Thursday, January 22, 2015



The statement made in the previous chapter that "with money as an invariable denominator of values there can be no such thing as a general rise and fall in prices," appears so startling that a complete elucidation of the matter is desirable. As this demonstration will be made by a consideration of the price form of commodities, I shall first show how this form is developed from simple barter.

Barter is the direct exchange of commodities with each other; thus, if two pounds of cheese are exchanged directly for one bushel of wheat, we have simple barter. If, however, money be introduced, and two pounds of cheese be sold for a certain sum of money, and this money be used to purchase the bushel of wheat, this is said to be selling cheese and buying wheat. The two transactions are identical in results, providing they both take place at the same place and at the same time. An interval between selling the cheese and buying the wheat may, however, cause the results to be widely different. Referring to the illustration given in the chapter on Money, we saw how the relations of commodities were expressed. Take the following commodities as equivalents in exchange :

Barter or Exchange Form,

Sugar in lbs 400 =
Butter in lbs 50 =
Coffee in lbs 40 =
Potatoes in bushels 20 =
Cloth in yards 25 =
Gold in ozs 1

Now since values are inversely proportional to the quantities in which goods exchange, we can arrive immediately at the value form by dividing their least common multiple by each quantity. Thus:

400/400, 400/50, 400/40, 400/20, 400/25, 400/1

which becomes the Value Form:

Sugar to Butter to Coffee to Potatoes to Cloth to Gold as
1 to 8 to 10 to 20 to 16 to 400

We have seen that price is the money form of commodities. It follows, therefore, that the price form is evolved directly from the value form by merely applying a common denominator to the value form.

This common denominator can be any number arbitrarily selected. All numbers being simple multiples of unity, we will select this as our common denominator. In the above example it will be seen that 1 happens to be the equivalent, or the expression of the purchasing power of 1 pound of sugar at this particular time. But it is likewise the expression of the purchasing powers of 1/8th pound of butter, 1/10th pound of coffee, 1/400th ounce of gold, etc., and represents one just as much as another. Hence this unit being in no wise based or dependent upon any one commodity, it is absolutely invariable. All we need do is to apply the decimal system and we at once arrive at a method by which the purchasing powers of all commodities may be expressed and their daily fluctuations registered with mathematical fidelity and precision. Exactly! Our proposal does this and provides us with a ready means of establishing exchange relationships between our money and all the other known forms of money, which are all commodities, while our money is not. All other commodities priced in Value Units are arrived at by reference to other monies, but soon become independent of their pricing and fluctuations. The result, over very long periods of time, is stable prices.

Taking 1 as the denominator and applying it to the value form we obtain the following:

Price Form,

Sugar 1 per lb
Butter 8 per lb
Coffee 10 per lb
Potatoes 20 per bushel
Cloth 16 per yard
Gold 400 per oz

which means, that if sugar be 1 unit per pound, butter is worth 8 units, coffee 10 units, and so on.

Here we have traced the development of price from the exchange relations of commodities. We are now in a position to ascertain the cause of a general rise or fall in prices, and having discovered the cause, the remedy will become apparent. Taking the price form, let us write down the values of several commodities.

Suppose tea to be selling for sixty cents per pound; wheat 75 cents per bushel; iron $25 per ton; silver 90 cents per ounce; whiskey $2.50 per gallon; gold $20 per ounce. Remembering that the so-called "standard of value," or rather the common denominator of values is $1, the price form of the above commodities becomes:

Tea 30
Wheat 75
Iron 2,500
Silver 90
Whiskey 250
Gold 2,000

Now, it is quite evident that any variation in the denominator affects all the numerators proportionately. Thus, if the denominator be doubled, the effect is the same as if all the numerators were halved. Similarly, halving the denominator is the same thing as doubling the numerators.

Since these fractions constitute the prices of the various commodities (i. e., tea being 60/100ths of a dollar per pound; wheat 75/100ths of a dollar per bushel, etc.), it follows that variations in the denominator of values causes variations in the prices of commodities; and since all commodities have for their denominator this so-called "standard of value," it is evident that any change in the standard, causes a corresponding change in the prices of commodities. An increase in the denominator results in a decrease in prices, and a decrease in the denominator causes an increase in prices.

The cause therefore, of a general rise or a general fall in commodities, is the use of a variable denominator of values.

The remedy is to be found in the abolition of the commodity standard and the adoption of an invariable value denominator. How this can be arrived at in practice I shall discuss further on. We believe that Kitson has here arrived at the exact same conclusion arrived at by Riegel and he wrote this a good sixty years prior to Riegel's works. Before we go into just what Kitson might have advocated to hope to bring this about, we would reiterate what Riegel said, but then did not follow; he said that political action was useless and yet he advocated getting politicians and bankers involved in his alternative to state issued “public” money! He wasn't as much hypocritical as naïve. In the time since Riegel, a certain inevitable maturity has convinced us not only of the folly of relying on any people representing any government, but of the certainty that there are financial, monetary and banking interests of ruling parties behind governments everywhere with their own agendas, to seek to retain power and to see to it that vast numbers of human lives are squandered in senseless wars and other manoeuvres to divide and conquer and then subject the world to another great dark age. We doubt whether they will ultimately succeed as much that they do is being revealed and in any case is equivalent to defiance of nature; the same as attempting to make water run uphill. Nevertheless, what they have at their disposal is control of virtually the entire aparat of state FORCE and persuasion. They assume they are invincible, that none can stand against their Beast system. We agree with them and hence shall not, and have not advocated any direct confrontation with “their” system at all. Our message has been to walk away from them, to walk out and not come back, to do our own thing; to “come out of her, my people.” We'll see what Kitson arrived at as a proffered solution.


As a necessary consequence of treating money as a commodity, economists have found themselves confronted with all sorts of unanswerable problems. For instance, if money is a commodity, how can we prevent it from fluctuating in obedience to the law of supply and demand? And if it is continually varying, how can money be a common denominator of values, or a standard of deferred payments? Will not every variation in the supply and demand interfere with its functions as an invariable denominator? And why should not this commodity be governed by the law governing other commodities, and its production tend to cheapness and low cost instead of dearness and high cost? I have already shown, when dealing with the subject of price, how a variable denominator disorganizes the whole world of exchange transactions by raising and lowering prices. Under these conditions, instead of facilitating exchange, this value denominator becomes a hindrance and an obstruction, and in place of functioning as the mere medium of exchange, it dominates and controls it. Economists show very clearly how the purchasing power of money rises and falls with every diminution and increase in its supply, the demand remaining constant. "The value of money," says John Stuart Mill, "other things being the same, varies inversely as its quantity; every increase in quantity lowering its value, and every diminution raising it in a ratio exactly equivalent." (“Principles of Political Economy,” Mill)

The result to which economists are naturally led, involves an extraordinary contradiction, viz., that exchanges must be limited by the supply of money. This is what is implied by the expression "over-trading.'' This is surely a reversal of the natural order of things. What would be said of a theory which propounded that the amount of land cultivated should be governed by a certain limited production of agricultural implements, or the volume of railway traffic by the production of locomotives, or the road transportation of the country by an artificially regulated supply of horses? (or of vehicles, however they are powered? These ideas are just as often resorted to these days as they have always been and for the same exact reasons; in controlling anything by making it artificially scarce, lies the power over others, of the ability of the ruling elites to keep the rest of humanity under their thumb!) And yet, such propositions would be wisdom itself compared to that of allowing commerce to adjust itself to a legally restricted supply of money. Experience has taught us the wisdom of allowing the production of commodities to be limited only by the wants and needs out of which their production arises. Thus, the production of agricultural implements is governed by the demand which arises from the cultivation of the land, and the production of locomotives is controlled by the demand arising from rail transportation, and so on. Since all industries are dependent on money in some form or other for their existence, the amount of money issued should be governed wholly by the demand arising from trade and commerce. Although it is not as obviously stated in Riegel, he clearly thought the same; just because those without money were given the sole right to issue it did not mean that their right to issue was unlimited.

We are now in sight of the shoals and quicksands where the commodity-money advocates inevitably founder. They stand between two horns of a dilemma, each confronting them with a contradiction. For the claim that money is a commodity involves the surrender of money to the influences governing commodities, such as supply and demand, under which it must fluctuate and cannot therefore be a standard. It is incapable of registering fluctuations in the values of other commodities.

On the other hand, in order to save money from such fluctuations and preserve it as a standard, it is necessary to shield it from supply and demand influences, and this takes it at once out of the realm of commodities.

In other words, when treated as a standard of value or of deferred payments, money is no longer a commodity; and when treated as a commodity, it is no longer money. Nothing is more amusing than to witness the alarm and consternation into which the "hard" or commodity money people are thrown the moment their theories are seriously and intelligently discussed. If you try to show them what money really is, in its scientific aspect, they talk about the impossibility of carrying on commerce without a "standard of value." If you take them on their own ground and insist upon treating money as a commodity, and strive to show them that the inevitable tendency of industry is towards cheapness in the production of commodities, and the necessity therefore of cheapening the production of this commodity by the free coinage of silver, etc., they become frightened, and talk of the ruin of the country, the disorganization of prices, etc.

Consider for a moment what money really is. Commencing with Aristotle, who had probably the most marvellous mental perception of any man of ancient times of whom we have knowledge. He says, "but with regard to a future exchange (if we want nothing at present, that it may take place when we do want something) money is, as it were, our security. For it is necessary that he who wants it, should be able to get what he wants."

F. Cradocke, a London merchant in the time of the commonwealth, says: "it is to be observed that money itself is nothing but a kind of security, which men receive, when parting with their commodities, as a ground of hope or assurance that they will be repaid in some other commodity, since no man will either sell or part with any, for the best money, but in hopes thereby to procure some other commodities or necessaries." Certainly this is exactly meant by all the previous discussions concerning completed transactions, which are really nothing other than barter; a trade of one commodity for another. The function of money is to split barter and it is hoped that the same or nearly the same in value will be surrendered later for tender of money received in release of some other commodity. This will have interesting ramifications when the nature of our proposed Valun labour contracts is discussed further.

Bishop Berkeley asks in his Querist, "whether the true idea of money, as such, be not altogether that of a ticket or counter? Whether power to command the industry of others be not real wealth? And whether money be not in truth, tickets or tokens for recording and conveying such power? and whether it be of consequence what material the tickets are made of?" Another associate of mine often remarked that money was “tokens of appreciation” for this or that acquired or accomplished. One of my reasons for starting this blog many years ago was to tackle the problem that lies at the root of the rottenness of the present system; that most of the money in use are rather “tokens of depreciation” as they lose value continually, cheating everyone who uses them. Again since bitcoin is just another commodity money, it is just the same and has already cheated as many people as it has benefited.

Henry Thornton says, "money of every kind is an order for goods." Adam Smith says, "a guinea may be considered as a bill for a certain quantity of necessaries and conveniences upon all the tradesmen in the neighbourhood." So Bastiat speaks of money as "an acknowledgement or title, an order of the state, a token, etc." Baudeau says, "it is a kind of bill of exchange or order payable at will of the bearer, etc." Let's further state that the three standard names for debt instruments are instances of incomplete transactions; the bill for all invoices due within a year, the note out to seven years and the bond out to forty-nine. These transactions are NOT completed by payment of money, oh no, as that too is an instance of debt. These incomplete transactions are only completed when the money is tendered for something real; a commodity or service.

"It is one of the special merits of the economists,” says Macleod, "that they clearly saw the true nature of money." (Ibid, Macleod) Ah, but did they?

If, then, money is merely a ticket, a token, a mark, a counter, an order, how can it be a commodity? Why should it be subjected to the laws of supply and demand? Tickets, counters, marks, are not subjected to any such laws. When I purchase a ticket for a theatrical performance, or for a railroad journey, I pay a fixed sum arranged by the theatrical manager or the railroad company. The ticket is merely the evidence of a debt or obligation on their part to render me a certain service. This ticket is not a commodity, it is but a piece of paper. It is of no value per se and is subject to no fluctuations. Well, unless there are ticket speculators who are making a business out of the scarcity of the tickets issued for a specific event, right up to the expiration of the tickets as the event is taking place. Ticket scalping is something like commodities options trading, so Kitson's contention that tickets are not commodities is not exactly true.

This transaction means, that in paying them a certain sum of money, I have given them an order on society, a note or coin possessing general purchasing power, which entitles the holder to any product or service desired, to the value of the note or coin. Money is what money does!

In return they have given me an order on themselves, entitling me to a seat at the theatre at a particular time, to witness a performance, or to proper conveyance to a certain place. Now the only difference, in reality, between money and a theatre ticket or railroad ticket is, that the former is a general order on society, the latter are special orders on particular persons or companies. Their nature is otherwise precisely similar. In purchasing such tickets we never think for a moment of the material of which the ticket is composed, nor, in fact, of the ticket at all, apart from what it represents. In itself it is a piece of card-board, which we should not trouble to pick up were it not for what it represents. Further, we should consider an agent insane who made his tickets of gold or silver. We should call it the most wanton form of extravagance. Again, these tickets are not issued on any notion of maintaining the value of the tickets. The number of seats sold or persons carried is not governed by the number of tickets issued; on the contrary, the number of tickets printed is governed by the number of people desiring to travel, or by the capacity of the theatre. A theatre ticket or a railway ticket is merely a convenient means of recording a debt, and this is precisely what money does. -as does a bill, a note or a bond. There are in fact exchanges for the longer term instances of debt which all operate under the same principles; that an incomplete transaction or debt is represented and even if other instances of debt are involved, I. e. money, the transaction is still not completed until the bonds, notes or bills become commodities or services. Everything ultimately resolves to terms of barter.

An individual issues one to society as an order on him to fulfil a certain pledge or obligation of a special nature. Society issues the other to individuals as an order on it to fulfil its pledges or obligation of any nature. The absurdity of limiting the amount of money issued, in order to maintain it at a certain value, is equivalent to that of a railroad company limiting the number of tickets printed in order to maintain a certain fare. What should we say if such a company issued tickets, based upon a per capita calculation of the population of the towns through which it ran, and insisted that the traffic should be limited to this number? This is precisely the level of “thinking” involved in the failure to give up forever the notion that money must be a commodity, and must be kept artificially scarce. I have no possible words of kindness for such as these. They deserve the rebuke of the kinder among us as the enemies of freedom and of the human race generally. Their ideas are junk, their association without possible social merit; they deserve to be shunned as the Scrooges they are!

The full effects of this limitation in the issuance of money we shall hereafter see. The question, therefore, as to the amount of money needed by a nation, is one which no man can possibly answer, nor is it important that we should be able to do so. Since it was a question arising from a perverted conception of reality, it was always the wrong question! The supply of money, like the supply of anything useful, must be governed by the transactions out of which its need arises, and its issuance must be made as free as the transactions themselves. Get it? We're right back at Riegel's clear observations which happen to fly against all the prevailing systems of politics and economics now prevailing and kept up by FORCE. If something better were set up and enough people started using it, the present order would collapse as the rotten carcass it is and humanity could begin again to build a new world based on understanding, with an end to want and war. This is not idealism. We are not attempting to get water to run uphill. We are asserting that ours is the natural course of things, that the present fabricated systems of exchange and their institutions are temporary inconveniences in the wy of allowing people to do whatever they want and need to do.

In answering the question, "Can there be an over-issue of money?" two things must be considered. If by issue is meant the mere printing of certificates or notes, the answer is that no harm is done beyond the slight loss in paper. On the other hand, if by "issue" is meant the paying out of money by the government or individuals, in exchange for commodities and services, it is evident that there can be over-issues, just as a railroad company can sell more tickets than its carrying capacity, or a theatre manager more than his theatre will accommodate. The analogies are correct, so all one needs do is determine who or what is currently doing this over-issuing of money to understand what causes price inflation.

Money represents debts which society or individuals agree to redeem, and since there is a limit to the productive power of every one, there is also a limit to every one's ability for settling debts; hence, there must be a limit to the issuance of money. It helps greatly to understand that all money represents incomplete barter transactions, even those tokens made of precious metals in which their commodity content participates in the terms of barter.

This limit, however, is only governed by the productive power of those issuing it. Money must necessarily be backed by wealth, and so long as it does not nominally exceed the purchasing power of the wealth behind it, there can be no danger of over-issue. Kitson would say that any mere “stuff” is wealth, but in fact since one works to earn money in barter to make a living; to provide food, water, shelter, other amenities, in fact labour denominated by either time or the completion of various projects, is wealth. As we said, to clear up many misconceptions concerning what is and what is not wealth, only that which is capable of providing an income is wealth. Mere “stuff” that one may buy cheap and sell dear, art or antiques or any rarities, is capable of becoming wealth, but any objects one has in one's home, which one does not plan on selling in order to buy life's necessities, are not per se wealth. In fact, most “stuff” depreciates, sometimes rapidly in that the new sells for more than the used in most instances.

When treating of wealth, I showed that a commodity was something useful and was exchangeable for some other useful thing. This is barter. Now money, as we have seen, is not a commodity; it is the medium between commodities by which they are proportioned and exchanged. Money splits barter perfectly in half. It is a very useful invention for facilitating and assisting commerce. But the question arises, if money is useful and exchangeable, does it not answer to the definition of a commodity, just given? Is not money a useful invention, and is it not exchangeable for commodities? When discussing the subject of exchange, we saw that the test of a complete exchange was reciprocal satisfaction. Now the exchange of commodities for money (i. e., a sale) does not afford reciprocal satisfaction. Mere money is not capable of satisfying any real want or need. As Francis Walker says, "men take it (money) not for its own sake, but for what it will bring them; they hold it not to enjoy it, but to be ready for the moment when they shall part with it to obtain that which they will enjoy."

Macleod also says, "the use of money, being to preserve the record of services due to its possessor for any future time, etc."

So Thornton says, "money of every kind is an order for goods." “It is not with money that things are really purchased," says John Stuart Mill. "There is," says Le Trosne, "this difference between an exchange and a sale; that in an exchange everything is consummated or completed for each party. They possess the thing which they desired to procure, and they have only to enjoy it. In the sale, on the contrary, it is only the purchaser who has attained his object, because it is only he who is in a position to enjoy. But everything is not ended for the seller." No, in the first instance, “an exchange” is goods for goods or service for service, with or without money. Without money, the exchange is merely barter and we can look around us, among our friends and family and see many instances where people do things for each other “for love,” but it's still an exchange based on barter in some form. Money splits barter and offers the seller the opportunity to exchange his money for that which he wants or needs, thus completing the transaction.

For this reason a sale is, as we have seen, a demi-exchange, or, as Francis Walker says, "only half a transaction." Money, therefore, is not itself, in the economic sense, an exchangeable commodity. Money is not the thing itself exchanged; it is the medium of exchange, the middle thing, the symbol of future satisfaction. This could just as well all be Riegel.

It is a "ticket," an "order," or "counter." A ticket for a theatre is a very useful institution, and is given to the purchaser for money; but nobody regards the acquisition of this mere ticket as of any account apart from what it represents. Deprive it of its significance, and it is nothing but a piece of paper, utterly useless and valueless; the same is true of money. And that goes just the same for any metal coins, as when we were children and quarter dollars and dimes actually had some silver content, they were just as often walked on when they fell to the floor and could very often be swept up and discarded with the trash. Stripped of the power with which society has clothed it, it is nothing useful, it is utterly worthless. "There cannot, in short,” says Mill, "be intrinsically a more insignificant thing, in the economy of society, than money, except in the character of a contrivance for sparing time and labour. It is a machine for doing quickly and commodiously what would be done, though less quickly and commodiously, without it." Money is a machine, which is all we've ever said it was. Our intention has always been to propound and publicise the need for a better machine than presently exists.

Apart from its function, as the medium of exchange, money is, therefore, nothing; it vanishes. In fact, it is absolutely essential, from the very nature of things, that money should be nothing apart from its exchange functions. Money is the common denominator of values, and values can be expressed only by numbers. Now a denominator of numbers has no existence apart from the numerator. Its raison d'etre is to qualify the numerator; it disappears with it. Now a commodity has an independent existence; it is an entity. A commodity cannot be a common denominator of values, since it has no existence apart from and independent of the numerator, and cannot disappear with it. All, pure Riegel, sixty years before him.

Since money is nothing apart from its work, and is not a commodity, money is per se, essentially of no value. (I am using the word value here in the conventional sense. It is difficult to avoid its employment in this way and yet convey one's exact meaning so as to be properly understood by the popular mind. Riegel had similar misgivings about uses of these words.) The values or purchasing powers which it expresses do not reside in money, nor are they a part of it. They are the attributes of the wealth that is behind it as guarantees of its redemption, and which cause it to circulate. Riegel's insight extended this idea one step farther; that money was backed in every instance where it is used by what it buys, not anything intrinsically attributable to it. The buyer is the issuer, it is traded for something tangible, either a good or service, then the seller has the money from the buyer and his barter transaction is completed when he in turn buys the equivalent value represented by the money, for something he requires. When the buyer takes back his money for something he offers in trade, a money circle is completed and the money he issued is destroyed; its issue value is cancelled.

Money is not itself wealth, but merely its representative or symbol. Like the denominator of a fraction, money expresses the value of the numerator, and disappears with it; or, like the sign of equality, it expresses the relation of two things, but is, apart from those things, meaningless.

The question of the supply of money may, therefore, be thus summed up. There should be an abundance, in order to meet all the requirements of business, and the supply should be governed by these demands instead of allowing business to adjust itself to a fixed supply. Money, when issued on a scientific basis, obeys but one law. In order to do this, it must be per se, valueless. The supply of money should not be restricted. The substance chosen should be the most plentiful, so that it could not possibly be monopolized. Value arises only where scarcity exists — where the supply is limited; hence gold is the worst possible material of all out of which to create money. Contrary to just about everything you've ever been told on the subject, I'm sure. Gold (nor silver) are not wealth either in the sense of being able to provide an income represented by the acquisition of useful goods or services. All precious metals are good for, for the time being, is as a means of exchange between their old system and ours. That is why our proposed Value Unit is based on their relation to dollars and any and all other “public” currencies, at a specific point in time, as the Figure 1 transaction on which all others may be arbitrarily based. After that, let a system of prices in Value Units emerge that recognizes what commodities may be worth in comparison with each other, using a means to measure that does not change.

We have also seen that so-called commodity money is subjected to two conflicting forces, the stronger of which it is bound to obey. As a commodity it is subjected to the law of supply and demand, and seeks that field where it can realize for itself the best returns. Now it is only as a commodity that money is capable of being exploited. It is in this capacity alone that money brokers and bankers are able to extort interest. There is a direct connection with commodity basis for money and usury and therefore ANY and ALL schools of thought, the “Austrians” etc. which emply this understanding are USELESS and DEAD WRONG!!! Money is a source of profit to those who deal exclusively in it, only so far as it is controlled by the laws of supply and demand. Hence, with the adoption of an invariable ideal unit of purchasing power, and with freedom to monetize all forms of wealth alike, interest or payment for the use of money would die a natural death, since the supply of money would always equal the demand. Get it? This is the basis for ALL economic slavery everywhere at all times, past, present and future! If you don't get it, read it over and over again until you do.

An invariable denominator of values would herald an unprofitable condition of things for money dealers, just as a community, free from sickness, would be a poor place for a doctor to practice in. It is owing to the unscientific and disorganized condition of our financial and monetary systems, that banking is one of the most profitable and lucrative businesses in the whole community, just as its irrational, inequitable and erratic laws have made of the United States a paradise for lawyers. Here, I'll state it factually this way: lawyers who are in service to real law, all of which must be natural law, must not demand that water be made to run uphill, etc. They are hereby admonished to join us in setting up the Valun Exchange Network (VEN) and the instrumental International Valun Exchange Society (IVES) to administer its key functions. We need lawyers who actually understand that, as Bastiat said, law is FORCE, and to be able to use law effectively for the common good.

Bad finance, bad laws and bad health, are good for bankers, lawyers, and doctors. We likewise admonish health professionals that their calling is to sustain life, not the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. There is a natural place for all genuine health professionals in a future VEN. We're not particularly sorry to admonish financiers, those who live from nothing but usury, that we have nothing for them; indeed that they should consider devoting themselves to more honest and productive work. Now, just as a railroad ticket has power to procure or purchase the carriage of a person for a certain journey, but is per se, valueless, so money, although endowed with purchasing power, is per se, valueless. In this way, and in this way only, it becomes entirely free from disturbing influences, and is capable of fulfilling completely and scientifically the functions of a medium of exchange, a common denominator of values, and a standard of deferred payments.

The first attack upon the unjust privilege accorded by statesmen and legislators to money was made by Adam Smith, who showed that it was not the highest form of wealth. Smith strove to reduce it to the level of other commodities. The death blow to privilege will be by reducing money to its natural basis — which is beneath that of commodities — to the condition of a mere medium, or tool of commerce. Therefore the sooner all the “special trade arrangements,” “most favoured nation status” and “reserve currency status” arrangements are recognized as all arrayed against the common people everywhere, the better. Wake up! These high and mighty so called “privileged” elites do not meet to help further anything but their own interests. You may assume that anything they say, is from its point of inception, intended to be a lie to mislead the public. “Experts” are not anybody special, they are more often than not, crooks in nice clothes and fancy cars, etc. Get it yet?

No comments:

Post a Comment