Skip to content

Can We Do Without Money?

January 13, 2019

As it is clear that money throughout most of history has been the key source of domination by the ‘hidden’ World Government, it is natural that many conclude that money itself is the problem, and that it must go.

But the issue is not money, it is the abuse of money. Money is just a simple tool, a means of exchange. There are good tools, and there are bad tools. Tools can be used positively, and negatively.

It is hard not to sympathize with the ‘no money’ crowd, though. Just think of the Bible book of Acts: it describes how Jesus’ followers, after his ascension, relinquished private property, and lived together in communes.

On the other hand: the same Bible vociferously rejects Usury, while not at all outlawing money. The Bible is against ‘making money with money’, but it is not against money itself. Jesus and his students had money, and used it for daily living. Jesus was against money grabbing, unearned income, against living for money, against sitting on your money while other people need it. He was not against people using a means of exchange for trade.

Of course, the Bible is only one source, an important one, but its conclusions must be validated by Science, ie. by observation of material reality. And it seems reality DOES bear out the fact that money can be a useful tool.

Just have a look at this article: it competently discusses the problems with our money: Usury, speculation, etc. Next it concludes money is bad: “We must cooperate to end the existence of money and thereby end the power of those that currently control our civilization and refuse to stop destroying our planet.”

But this is a logical fallacy: to suggest that to get rid of those that control our current money, that all money must go. If the problem is that bad people run our money, we could also execute the Bankers, and take control of the monetary system ourselves.

Also: if the problem with money is (among others) interest on loans of money, is the solution to eradicate money, or to eradicate interest on loans of money? If speculation is an issue, is the solution to do away with money, or with speculation? If derivatives are bad, do we need to dump derivatives, or money?

We have seen the positive effects of organic money: the miracle of Wörgl for instance, where bad money was crushing the locals, and Mayor Unterguggenburger circulated just a few thousand worth of his own scrip with demurrage, solving both debt and unemployment in his community.

And on a larger scale, the prosperity of the American Colonies under Colonial Scrip, and how the real cause of the War for Independence was the Crown’s destruction of these monetary systems.

But also Germany under Hitler, where Schacht did not even solve Usury, but did end money scarcity through deflation, which unlocked the German Folk’s productive capacity, catapulting them to World prominence on the economic, military, cultural, and scientific levels, in just a few years.

So apparently money CAN support the legitimate aspirations of the People.

The Venus Project
There are basically two schools of thought promoting the end of money. The writer of the article we were referring to is part of a tradition that promotes the way Jesus’ followers lived after his death and resurrection. Decentralized, local communities, demonetized, self sufficient.

But there is another ideology that promotes ‘no money’, and that is Jacques Fresco’s Venus Project. However, I suspect that the Venus Project is pretty much what the NWO have in mind as their endgame.

It is a high tech Communist Utopia, where ‘the computers’ manage everything. People don’t get to consume the value of their own production (which is the key goal of economic decentralization and interest-free economics), but they ‘get what they need’, basically the equivalent of a living wage, which will typically be much less than the value of their production.

The Venus Project suffers from the typical delusion that our human problems can be solved with technology. That Utopia comes when High Tech solves the limitations of the human condition. Which is typical Luciferianism. The Luciferians are looking to become gods through technology, that is a key part of their game.

Another issue, is that those programming the computers will be the ones that control society. Of course, it will be ‘managed democratically’, but this is the kind of ‘democracy’ that we recognize from the Soviets. Soviet means “an elected local, district, or national council” in Russian. Such power structures are in fact easily managed top down.

What is more: under the Venus Project there will be no private property. And nowadays we all know that ‘no private property’ means that the King owns everything. It is the ultimate victory of one Ego over all the others.

This is anathema to Usury-free economics, where the State has NO rights to the Commons, ONLY the People, which is the collection of free men and their families that comprise the People, have rights to the Commons: we are not ‘free’ when we are paying rents to the State, instead of some private Plutocrat. We are free when we pay NO rents.

Jacques Fresco has also intimated that he is against the Family, and that the State should run child rearing. Because these evil families might mind control their children into believing in God, and the State is so neutral and scientific, and loves the children and Truth so much, that they are in a much better position to decide what the child will think. Ok, that is slightly exaggerated, but the point is clear.

A couple of years back I had the pleasure of interviewing Michael Tellinger, not just a great truthseeker, but also a man that has been known to pick fights with the Bankers head on in South Africa.

Tellinger is solidly in the ‘no money’ camp, and is driven by his philosophy which he calls Ubuntu, a Zulu/Bantu concept. It’s about solidarity, sharing, and the realization that nobody can be happy if one is unhappy. It’s basically the bright side of the outlook on life of the Africans. And obviously quite congruent with how Jesus’ friends lived for a while.

But Tellinger, who has a firm grasp of the monetary issues at hand, and I totally agreed that even should the ‘no money’ idea prove correct, to get there, the migration to a Usury-free economy was indispensible. There is simply no way of demonetizing the economy cold turkey. We CAN, however, create positive units solving our current financial problems.

Tellinger himself continues to promote monetary reform, even though he believes we will ultimately not need money at all.

Generosity is great, but fair exchange has a right to exist too
An important issue is, that with the end of scarce money, abundance comes to the many, and the constant fight for survival of the masses will come to an end. Under these circumstances people can certainly be expected to be far more generous among each other. When money is abundant, it will be valued far less.

For instance, in the hundreds of different LETS systems in operation worldwide, we see that people exchange services among each other with these units, and because these units are abundant, people actually start doing things for each other without accepting even payment in LETS.

Which is all wonderful, and there is no reason to resist this. However, what also seems likely, is that there will definitely continue to be circumstances where people, individuals, or local communities, would rather not surrender this or that item to a brother in need, but on the other hand wouldn’t mind a fair exchange.

What is more: when sharing is the only value, a problem can become the lack of incentive to produce something more than we have a direct use for. But local communities will always only be able to produce their basic needs plus a few specialties. To acquire special goods from elsewhere, they will have to continue offering their own specialties in exchange.

Fair exchange benefits both parties. The purpose of commerce is distribution. Commerce has been corrupted by the effects of Finance, as Finance corrupts everything, but in itself it provides a vital function.

And for fair exchange, we need fair money. Because longstanding clear cut human experience is, that without money by far most exchanges wouldn’t take place.

Usury-free living in itself would lead to huge demonetization, as Usury forces people to commoditize everything in order to continue to be able to finance ever growing debt service.

People are right to reject a socioeconomic system based on money grabbing.

But the issue is not money itself, but that it is in the hands of Evil, and used to enslave us through Usury, scarce money, inflations and deflations, speculation, rents, usurping our production, and redistributing it to the idle classes.

It is completely possible to create currencies that do not redistribute wealth to Kleptocrats, without Usury, inflations and deflations, speculation, and which simply serve for what money is supposed to be in the first place: a means of exchange. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thankfully so, because honest exchange and commerce are vital to our economic well being, and for honest exchange, honest money will continue to be needed, albeit far less so.

Cause And Effects Of Money Scarcity
Interviewing Michael Tellinger

  1. money is not created by government.. it is created by the Roth schild is loaned to gvt for bonds.. govt uses your income tax payments to pay back the bond loans .. this depletes the prosperity…both mom and dad have to work…

    gas was 25c in 1956…houses $3000

    the banking cartel is siphoning our wealth… millennial are facing poor job prospects . …college degrees are less and less helpful in getting employed..

    taxes are too damn high… gvts are allocating money they don’t have..the minute gvt can no longer pay back the bonds on which they finance all spending….zombie apocalypse

  2. Great post 🙂

  3. Daniel Krynicki permalink

    The overall tenor of your essay is great; and it covers a good range of non-usurious alternatives. But a down side of LETS systems is not explored therein.

    During 19th century America the emergence of confidence men playing games upon unsuspecting dupes began. Of course Wall Street has been the biggest con-game of all selling the people that money should be a commodity that collects interest while parked in a bank. This was going on since before 1791 when the privately owned First Bank of the US was chartered.

    In LETS systems there will be less regulation and therefore less oversight by a criminal justice system. Scams may abound even more in LETS systems.

    And since you brought up the finance taught in the Bible, it behooves us to look therein, especially in the Torah books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. With all usury outlawed domestically and with debt forgiveness administered after seven years, questions about how a nation can incorporate these two features into its own laws must be answered as well.

    Other than this, you have produced a wonderful essay about money. The Christian Bible mentions money about 127 times. Never once does is prohibit the use of money. It is up to us to determine how we design our laws for the proper administration of money. In particular, how it is initially brought into existence certainly is also a key factor to consider while we outlaw all interest in moneylending nationally.

    An Old Testament prophet wrote in Micah 6:8 NKJV:
    “He has shown you, O man, what is good;
    And what does the Lord require of you
    But to do justly,
    To love mercy,
    And to walk humbly with your God?”
    Doing justly is lending interest free.
    Loving mercy forgives loans after seven years even when the loans are in default of payments.
    Walking humbly means keeping the commandments of our Lord.

    A new commandment Jesus gave us in Luke 6:35:
    “Lend expecting nothing in return”

    Richard A. Werner has recently posited that money is a public utility. If so, then why not administer money through a public institution? It is a well known fact that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned institution purportedly with public oversight. Have you ever watched the dog and pony show a Chairperson of the Fed puts on during Congressional hearings? I just cannot fathom how the beltway idiots cannot see through the facade.

    • We don’t really disagree Daniel, should people succeed in having the Government create a decent monetary system, providing the People with ultra low cost credit and abundant and stable money, than that would be great.

      The obvious concern is that this is really the last thing the Government will do. In its current incarnation, at least.

      And since the commandment is to ‘lend freely, expecting nothing in return’, and since we simply cannot afford to wait until the Government is liberated from Kleptocratic control, there really is nothing stopping us from providing non-State/market based solutions to at least alleviate problems, and of course promote the message: better money is possible.

      Let me put it this way: should someone in your community succeed in creating a great interest-free currency, providing a lot of credit. Would you tell your grandchildren to go to the Bank until the Government gets it right, or would you pay with the unit yourself, to enhance its liquidity, so it can do more to keep your own blood as safe from Usury as possible?

      • Your article was eloquent! I have come up with a fix for at least the debt based portion of the United States monetary system. By creating a non debt based National Currency to be named Federal Tax Credits via Constitutional Amendment. You seem like a smart guy. Check it out and give me your opinion if you have a chance. I just started a wordpress site

      • Daniel Krynicki permalink

        To answer Anthony first,

        We must notice that the national laws in ancient Israel included the law against all interest in moneylending. Attaining our objective to outlaw all domestic usury by law is the best choice. There are too many other circumstances to consider to ignore a nation’s monetary practices. Funding public expenditures is necessary. You want a police force? You want a local fire department with EMTs? The way we fund these public expenditures today is confiscatory of property when an individual fails to pay the homestead property tax.

        We can do whatever we like in conclaves or closed communities; but when push comes to shove, we all are still subject to national and local laws within our own borders. To be in compliance with tax laws, egregious or otherwise, we submit to monetary authorities. Observe below, after the comments directed at reformer99, how government issued money complies with our need for laws and an honest system to enforce them. Any kind of private administration of money always, without fail, has wound up plagued with confidence games. As long as men and women are able to game private systems for their unfair advantage, a serious need exists for regulation. Otherwise, we submit to the anarchy that is ever present for hundreds of years now.

        For reformer99,

        Allow me to explain why I would not forward to you one thin dime or even think about purchasing a T-shirt from you. You must first explain your system plainly. Anyone who would get involved with your agenda without knowing the first thing about it is probably non compos mentis.

        Contrary to your method of advertising, I will offer you a 28th Amendment to read free. Just download the PDF at the link provided below. A gentleman I am in contact with wrote a book with a 28th Amendment in it that I am already committed to. Consider whatever else his book has in it as superfluous to my commitment in monetary reform. If you cannot agree with his 28th Amendment in principle, then we have little in common.

        You should contemplate these following salient points that will be required for a monetary system that will truly promote the general welfare:

        Only Congress has the authority to issue legal tender currency. The Treasury Department shall be the ministry through which this will be accomplished.

        There are only two purposes for which such money can be created; 1) To pay for all public expenditures, and 2) to lend both interest free and fee free.

        In the case of #2), the Treasury Department shall establish a National Credit and Currency Agency that will disenfranchise private banks as lending institutions and replace them because all interest charging in moneylending shall henceforth be outlawed. Loan ledgers administered by the NCCA will enter legal tender currency into the debit column for all loan transactions. Because of this, the money supply will be stable.

        Funding for all public expenditures and for Treasury direct loans to all with Treasury Direct Lawful Money of the United States * will obviate the need to collect taxes in order to pay for these purposes. The only reason for one flat rate tax is to balance the money supply with the needs of commerce in order to prevent hyper-inflation of prices.
        *(Rick DiMare’s terminology – TDLMUS)

        • Good thing you guys are at least thinking. Your proposal goes way beyond fixing current monetary system. I think you should simplify if you ever want to stand a chance at actually going anywhere with your proposal. AIPAC may help you to bribe Congress as that is their specialty. Here is a link to the free details of my proposed Constitutional Amendment that leaves Federal Reserve Notes in place as an international currency. The United States owes a fortune to investors all over the world. As well as needs a device to collect taxes from US corporations to pay their taxes from profits made outside of the US.

          • Taylor Pope-Williams has already sent a letter to the UN. If you go to Facebook, Christians Against Usury the letter can be downloaded as a PDF from the Files button into your own computer.

            Actually, these thoughts are not original. Together, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford took a tour at Muscle Shoals, Alabama. They revealed a plan that proposed a good part of Taylor’s 28th Amendment. This story was published on December 6, 1921 by the New York Times.

            In agreement with Henry Ford and Thomas Edison as century earlier, Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1813 that the “circulating medium belongs to the nation”. This, of course, makes Richard A. Werner’s notion of monetary administration as a “public utility” nothing new.

            In 1943 an American attorney, Howard B. Rand, succinctly proposed in one paragraph usury free capitalism that would mirror the ancient financial laws found in the Christian Bible.

            Howard Benjamin Rand, 1943
            From “Digest of Divine Law”, page 94:
            “In these three important laws a perfect monetary system based upon the value of goods, services and the increase of our national wealth with the outlawing of usury and the institution of a system of taxation which is not confiscatory of property, the foundation will have been laid for an economic structure which in operation will be par excellent. Nothing that the socialists can conceive, nor the Communists desire, can be compared to the institution of the God-given system which will out-capital capitalism in that all men will become capitalists and ‘sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.’ In this statement is the assurance of food and drink, to replace the fear and want which is ever present with men under the present economy.”

          • You see we are not that far apart. I am more for fixing the US monetary system first and using it as a working model. The notions of ridding society of the criminal bankers ways is a natural course as I’m sure you know. As far as anything God-given we would first have to discuss what God we are talking about. The God of the Declaration of Independence then sure, yes. The Gods of the Bible then the answer is no. I know how to translate the scriptures. That is another work of mine. Started a blog for that also. . I would gladly discuss that subject also. And yes, I did start with adding fund raising on the first post. My blogs are all in their infancy. As the Monetary systems of the world are corrupted so are the translations of the religious scriptures. But of course, they are both part and parcel of one another.

  4. populist permalink

    Excellent plus, Anthony!

    I would describe this as back to the clear thinking that caused the creation of money in the first place. Have to spread this around.  I assume Henry will post it.

    Tony B.

  5. Gwyllyn Goddard permalink

    Will you please stop referring to the Bible when tryibg to make a point? It undermines the discussion and makes it impossible to share your articles with non-Christians.


    • I realize the self declared ‘rational’ can melt down when confronted with the fact that you have people who might consider the Bible interesting, but surely not serious people who actually consider matters like these?!

    • Daniel Krynicki permalink

      Debt cancellations have history going back to the time of Hammurabi, six hundred years before writing of the Bible began. No one can learn the history of finance without covering four thousand years of history.

      Why would an economics professor write a book named “The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancellations”? Three Old Testament books in the Torah show a commandment against financial oppression. The Constitution of the ancient Israelites prohibited charging of interest on loans of money. Why should we not consider such laws as we study for that which is apropos in “promoting the general welfare of the people” as the American Constitution requires for good government?

      The Bible holds a special place in history as reference for any system of financial laws. There are no longer any excuses for leaving it out when wealth people produce automatically transfers to a parasitic few.

      • I agree Daniel. Interest-free economics validates the Bible, or is validated by it, depending on whether people rate Science or Scripture higher.

        Jesus’ wipping of the Money Changers rings through the ages as the most relevant action ever committed by any man, so I’m guessing people should cut him some slack.

        • A Catholic once argued a while ago that interest or usury is natural and is part of the free market. Here is a quote from him where he argued in favor of usury with scripture:

          “Regarding Usury, meaning Interest, that too is a natural thing.

          In Scripture Usury is prohibited to be charged to your brother, or to fellow Christians, or to the person in need. You loan to a relative, a Churchman or to a neighbor in need, without even expecting repayment let alone interest.

          But that Scriptural prohibition does not apply to the commercial money transaction with a banker or person in the business of loaning money.

          Banks – businesses set up for the purpose of dealing in money and making strictly commercial transactions using the coin of the realm and other foreign currencies – are not prohibited from charging interest (Usury).

          “Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury.”–Matt 25:27

          “And why then didst thou not give my money into the bank, that at my coming, I might have exacted it with usury?”–Luke 19:23

          When Jesus drove the merchants and the money-changers out of the Temple, He was not condemning what they did for a living, which was a necessary thing. What Jesus condemned was where they were doing it, which was in the Temple.

          Pilgrims journeyed there from all over the known world, and needed to purchase required sacrifices, and to do that they had to exchange whatever currency they had into the coin of the realm.”

          • Daniel Krynicki permalink

            dgaubatz313 wrote: “In Scripture Usury is prohibited to be charged to your brother, or to fellow Christians, or to the person in need. You loan to a relative, a Churchman or to a neighbor in need, without even expecting repayment let alone interest.”

            Daniel Krynicki: This assessment of Scripture is sloppy in the extreme. Precise textual analysis in the Torah books Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy using the definitions that 19th century Philologist James Strong provided in his Hebrew and Greek dictionaries indicate that all domestic usury was prohibited in ancient Israel. Since the Torah was indeed considered a national constitution in that ancient land, a precise reading of the original texts is necessary.

            We have two such ancient texts still available today. They are the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint. The Greek is actually an older text because Rabbis added vowels into the Hebrew during a time just before the Saracens drove them out of the Middle East into Eastern Europe and Asia. St Paul carried a Greek Septuagint with himself during his missionary journeys. The Greek language was fully developed with vowels all the way back to the time of Homer; and the Greek Septuagint was translated from a vowelless Hebrew text about 250 BCE.

            This preliminary consideration is presented here to show that all Christendom are presently using English Bible translations that do not render accurate context in Deuteronomy 15 and 23. The foreigners so named in the Deuteronomy chapters were not foreign residents in ancient Israel. They were outlandish or hostile foreigners.

            In Exodus 12 it is commanded that there must be one law administered to both foreign residents and native born alike, with the exception of eating of the passover meal. James Strong, in his Hebrew dictionary, pointed out that the Hebrew word ach (awkh) means “a brother” – in other words used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphoric affinity or resemblance like. This indicates that foreign residents must be considered brothers in the widest sense.

            Circumcision is no longer a covenant requirement that once had to be administered to foreign residents before the foreign resident was allowed to partake in passover. We therefore have recently proved in this study of the ancient sacred texts that a Biblical allowance for usury charging upon foreigners has never been as the Christian clergy have taught since about 1515 CE or as dgaubatz313 indicated in his reply. Sadly, almost all Christendom today believe the Bible teaches as dgaubatz313 wrote.

            Contrariwise, even the modern Greek language today carefully distinguishes between the allogenes-foreigner and the allotrios-foreigner. The same is true for the ancient Hebrew words ger-foreigner, nekar-foreigner and nokriy-foreigner. Just as we have foreign residents today in most all nations, the Hebrew ger and nekar as well as the Greek allogenes show there were foreign residents present in ancient times. Such differences must be included for accurate translations of the Bible. Otherwise we wind up with mangled interpretations like that given by dgaubatz313 along with most Christian clergy from 1515 CE and onward.

            The ancient Hebrew and Greek words used in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy in both ancient texts clearly show this. Now when honest Bible students couple all this information with a passage in Matthew 25 about a coming judgment of nations, we can logically reason how the children of Israel never did observe the Torah’s financial commandments.

            We can observe these inaccurate Biblical interpretations never get to the core of understanding financial oppression because the translations render duplicitous contexts. But when we notice these English versions exhibit conflicting and even duplicitous contexts, honest Bible students are left between a rock and a hard place.

            Go ahead; you can continue justification for private banks to oppress students and young mortgagees for just about their entire lives. But the Bible does not teach this at all, that is, in the way you interpret it. Why would there have been a debt release clause every seven years if God’s law allowed a lifetime of debt plus interest upon the people? Jesus himself cleared the matter up with a short discourse in Luke 6:27-35. He actually put the points to rest that dgaubatz313 raised here by using the sentence “Lend expecting nothing in return” in context with a passage about enemies. The Christian faith now demands that we lend expecting nothing in return even to enemies.

            As for using Luke 19 and Matthew 25 as a justification for charging interest, Anglican Bishop John Jewel gave a moving sermon during the 16th century disproving dgaubatz313’s speculation that usury is justified in these two chapters. There is an excerpt from this sermon short enough so it can be submitted here at WordPress. If the author of this post, Mr Migchels, is inclined to allow Bishop Jewel’s destruction of dgaubatz313’s notion that usury is allowed from Matthew 25 and Luke 19 I will certainly follow through and submit it in a reply.

            The American Constitution now shows to the world that a Government “Of, For and By the People”, can administer a system of financial laws that 1) outlaw interest in moneylending, and 2) create a money supply by issuing legal tender currency to pay for all public expenditures as well as other social functions that promote the general welfare. One such social function would be to issue legal tender into the debit column for all interest free and fee free loan transactions. Such a government will nationalize all domestic banking institutions and administer money as a public utility. All retained employees will become a part of the national civil service work force.

            But these are the only two purposes for which currency can be issued. No longer should wizards who own a bank be allowed to create money. Who needs a banker to create money? The people can do it legally on their own. The Bible financial laws already sanction this.

        • Just to make it clear, there are a lot of good Christians in the world, but I will never worship that book or the so called gods in it.

    • Hugo permalink

      As a non-Christian I don’t mind it so much. Anthony clearly has Christian roots and it is better to state it in the open, because otherwise he might come across as having a hidden agenda.

      It’s remarks like these that made me realize the bible is not full of nonsense. It’s also good to see that the problems we face with usury today (and their solution) were known thousands of years ago.

  6. Good article.

  7. meecha59 permalink

    I sent you a message on messenger last week. Gilad Atzmon is coming to mine on Feb 9th great to get you there too??

  8. Joris Luteijn permalink

    You make a very good point about the (absence of) usury’s effects in terms of (de)monetization. And about how abundant money facilitates leeway and trust. I agree that these are needed to facilitate people forgoing the use of money. I want to point out however, that while abundance encourages generosity, forgoing the use of money doesn’t necessarily equal it. See, accounting when not done quantitatively using money, can easily be replaced with a more intuitive, qualitative form. Which is much less of a hassle. Admittedly, when the books are burned so to speak, one tends to be A BIT less clingy. But ultimately, debts and credits reside in our hearts. If we were to have them disappear, we’d have to abandon personal consciousness, and thus honor. Why would we? Life is play. Why try to rid it of rules? That’s near impossible. Which… Probably is why it holds a fascination. Not mine though.

  9. The current financial system may be trending towards no usury. The following post gives an economic explanation why interest rates are destined to go lower:

  10. Oh-so-bright monetary deformators ask oh-so-bright questions —just to reveal their bright-ness.

    Can we live without unit of length, unit of weight, unit of volume ? I guess we could, people lived without those units on occasion.

    Is it possible to live without unit of account ?

    The Bible records a transaction in which the seller asked for 400 units of account for his property, and the buyer counted these units out, and the property became his. Would this purchase have been possible without unit of account ? Neither the purchaser, nor the seller heard of the Zulus, or the Buntus, or the maggot-infested monetary deformators, so they resorted to the vulgar habit of using units of account. Not only that, but the whole entire neighbourhood was in dark ignorance —without any enlightenment and illumination— for the unit of account, accepted by the seller and the buyer, was common among them, too.

    There is nothing new under the Sun, the law of money has been the same, and unchangeable, eversince Adam & Eva got evicted and had to lower themselves to interacting with the locals.

Leave a Reply

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