Can We Do Without Money?

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.

Ubuntu
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.

Conclusion
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.

Related:
Cause And Effects Of Money Scarcity
Interviewing Michael Tellinger