American Dissident Voices broadcast of May 10, 2014
by Kevin Alfred Strom
MONEY IS THE MEANS by which we are enslaved. But not one man in 1,000 knows how it is done. Today I am going to tell you.
There are many half-truths being vended on this topic in the so-called “patriot movement” and conservative and libertarian movements these days.
Conservatives and libertarians bewail the fact that the government spends more than it takes in — and then bridges the deficit by “printing money,” thereby causing inflation. But the latter part of that statement is a blatant falsehood. The government of the United States, except for some trifling amount of coins needed in commerce, no longer issues currency at all. It has the power to “print money,” but it does not do so. Instead, it goes into debt. It borrows. (ILLUSTRATION: This United States Note is a relic of the time when the US government issued its own currency.)
Some libertarians and patriots go a step further than the conservatives, and acknowledge that the government borrows from the quasi-private Federal Reserve System, a creation of the commercial banks. They tell us truthfully that the Fed creates money out of nothing when it “lends” to the bankrupt regime in Washington. And they tell us that we all must pay for what the Fed and its owners manufacture out of thin air. This making debt-money out of nothing is what causes inflation and costs us all dearly in interest payments, the patriots say. Well, what they say is true — but it’s only part of the truth.
The truth is that what the government borrows into existence — to the great profit of the banks through their Federal Reserve — is only a fraction of the total money-creation going on. The vast majority of money-creation is done, not by the central bank, but by the commercial banks themselves. The banks have created 97 per cent. of the dollars that exist, solely through bookkeeping entries — that is, they have created them out of nothing. They did this in essentially the same way long before the creation of the Federal Reserve. They did this under the gold standard. They did this when our coins were made of silver and our paper dollars were silver certificates. They’ve been doing it for hundreds of years.
The tale of the goldsmiths
It all began with Jewish goldsmiths and moneylenders many hundreds of years ago. When wealth was represented by precious metals, primarily gold, people would pay a fee to store their gold with a goldsmith, who already had sturdy vaults and security for the metals he worked into jewelry and other goods. The goldsmith would issue warehouse receipts on pieces of paper, finely engraved to discourage counterfeiting, certifying that the bearer of the paper, or “note,” could claim a certain amount of gold at any time by presenting the receipt to the goldsmith.
Jews had gravitated to this business — they say — because in the Middle Ages they were forbidden from engaging in many other trades. Also, Christians — and, at the time, virtually all Europeans were at least nominally Christians — were often forbidden from lending money at interest. One of the primary activities of the goldsmiths was lending out their excess reserves of gold at interest, a field which understandably became almost a Jewish monopoly.
Eventually people started using the warehouse receipts in trade as if they were money. It was much more convenient and secure than hauling clinking coins or bars of gold around, and the notes could be denominated in any amount — small, even down to tiny fractions of an ounce, for small purchases; very large for convenience in making large purchases. The goldsmiths took advantage of this development by making their loans in the form of notes instead of handing over physical gold to borrowers.
As long as the goldsmiths were lending out claims on their own gold, and not that of their depositors (who already had receipts covering 100 per cent. of their gold), this system was entirely honest. But the goldsmiths — who had by this time started their metamorphosis into bankers — noticed something very interesting: Very few depositors, fewer than one in ten, ever brought in their notes and asked for their actual gold. Since people were accepting the notes in trade as if they were money, and since the banker/goldsmith was lending notes instead of his gold anyway, and since very few people ever demanded their actual gold at any one time, why not lend out newly-printed notes based, not on the goldsmith’s own gold, but on that of his depositors? What great profits that would bring, and at such little risk! Some goldsmiths were even more dishonest, and just counterfeited as many receipts as they thought they could get away with, and lent them at interest or simply spent them, becoming fabulously wealthy until their scam was discovered.
Three amazing discoveries
Some of these bankers ended up at the end of a rope, or exiled with their wealth confiscated. Often their banks collapsed when note-holders lost faith and tried to withdraw a million ducats from a vault that contained only ten thousand. (This is called a “run on the bank” to this day.) But the more conservative bankers — who did fraudulently lend out notes on gold that already had notes issued on it, but who kept the fraud limited and held back perhaps ten per cent. of the gold as a “reserve” on which there was no double issuance — were usually able to get away with their fraud, and in the process made several new discoveries:
1. If they cut their depositors in on some of the profits of this scheme — and the depositors were often wealthy and powerful men, quite capable of harming the goldsmith if angered — then they were far less likely to incur their wrath and end up on the gallows or kicked out of the country. Thus arose the practice of paying interest to depositors.
2. Keeping the fraudulent loans down to a level of, say 90 per cent. of the value of deposits, prevented almost all runs on the bank, and allowed the banker to open his vault and show depositors that “all the gold was still there” even though the banker was profiting continually from interest on the loans of certificates that he had essentially counterfeited and which could never be redeemed if much more than half of them were presented all at once.
3. Paradoxically, the fraud sometimes greatly benefited the community by making possible a huge increase in economic activity. By increasing the money supply, the bankers were making possible the financing of new and sometimes sound ventures that would have withered on the vine if the money supply’s growth were limited to whatever new gold happened to be mined. Growing the supply of gold was and is a slow and laborious process — with no necessary relation to the productive and useful things that might be done by human beings with energy and ideas. Those ideas and that energy were liberated and empowered by the credit that the bankers created, even if they were fraudsters out to get something for nothing. They had demonstrated that in a community growing in numbers and in productivity, the money supply should also increase proportionately.
Today, the bankers have liberated themselves even from the discipline provided by the metal in their vaults. They have created a system in which all money is brought into being as a debt owed to a banker. They have mortgaged our entire society and our children’s future and erected a system in which a major portion of our lives must be spent to produce riches for men who did nothing to earn it — who simply created this “debt” that we “owe” them out of nothing, by the stroke of a pen or the entering of digits on a keyboard.
How it works today
The “reserves” of the more conservative fraudsters are no longer gold ducats, but simply existing deposits of fiat debt money, which are then used to launch the creation of even more of the same. Here, as I mentioned on this program a few weeks ago, in simplified outline, is how it works today:
When you make a deposit in your checking account of, say $1,000, the bank then proceeds to lend out around $900 to another customer, and that $900 immediately becomes available in that other customer’s checking account. (The exact amount depends on the “reserve requirements” set by the central bank.)
But does the banker actually “lend out your money”? Does he then deduct the $900 from your available funds? Does he put a hold on $900 of your funds until the loan is paid back? No, he does none of these things. You can demand your full $1,000 at any time. And the recipient of the “loan” can draw down the $900 immediately too.
What the banker has actually done is create the $900. Out of thin air. Where there was once $1,000, there is now $1,900. And since the amount created by the banker is limited only by the reserve requirements, and since most loans are deposited eventually in other checking accounts, the process reinforces itself again and again in a positive feedback loop — to the point where, today, approximately 97 per cent. of the money supply — 97 per cent.! — has been created by the banks. Only some 3 per cent. is actually coined or printed by the government. And the banker has the benefit of interest on this money created out of nothing.
That simple con is the entire basis of the fractional reserve banking system — and it is also a major source of wealth for the Jewish financial elite, the very engine of the genocide that the Jewish power structure is waging against us. Fractional reserve banking is the greatest of all confidence rackets in the history of the world.
It’s not just that fractional reserve banking makes our enemies rich. It’s that, with this ill-gotten wealth and an ethnic solidarity that our own people don’t have, they can purchase politicians, foment revolutions, and purchase huge numbers of existing businesses of all types and consolidate them into huge near-monopolies, cartels, and trusts, and keep almost anyone from successfully competing with them. Some of these banking dynasties — the Rothschilds, for example — are so rich that the entire economies of many nations are tiny in comparison.
“Soak the rich” — yeah, right
These fraudsters are well aware of the fact that many resent their wealth and power — and that a small but growing number of people have figured out both their con and their ethnic identity. In an effort to divert this resentment and anger onto others, this power structure of the super-wealthy is, ironically, a great creator, promoter, and funder of “soak the rich” schemes and Marxist agitation the world over.
Such agitation almost always directs the anger of the poor and the underclass at the moderately wealthy — those who own a factory or other productive concern, or who have invented a new technology, or who have managed to rise to wealth by in some way actually — unlike the bankers — producing something of real value. It is these people who the bankers do not wish to see rise any further — it is these people who are kept in their place by regulations and “progressive” “soak the rich” taxation. It is these people who are thus prevented from competing with the super wealthy, who always have a way around the legislation.
The paid agitators and their dupes often call for “income redistribution.” They tell us that “income inequality” is a problem that needs to be fixed by forcibly taking wealth from some and “giving” it to others.
Now I’m all for ending the ability of the bankers and Wall Street to create money out of thin air. And I am all for ending the ability of multinational corporations to steal from us using their usual techniques of fraud, manipulation, and so-called “free trade.” If a company won’t serve the interests of nation and race, it shouldn’t even exist. But taking from my neighbors to “equalize” incomes? No.
That’s not charity. That’s not giving. That’s just plunder.
And it’s pointless, too. If, on July 4th, you took all of the money in the United States and redistributed it equally among all adults (that’s about as radical a redistribution as you can get), by Christmas you would have billionaires and poor people again. Some people are stupid. Some people are extremely clever. And some people have a real flair, that amounts to genius, for separating the former from their cash.
Maybe the unattainability of their aims is the really brilliant aspect of Marx’s and other redistributive schemes, and the key to their recruiting success: Since their “dream” of equality can never be achieved in this universe, they are able to recruit a new army of foolish dreamers with each passing generation.
No “equality warrior” ever goes home after a job well done, because the job simply can’t be done, any more than King Canute could command the sea to depart the shores of England. But in the meantime, a lot of power and money passes into the hands of the well-heeled schemers who design such plans (Wall Street’s Kuhn, Loeb and Co. — the Goldman Sachs of their day — funded Lenin, for example; and the Jewish financial elite back liberal democracy and the welfare/warfare state today).
Remember this: The ethnically-distinct billionaire elite who misrule us hate the idea of someone coming up from below them to challenge their power. They hate it when a genuine American or European not vetted by them graduates from the class of successful, intelligent people (who might have a few million) into the multi-billionaire class. And “progressive” taxation and other “redistribution” schemes make it very difficult for us peons to do that.
We have been enslaved for generations
Americans have slept while the Fed has been given the power to control our entire economy. The Federal Reserve was sold to the rubes as a plan to control the bankers, but actually does the precise opposite. When private banks — and that is what the Federal Reserve is, the central hub of the banking system — control your currency, you’re naturally going to see them act in their own interests instead of in the interests of American workers and small businesses. The Fed, run almost entirely by Jews for decades, has essentially taken over one of the most important functions of government: control of the currency. And so you get government by the bankers, of the bankers, and for the bankers.
American banks aren’t necessarily American and European-domiciled banks aren’t necessarily European in any real sense. You’ll find out that many of these characters are no more European than George Soros or the Rothschilds. These are internationalist, globalist ‘operators’ with no loyalty to any country except their international tribe. It’s both insane and tragic that we’ve handed over our currency to these pirates. It’s like hiring Bugsy Siegel or Meyer Lansky to run your Neighborhood Watch program.
As I said, the problem goes far deeper than the Fed. The ‘Audit the Fed’ folks, if they get their way, will just uncover the tiny tip of a mountainous problem that’s been buried in ignorance and obfuscation. And that problem is fractional reserve banking and the ethnic gang that created it.
It’s a system that guarantees panics, failures and bubbles. It’s a system that enslaves us for life. Not one citizen in a thousand has even heard of fractional reserve banking. And not one journalist in a thousand understands it. And those who are getting rich off of it are going to do everything they can to maintain that general ignorance.
There is a better way. If we had an honest government, the best way to issue money and credit would be to issue it directly to the people through a National Dividend. A Canadian engineer named Clifford Hugh Douglas wrote of the idea in his groundbreaking work Social Credit.
Social Credit is an entirely new economic system. Social Credit would deny the bankers the “right” to create our money, though it acknowledges the need to create money so that legitimate enterprise can flourish. Under a Social Credit system, the amount of money created by the State would be calculated with the goal of maintaining the stable value of the monetary unit — not continuous inflation, and the theft of the people’s savings, as is the case today.
In most years, that would entail an increase in the money supply proportionate to the increase in population and productivity of the nation. In such years, taxation would not be necessary at all. The money would be created, not as crippling debt, but as direct payment for necessary government purchases, salaries, et cetera — with all excess beyond that amount paid directly to the people as a National Dividend. Each individual, each family, could then determine what to do with his or her portion, and spend or invest it as they see fit.
Social Credit would remove the major basis of the uberparasites’ wealth and power. By returning the wealth and power to the people and to a state that truly served us, it would also empower and free us to a degree we can barely imagine now.
No economic system can work, however, without its being managed by honest, honorable men. This is not the sort of men we have in Washington now, or will have in the foreseeable future. That would be an insurmountable obstacle — if it weren’t for the definite possibility that the run-up to Social Credit will be a revolution and the rise of an entirely new leadership caste, which by the law of averages alone would have to be less corrupt than the current blood-soaked vipers.
Keeping the value of the currency constant should be a major goal. Anything else is inconsistent with honor and integrity, and would punish honest savers or honest lenders while rewarding speculators. The dollar (or maybe maybe we should rename it the Pound, in honor of Ezra) should be no different than an inch or a mile — it should not change from week to week or year to year. People should be able to depend upon its value absolutely. A stable unit of exchange shouldn’t inhibit economic activity, though it wouldn’t artificially stimulate it either, and some people would hate that.
I fear that this most excellent of systems would be a farcical failure on a massive scale if administered by anything resembling popular glad-handing politicians or the raging egotists who cling like leeches to our pre-revolutionary movement. What are needed are the same kind of men that William Pierce sought for his Alliance: Men who view their leadership roles as positions in a holy order.
I began this program by saying that money is the means by which we are enslaved. That is true. But it need not be so. Properly understood — and administered by honorable men with a clear vision of our race’s potential — it can be the means by which we set ourselves free to achieve a destiny beyond our imagining.
* * *
You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the reconstituted National Alliance membership organization, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. Please write to us at National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. We welcome your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people. Once again, that address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.