Where does money come from? Most people either don’t know, or believe it comes from the government. In reality, the money created by the Reserve Bank – in the form of notes and coins – makes up less than 3% of our money supply. The rest is electronic money for EFTPOS transactions and internet banking, which is created by private banks when people take out loans. After this electronic money is created out of thin air, the banks then lend it to people like you and I, and charge us interest on money they never had. That’s right – the banks loan out money they donʼt actually have, thanks to a system known as Fractional Reserve Banking.
This gives them an incentive to create as much credit/money as they can, with the only limit placed on them being the expectation that the loans will be repaid. While this is fantastic for the big international banks, it is certainly not always good for the economy, or our people’s wellbeing. This is especially the case when most of that newly created credit goes into property, inflating the prices of houses, farms and commercial real estate.
You might find this unbelievable – but don’t take my word for it. The Bank of England itself admits; this is how the current banking/monetary system operates. “The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks: Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits”. Essentially, this means that nearly every dollar in the economy today is created when somebody goes into debt.
So how do banks use all of this newly created money? Well, they pump most of it into the housing market – pushing up prices year in, and year out. As the big banks create the money themselves, the only true restriction on how much new money is created is peopleʼs ability to take on higher and higher levels of debt. This artificially created money distorts the property market – allowing house prices to increase irrespective of demand. Mass immigration also exacerbates the problem, as an influx of migrants will naturally increase the demand for housing.
Ongoing mass immigration also means that banks have an ever-increasing number of potential customers that are willing to go into debt, and pay them interest. As a result, we are now in a situation where the average house costs around $560,000! I believe this is one of the main factors behind the falling birth rates of European New Zealanders, due to the fact that buying a house is often the first step in starting a family.
It is very profitable for banks to lend money on housing. If you cannot make the payments on the loan for the house or farm, then you will be thrown out. Remember that private banks created the money out of thin air – yet you and I have to pay interest on that created money. Itʼs basically a massive shakedown. The big international banks make enormous profits from money creation; more than 5,000 million dollars (thatʼs $5 billion) of profit each year, or $10 million a day, most of which disappears overseas. It is a huge drain on our national economy.
Here is a quote from Sir Mervyn King Former Governor, Bank of England:
“Of all the many ways of organising banking, the worst is the one we have today.”
On top of all this, there is another problem with the current banking/monetary system. When people repay their loans, that money disappears from the economy. Under the current system itʼs practically impossible to get out of debt. This system is unsustainable and is at the very heart of several problems plaguing our country, such as widening inequality, rising debt levels and growing child poverty.
In times of recession, people take out fewer loans as confidence declines, and more people repay their loans, reducing our money supply. The banks also get nervous as their confidence in peopleʼs ability to repay loans diminishes, and they lend out less money. When confidence picks up, people take on new loans faster than the old ones are repaid, which makes banks become bolder and lend more, in turn making the government spend more, creating a “boom”. This is the boom and bust cycle – an artificial construct, based on a monetary system that is geared towards benefiting the international financier, at our expense.
The current debt-based money system also gives privately-owned international banks great influence over our economy, political system, and, generally speaking – over the direction of our nation. This is due to the fact that they have the power to expand – and contract – the nation’s money supply. To be sure, this is tremendous amount of power to have, one which the big banks have even admitted to using in the past, all to advance their own interests at the general public’s expense. So itʼs not unreasonable to assume they are doing the same today.
“On Sept, 1, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept. 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price… We may as well own three-fourths of the farms of the West and the money of the country. Then the farmers will become tenants as in England” – 1891, American Bankers Association, as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913.
Some people – mainly liberals and other left-wing activists – will often push the idea that we live under an economic system designed specifically to benefit white middle class males over everyone else. Yet the facts say otherwise. If New Zealand truely was set up in the interest of white middle-class men, then why is the middle class unable to replenish itself? Why are people of European descent set to become a minority sometime after 2040? In reality, we live under a political and economic system designed solely to benefit the international banking cartel at our people’s expense, and many self-described ‘globalists’ are either directly or indirectly advancing the interests of these powerful international financiers. This fact explains why the likes of George Soros have funded many prominent globalist politicians and NGOs.
There are several different banking and monetary reform options that could fix the current system. The most popular option being the nationalisation of our money supply. This would involve stripping the banks of their power to create money from nothing, done by switching over to full reserve banking, and then transferring the power to create money to the government. There are a few ways this could be achieved.
One option could be to transfer the power to create money to an independent, transparent monetary policy committee – where a team of economists would decide just how much money is needed in the economy. This would mean that there would be a separation of powers, and that those with the power to create money wouldn’t be able to directly benefit from it. New, debt free money would be injected into the economy via government spending, tax cuts, or a citizen’s dividend.
Back in 1939, a similar policy was devised. It was known as ‘A Program for Monetary Reform’, or simply, the Chicago plan, wherein a group of top economists came up with a solution to the problem that caused the Great Depression. The Chicago plan was even revised by a team of economists working for the IMF back in 2012.
Here is a quote straight from their paper: “The benefits would be: dramatically reduced public and private (net) debt levels (because money creation no longer requires simultaneous debt creation), better control of business cycle fluctuations, complete elimination of bank runs, output gains of 10% and inflation can drop to zero without posing problems for the conduct of monetary policy“.
Some people also say that we should go back to the gold standard, but they fail to understand that the issue with money isnʼt necessarily what backs it, but who controls the supply, and how plentiful the money supply is. Over two thirds of the world’s gold supply is owned by the international banking cartel, so itʼs important to remember the Golden Rule: “Whoever has the gold makes the rules”.
If our money of the future was going to be backed by any commodity, Silver would be the better option in the western world, due to it being 15 times more plentiful than gold. This means it would a lot harder to monopolise, and the currency would be more plentiful in comparison to the gold standard. Another important fact to add – gold and silver could work as complementary currencies in a nationalised monetary system.
However, these reforms would require the backing of a genuine populist movement capable of uniting against the powerful financial establishment. To galvanise such a populist movement, there has to be a solid pre-existing fountain of cohesive communities – as well a sense of shared heritage – amongst the general population.
Unfortunately, those invested in the current banking system understand this all too well, and is likely why, among other reasons, they aid in the promotion of ideas such as hyper-individualism and multiculturalism to such a great extent. Ultimately, these ideologies only divide and atomise our people, weakening our collective power. Societies that value hyper-individualism also enable the worst common denominators to rise to the top, i.e. the most callous and self-centred amongst us. This, however coincidentally, complements multiculturalism’s cohesion-eroding effect within communities. Robert Putnam of Harvard discovered this fact upon his study of 41 different communities across America, which ranged from all-white rural South Dakota to the very mixed populations of LA. He discovered that greater amounts of ethnic diversity strongly correlated with decreased trust, resulting in the creation of people who were less likely to engage in volunteer work or give to charity, their mistrust extending so far as to largely decrease the amount of personal friendships. What did these people do more of in such diverse communities? Stay home and watch television.
Nationalism is the answer to this problem. We should recognise that a society must be capable of organising for its own defence, wellbeing and survival – and that this requires a high level of national solidarity. The strongest forms of solidarity are those of kith and kin. As such, it is vitally important that we recognise the basis of our society as the family, the community and the nation. Without these bonds, there is no starting point, either for a cultural revival or an economic revival.
Traditional European culture also has a history of opposition against the current banking system. For example, the Roman Catholic Church was strongly opposed to the practice of usury. This vehement opposition was, in part, inspired by the example of Jesus Christ driving money changers from his Father’s temple with a whip. It was also one of the only times Christ showed any genuine signs of anger.
Even some of the Western world’s greatest philosophers were against the idea of usury, and the practice of creating money from nothing.
“The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth, this is the most unnatural“.
In conclusion, if we are ever going to have any hope of challenging the current corrupt financial system, one which is, in many ways, the root cause of what we now know as ‘modernity’, and all the social ills it has brought upon our people – we must revive the national idea, for it is the foundation that all historically successful populist movements were built on. For example, New Zealand has challenged the current financial system before. In 1936, the First Labour Government created debt free money, putting it into the economy to finance the construction of thousands of statehouses. Tangible assets were created, and people were put into meaningful jobs. Our social security system was implemented, and New Zealand emerged from the first great depression sooner and in better shape than most nations.
American history is also full of examples of populist revolts against the international financial system. In fact, the primary cause of the American Revolutionary War was an attempt to break free from the international banking system. Several American presidents were also champions of monetary/banking reform including; Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.
“The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War“.
However, New Zealand and America were only able to achieve this level of success because both nations were homogeneous, high trust societies, each with a strong sense of shared cultural/ethnic heritage, one that bound their communities together.
Hopefully, we can continue to raise awareness about the problems with the current banking system, as well as educate people on the importance of the national idea, and how it relates to tackling many of the truly important issues of our time. Only when our people are truly awake will we finally be able to rid ourselves of this financial parasite.
To finish off, I will leave you with a quote from one of the Westʼs greatest industrialists.
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning“.
– Henry Ford