolutely must be able to discriminate flawed, destructive, or parasitical economic principles from healthy ones (both theoretical and applied) if a cancerous invasion is to be repelled. That framework arguably does not currently exist. Economists must act as “white blood cells” as much as investigators, regulators, reporters, etc. perhaps even more crucially so!” “Globally, protective systems are now being dismantled at every level. The pattern is now so universal and aggressive that even the language of its agents no longer disguises its destructive intent – “drastic cutbacks,” “axing social programs,” “slashing public services,” and so on. And society's protective systems are openly being “cut,” “slashed,” and “axed” to “reassure lenders and investors” – that circuit of money investment and profit that is no longer linked to the production or circulation of useful goods and services.” “McMurtry conveniently nails down the precise analogy to the following points:

Long−term, systematic and irreversible destruction of global life−organisation emerged for the first time during the current advanced stage of capitalism. If we consider the defining principles of cancer and the eventual destruction of a life−host, it is difficult to avoid seeing that a cancer pattern is increasingly invading and spreading across the planet. In other words, there is:
an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in the host body that:
is not committed to any function of the host body; increasingly appropriates nutriments from the host body in its growth and reproduction;
is not effectively recognised by the immune system;
possesses the ability to transfer or metastasise its assaultive growth to sites across the host body;
progressively infiltrates and invades the host body until it obstructs, damages, or destroys successive organs of its life−system; and
eventually destroys the life−host in the absence of an effective immune−system recognition and response.”
“If a covert plan of economic warfare has been waged, it may have international rather than mere national implications as various commentators have charged. Counterfeiting on a national level is a treasonous crime against that nation. However, it seems reasonable to classify international scale economic warfare as a “crime against humanity.” Accusations on this level have been made by U.S. Senators on several occasions.”

The parasite effects: the fallout on life conditions of individuals and societies of the spread of infection and cancer metastates
Simply stated, that is the fallout on our lives of suppression through moneypulation and the cancer of economic parasitism: hamster wheel, Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty−Four, slavery, degradation, hell, fratricidal wars among the poor, agony and extermination.

First there is obviously the transmission carrying the power from the engine to the wheels and the road, which I discussed before under “The Harvest Snowballs”: the formation of suppressive pyramidal structures among people. This is well described by Vladimir Z. Nuri in quoting and commenting the words attributed to the Rothschild brothers: “The few who can understand the system will be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests. Here the Rothschilds refer to the parasitical money−energy extracting “class” on one hand and how it is woven together, and the careful balance with an uneducated public that supports the system on the other hand. All the words “tremendous advantage,” “burden,” and “inimical” are arguably understated or misleading. Also note that they suggest only that “perhaps” no suspicion will be aroused, implying the system may still be workable if suspicion is aroused but it never comes to anything.” With the term “rapacity” I was obviously referring to just that before: suppressives turn people into potential trouble sources, and laying the foundations for the formation of a socioeconomic structure in which people is “inevitably” led to homo homini lupus as “just the way it is” is most certainly a textbook global case of just that.
Then another facet of the fallout results from the parasite’s expansion combined with its quest for the zombiefication of its victim, and again the words of John McMurtry quoted by Vladimir Z. Nuri nail it down: “The essential problem of any life−threatening cancer is that the host body's immune system does not effectively recognise or respond to the cancer's challenge and advance.

This failure of our social immune system to recognise and respond to the cancerous form of capitalism is understandable once we realise that the surveillance and communication organs of host social bodies across the world, as they now function, are incapable of recognising the nature and patterns of the disease. That is, capitalist−organised media and information systems select for dissemination only messages compatible with the capitalist organisation of social bodies.” After all, whether everyone has a price or not, now someone has the money; and the more money someone has, the more people can be educated into having a price.
Then we have the paradox we couldn’t help feeling for quite some time now, for the very good reason that we’re in it over our heads: the hamster wheel, or, to put it in Nuri’s poignant words, the Red Queen dilemma. In Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, “the Red Queen runs faster and faster to stay in the same place. A hyperkinetic culture as now universally perceived by all (noted early on by e.g. Toffler's Future Shock, 1970, or recently in Gleick's Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything, 1999) is therefore a conceivable symptom of a money parasite!” Increasingly the hamster wheel we’re feeling imprisoned inside is leading us to challenge the myth of “growth”, and not only because there can be no infinite growth in a world of finite resources. How much of that “growth” is feeding the parasite to the detriment of its victims? First, growth can disguise the presence of the parasite; second, growth can be designed to feed it; third, growth can be designed to enable, facilitate and support the implementation of its plans. And how much of the “growth” besieging us is so in the first place? “The vast and awesome technological achievements of the 20^thcentury take on an entirely new light if one considers they can be mechanisms for optimizing parasitism efficiency!” And “the streamlining of technology… can be more conducive to slavery systems.”

The immune system hijacked, the hamster wheel in full force, when the frog boiling mechanism is no longer enough, people react. In this regard, riots can be seen as the cells reacting to the attack on a bypass of the hijacked immune system, and therefore as a clear indicator of the presence of an attack and thus of an attacker. Only pity, the attacker usually knows that well, and turning and exploiting such reactions against people is part of its plan to further enslave and suppress them.
And so we find ourselves living in wartime. At first unknowingly, since it’s an undeclared war; but beyond a certain threshold even the frog boiling mechanism has a hard time trying to conceal that the whole world increasingly resembles a sweatshop surrounded by a barb wire fence and under a permanent bombing.
There exists, in fact, such a thing as undeclared economic warfare, and Nuri again has a number of remarks on the subject: violating the monetary sovereignty of a state, a government, a society, a community can destroy its economic integrity and vitality and accompanies its collapse, thus it can be used as a mechanism of sabotage, it is regarded as an act of war if perpetrated by a country against another, and governments have historically regarded it as a treasonous crime.
Briefly conceptualised, economic warfare is fought as follows: A) The attacker violates the monetary sovereignty of the target by creating in its own hands purchasing power out of nothing acknowledged by the target, such as counterfeit target’s legal tender currency. B) The attacker uses that purchasing power to buy the target out, either purely and simply or by “aiding” it the usurer’s way, by chaining it down with unbearable debt – imposed, if need be. C) The attacker uses that purchasing power to subject the target’s money base to heavy disturbances such as hyperinflation, to undermine it in its purchasing power, production, exchanges and stability. D) The attacker uses that purchasing power to trip the target by destroying the trust in it and its credit and solvency by its people and its partners, thus inducing these to demand it to fulfil its pending obligations, whether monetary or otherwise, resulting in its loss of markets, reserves, purchasing power, and in its insolvency and its dumping it on its people by confiscating their means to bail itself out, thus exhacerbating its function as a primary tool of expropriation of its people while in the meantime the attacker usurps those trust, credit, purchasing power, markets and reserves.

It is important to make clear here explicitly that such surreptitious economic warfare can be waged by and against any type of economic entity: by a bank against another bank, by a nation against another nation, by a bank against a nation, by a supranational entity against a nation, you name it. Banks as well as countries in debt, targeted by “aid”, if not even in need to be bailed out at the taxpayer’s expense are but indicators of infection and subjugation through economic warfare. And as the basic moneypulators pursue their plans of global totalitarian enslavement and suppression successfully, as sovereignty and power get transferred from the bottom of the pyramid to its top, the former case gives way to the latter: more and more the real battlefield shifts from bank versus bank to nation versus nation to supranational entities versus nations.
It is also instructive to consider the case of the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights as an example of such supranational entities waging economic war against two or more target nations at the same time: these “Rights” are another case of money whose existence is rather a matter of faith than of tangible evidence, and when the “Fund” “lends” them, not only it creates them out of nothing, but it does so by creating them out of nothing as checking accounts in the name of the “aided” debtor government in the banks of the Fund’s member nations, denominated in their national currencies. This means that, on the “aiding” front, the member countries grant some of their purchasing power at the expense of their taxpayers and economies, and, on the “aided” front, that purchasing power will be funnelled into the pockets of corrupt rulers and shady contractors, for useless and detrimental public works at the expense of their taxpayers and economies, and for the resulting enslavement of the country through maliciously induced and forever−and−ever−never−refundable debt. Odious debt.

Nuri mentions Gross National Product and Gross Domestic Product, defined respectively as the whole of the nation’s production and the portion thereof owned by the nation’s citizens, and points out how the difference between them indicates the degree the nation is owned by foreign owners and thus the degree it is subjugated by a foreign parasite through international economic warfare. More generally, as money and economic parasites and their economic wars can exist and act at any level within or across any subdivision of mankind and areas, I’d sum the matter up in the rather obvious idea that whatever portion of the wherewithal which is not owned by those directly involved is both an indicator and a product of economic parasitism.
I think it’s worth reminding here how naming things with their name explicitly helps one validate what one would otherwise feel vaguely and thus precariously, and how in this regard it is useful to explicitly name something rather invisible and vaguely felt like economic warfare against some of us, and how it is useful as well to explicitly name something even more so like the sheer suppressive intention against us all, regardless of whatever subdivision, border and sovereignty it is applied to or through.
Possibly one of the most important facets of suppression through economic parasitism and economic warfare worth being explicitly mentioned here is how, Nuri speaking again, “systems are systematically leveraged against each other to debase the integrity of each. This would be the core strategy exactly expected of a money parasite attacking”. You will see for yourself how important is this facet within this scope when I’ll discuss ahead the utterly fundamental principle it is an implementation of, which goes by the name of “The Third Party Law”.
This said, the discussion on the parasite effects and fallout is far from complete. Quite to the contrary, to sum it up at this stage I suggest you now look at the whole ensuing overall picture as such a fallout.

There is, in fact, an idea, an observation, a question, which lingers almost universally among those who put some pieces toghether and which definitely has to be put into words explicitly, and posed explicitly: how come that with all the progress we’ve had, not only we’re not working less than before, but quite to the contrary we’re even working ourselves to death now worse than before? How come that the flow rate of the taps has increased but the water level in the tub has decreased?
Some call it “productivity paradox”. From the stone age up until the industrial revolutions, we did not have the technologies and servomechanisms whom afterwards expanded significantly our capability to control the elements of nature, hence our productivity was low: merely earning our daily bread, between time and toil and all the rest of it, then required 90 percent of our resources. Then from the industrial revolutions on, we increasingly had those technologies and servomechanisms, hence our productivity increasingly boomed: merely earning our daily bread, between time and stress and all the rest of it, now requires… 120 percent of our resources. What a forward leap we made.
If the flow rate of the taps increases but the water level in the tub decreases, then a drain exists which drains more water than the taps bring. It’s that simple.
There is only one answer, and the answer is: powerful, effective economic parasites and bewildered, apathetic, zombie victims.
That is, the suppressive and the potential trouble source.

Parasitology comprises a range of theories, some of which hypotesise various degrees of usefulness of parasites for their ecosystems. These theories lack the factors of the suppressive and the potential trouble source, which enter the scene in the shift from biological parasitism to economic parasitism.

Out of these additional factors ensues the dramatically increased degree of dangerousness and dissimulation of zombiefication; to say it with Nuri's words, “Generally, any ideas about a parasite adding stability to the overall system should be regarded very warily. They may be just new masked versions of the same parasitic philosophy, new "wolves in sheep's clothing."” To say it with the Party’s doublespeak of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty−Four, how easily and effectively we are led to believe that two plus two equals five, that war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is force.
Particularly, among those “wolves in sheep’s clothing” ideas to be regarded very warily, there are those who theorise that parasites in nature are not suicidal but rather have a role in ensuring the overall survival, much like predators removing weaker individuals, and therefore assume it is the same to the letter for economic parasites. As I said, in human groups we have that further element called suppressive. And we do know a few key basics about him or her: the suppressive never provides any positive contribution but only destruction, the suppressive is motivated by the root intention to make smaller and murder anyone else, and the suppressive will stop at nothing, not even at suicide, in order to suppress.

Nuri points out how “previous inoculation attempts have fallen short, such as with the founders of the U.S. and its Constitution, or say Marx's critique of capitalism, not for lack of valour or diligence but only because of the awesome "nature of the beast." The money parasite in its various forms has probably co−evolved with humans for millenia, arguably even since the origin of exchange.”
And here is precisely where I add my two cents: the suppressive and the potential trouble source, that is the “nature of the beast”. That is the main step forward here, that is the core: look up from the tool to the hand operating it; whatever the tool, the real root cause is the intention that turns that tool into a weapon, and the vulnerability that allows, amplifies and relays that transformation.

Money is one of the most useful tools and therefore one of the most effective weapons, but it’s just the last in an infinite line of useful tools infiltrated, hijacked and turned into lethal weapons by suppressives and potential trouble sources. Indeed such “nature of the beast” has been with us since two whatever parties, whether individuals or groups, found themselves picking one another in the gums inexplicably and indefinitely instead of getting along and cooperating, and this traces so back in time that the third party fomenting the fight has a field−day in fooling us into believing “that’s just the way it is and has always been”… I don’t know whether the condition called “suppressive” traces back to the dawn of time or not, but since survival is based on cooperation that is most certainly not the way it is. If it were, we wouldn’t be here now.
As an aside, Nuri conceives a merging of the government−banking complex as a sort of guarantee against money parasites, but I’m afraid that is all backwards: monopoly is in itself a basic suppressive tool.
However, the issue of money parasitism, and of any tool turned into a weapon, is to be put in general, absolute terms: Solve the hand, not just the tool. If you solve the tool and not the hand, while you solve that tool the hand will grab its next tool.

Another facet where the study of parasitism in nature sheds light on the economic parasitism is the quantitative factor: it has been observed how in nature there is a four−to−one ratio, that is, an average of four parasites for each host, and that as a consequence a study of biology may well be mainly a study in parasitology. And it can be easily observed how the money parasite is eating up the whole society. This tells us that a study of economics may well be mainly a study in economic parasitism. And, more generally, in economic suppression. That is, a study in how suppressives, criminals, potential trouble sources and humanoids hijack economy and people’s lives with it.

And this calls to our attention an even more fundamental basic: that a study of human conditions may well be mainly a study in suppression and PTSness. Which is exactly what is stated in the principle that, “Unless we can detect the social personality and hold him safe from undue restraint and detect also the antisocial and restrain him, our society will go on suffering from insanity, criminality and war, and man and civilization will not endure. Of all our technical skills, such differentiation ranks the highest since, failing that, no other skill can continue, as the base on which it operates – civilization – will not be here to continue it.”

A common concept has been made explicit in the term “necessity level”: how heavily a rusty bolt has to be hammered to unlock it? McMurtry’s idea mentioned by Nuri that “nothing short of a global cancer could effectively bring about a worldwide revolution to eradicate the capitalist cancer” is but an implementation of that concept, which in itself is universal. People get hammered more and more heavily by economic suppression in the form of economic parasitism until their necessity level is reached and they finally act. But at what cost?
What are the odds that the hammering damages the bolt beyond repair? As the hammer blows get heavier, what are the odds that instead of unlocking the rusty bolt breaks? As the hammer blows get heavier, what are the odds that the hammer or its sparking get out of control and cause disasters, and how many of them and how big? How many people are going to suffer how much? How many people are going to succumb?
It’s not just the common sense principle that prevention is better than cure; there’s more to it than meets the eye: not sparing people an ordeal that could be spared them is something I call a suppressive act.
Meaningfully, it has been said that “War rulers were deified and peacetime rulers forgotten no matter how many wars they prevented.”

With regards to the contributions of parasitology, oncology and econophysics to economics, Nury keenly points out how “scientific advancement (the “paradigm shift” cliché) is fundamentally about making the invisible visible”, and in order to do just that I’ll take the liberty to answer in my turn to a question that Nuri imagines hypothetically asked, “How could entire banks be corrupt?”, implying that current “controls” of the “system” ought to be such that only the single dishonest individual can get through its mesh, but not entire dishonest organisations. Well, I’m afraid the cliché of paradigm shift shall once again apply here…
The problem is not the single individual exploiting a gap in the system. The problem is the very system itself. Fraud is intrinsically at the core of the system itself. Moneypulation is the greatest fraud in human history and the whole system is built on it. And built to serve it in the first place. And banks are but its implementation. Hence a banker is either a moneypulator or a moneypulator’s accomplice or servant, and he or she is so in facts, regardless of his or her awareness of moneypulation.
In the film Apocalypse Now, when the main character becomes aware of the mission assigned to him, “put an and to the command” of a colonel “gone insane” in the middle of the Vietnam war, he thinks, “Charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500.” Well, imagine yourself saying to a disloyal banking officer, “Pull over; your documents, please”, without realising you’re in the middle of a racetrack, where all banking officers are turned into racing cars competing for their place in the “system”, where they’re all turned into the cogs of the mass murder machine built by the moneypulators and their partners in crime, and either trapped in the dilemma of conscience versus obedience or lost in the unawareness of what they’re part of.

But there aren’t only bankers thronging the track; as we’ve seen before in the hollowed out social bond and where the harvest snowballs, the track looks pretty much like Monza when the public traditionally invades it after the race. Nuri remarks how “even the possibility of parasitism already infecting the existing scientific establishment is conceivable.” Indeed, racing teams are composed of lots of staff: not just drivers but also logistics personnel, mechanics and the alike, and particularly engineers, spin doctors and directors, and you may begin to catch sight here of the dawn of what I previously called the hollowed out social bond; hollowed out by the fact that due to the metastasising of the parasitic cancer more and more people become potential trouble sources living out of feeding it.