Photo: Allen Greenspan, Head of the Federal Reserve

Hello and welcome to American Dissident Voices. I'm Shaun Walker.

Today I want to continue the discussion about banking and get into a few more important details following last week's show.

Before we talk about banking, we should first consider the two concepts of industry and wealth. Industry must come from labor, but wealth can come from labor, or theft or luck. Every form of wealth has its source, some less popular than others. Wealthy people tend to have good and bad reputations at the same time. Look at Bill Gates from Microsoft. For all his faults, the fact remains that Microsoft employees a huge work force and has built up a market that has an even larger peripheral work force. The manufacturing industry has its degree of corruption, like all others, but it inherently contributes to the wealth of a nation. Banking is an industry that reaps its rewards from labor, but in itself does not produce anything. It is and shall always be a middleman. The less profit this middleman takes the better. Even the Jew-run Hollywood produces a product, albeit often the most immoral of products. Yet, bankers just allow industry to exist and can manipulate all these industries by tightening or loosening the availability of money. This is all done at the whim of the private banker, the Jew Allen Greenspan at the Federal Reserve Bank.

Now, the shocking fact is that the single largest portion of the annual US budget goes to pay interest to these bankers. Why? Some might say that if a person takes a risk with their money and makes a profit, then that cannot be bad. I agree. People who take risks have every right to be rewarded. But, if a person takes risks with their money and makes a huge mistake with it and loses millions and millions of dollars, the US government should not tax the rest of us to raise money to give it to this person who foolishly lost his money. If he is allowed to gain from his risk then he is allowed to lose it as well.

This is basically what we have in bankers. They are intertwined with the US government. They are supported by the taxes and the nation's wealth, but only for their own benefit. The concept of "separation of Church and State" is well known and openly discussed. Why should there not also be separation of "Bank and State"? Why should bankers have a unique position within our country? A casino takes risks with its money, a family owned business takes risks, but they don't have the basis of their risk codified by Federal law to back them in case their risk does not pan out. This is a unique feature that only banks share in America.

There are really so many misconceptions about banking in America that we need to start from the beginning and present a timeline of events.

America was not founded with a single currency. Each state in fact had its own currency, banks had their own currencies and the Federal government had several paper currencies of its own. This system lasted up until World War Two.

Therefore, America started out without a central banking system and Congress controlled the issuance of money. In the 1820s, the bankers started to gain influence with much national controversy. By the time America's greatest president, Andrew Jackson was elected, the issue of Bankers versus the Nation was at a fevered pitch. The great battle centered around the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation but virtually a Government-sponsored monopoly. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the Bank threw its power against him.

"The bank," Jackson told Martin Van Buren, "is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" Jackson vetoed an attempt in Congress to get the bank approved in a rechartered bill and went on to charge the bank with what he called "undue economic privilege."

His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote.

So, when President Andrew Jackson stopped the Bankers, he was almost assassinated. He shot it out personally in front of the White House. President Jackson was one of the toughest men America has ever produced and in 1837, the Bankers monopoly was destroyed and America prospered.

Aside from another bad mistake by President Abraham Lincoln, known as the 1864 Banking Act, the US government kept the private bankers at bay. This was the most prosperous of times for America. This was when Americans built up our nation to become the powerhouse of the world - without income tax. This was not done by plundering other countries wealth, but by the moral fiber, great work ethics, hard labor and inventiveness of our own great White people. America became a beacon to the world and millions of people came here. Our immigration laws were racially restrictive, so only Whites were able to enter the country. There was a small break in this with big business bringing Asians from China and Japan, but laws were soon passed to halt this tendency, and those undesirables were kept out too.

America prospered for 76 years without a central banking system. There was no need for income tax. Family life was secure: only the father had to work. We could have huge families, and we did. The wealth that Americans made stayed with the families who earned it. But, we had a fatal flaw in our concept of race. We didn't classify Jews as non-Whites and we have been paying the price ever since. (This has been a painful learning curve, but our race is learning.)

Then, in 1912, on Jekyll Island, Georgia, an infamous act occurred: the Federal Reserve Bank was created. The most powerful banking families met with their bought and paid for politicians. The power brokers were all represented there; the Jews House and Baeruch, as well as the gentile race-traitor JP Morgan. The first attempt to create the Federal Reserve was done under the names of the two most corrupt Senators; hence it was called the Aldrich-Owens Bill. This was easily defeated, with Senator Charles Lindbergh Senior leading the charge. A year later, when Congress was away for the Christmas holiday, it was passed in the strangest manner by a three man quorum in the Congress. Since the most naïve president ever to hold office, Woodrow Wilson was at the helm, it was signed into law. Income tax and World War One were soon to follow, and then the Jewish consolidation of power was complete, but that is another matter.

This new law passed in December 1913, created a privately owned central banking monopoly. Now, this gets a little confusing, because the Constitution reserves the nations' monetary power to the Congress. The Department of the Treasury owns and operates Federal Mints to produce coins and maintain the volume and physical quality of the nation's coins. But, banks were allowed to print their own notes, which were easier to carry about. These private bank notes and the regulation of their issuance was a temptation to big for corrupt politicians to overlook. So, although this country started out with a small government and limited powers, the government controlled the nations' coins, which were poured with two metals; silver and gold; hence, the term bi-metalism.

This national monopoly of the coins was not a monopoly of the currency. Anyone who has spent time in Las Vegas can see that the gambling chips are often used as a currency although this is technically illegal. The sort of system that allows each casino to make its own chips is quite similar to each bank producing its own bank note. With the terrible banking system already in place in Europe, in England in particular, with their all-powerful "Bank of England" being the worst example, a power struggle in America on the same lines was inevitable. These private banks didn't want to remain simple banks holding money and issuing deposit slips, they wanted to copy the existing European model, and move into a situation where they could control the very flow of money itself, with all the attendant power that produces. The bankers needed powerful politicians to push their agenda. The desired outcome was to operate the system known as "fractional reserve banking." Here is how this system works.

There is a regulation on this type of banking where the banks wealth determines the amount they are allowed to loan out. The total deposits in the bank are multiplied by ten: they can loan out tens times as much money as it has in deposits. Where does this extra money come from? It comes from out of thin air. It is just printed. I think everyone listening would like to loan out ten times as much money as they have. This is what the bankers always wanted because of the enormous amount of profit it gains. For example, for every million dollars a bank has in deposits, it might pay its depositors one percent back, which is $10,000 annually. This same bank then can loan out 10 million dollars for every one million dollars. And, at a percentage rate of 6.5 percent, which is common today, they will reap $650,000 in income. You remove the $10,000 they pay in interest and you have $640,000, generated from one million without any work at all. Now there are operating expenses, but a 64% return annually is significant. For credit card companies' loan rates of 20%, the return is around 200% annually. Now, compare this to the stock market. On the NYSE or NASDAQ, average returns of ten percent per year are regarded as great news. Banks, however, make many folds more than that. So when you hear about a bank that made over one billion in profits, then you know why. This profit doesn't explain the huge salaries and benefits that the top executives have, nor the expenditure called political campaign contributions that are impressive all on their own.

Yet, what did the bank actually make? What wealth did it give to our nation or any nation? Are banks just parasites that unnecessarily take off a large chunk of wealth? I won't answer that but offer you more information and allow you to determine what you will.

The way that the banks make all this money is federally regulated, worst yet, federally insured. These FDIC regulations were established to make depositors reestablish faith in the banks. Without deposits from ordinary folk, the bankers are not able to operate. On this point, I would note that nations do not actually need banks; entire societies have long existed without banks and have prospered in spite of not having these institutions.

But, let's back up a minute here. Let's look at the concept of a loan.

Loans are necessary for societies, so we need to separate the good from the bad. In the case of a city that wants to revitalize the downtown, they might want to take out a loan to improve the physical infrastructure. These capital improvements, hopefully, will allow the downtown businesses to flourish and the increased business being taxed, will generate the revenue to repay this loan. The way this loan is done is by drafting a bond. Bonds are secured by something; in this case it is the city itself. The city might have a net worth of $2 billion dollars, so raising $100 million dollars is easy, but the city fathers want to finance this loan themselves and side step the bankers. So, they offer a percentage that is usually low; say 3.5% on a 15 year loan. This isn't huge, but it is very safe. Now, the money raised and spent creates jobs and wealth, the downtown might become the best place in town. Real improvements are made. So, a loan isn't a bad thing. Since banks guard peoples money and make loans, then they do serve some good for a community.

Now keep this bond model in mind when we look at the Federal government. The Federal government wants to raise money similar to this bond because it is sure that it needs a little extra than what they have raised. They too take out a loan, but this is where it all changes. When one regards a city as just another business enterprise, then it makes sense for that city to borrow money, just like any business might. But, the Federal government is the nation itself. They are more than just a bunch of elected misfits who are inept on the race issue; they are the working machinery of our nation's taxation and expenditures. The federal government exists without a comparison of the same enterprise, because they are the ultimate power and the insurer and regulator for all the rest of the financial matters in the nation. Or, so they should be.

Banks are, however, allowed to create money out of thin air, by using fractional banking: and it is legal. If they have x amount of assets from depositors, then they have x times ten in assets to loan out. And, here is the really important point of this topic. If a bank can create money out of thin air then why can't the Federal government? Why does the Federal government need to borrow this money from a group of banks? The banks do not borrow the additional nine times that it creates out of fractional banking. They do not take a loan from anyone, they invent it, and the Federal Reserve prints the paper. So, if a bank can do this, there is no reason why a Federal government cannot do the same. And, then the Federal Government might have a deficit spending, just as it does right now, but they would not owe any interest to private banks. When the government has deficit spending, which is a bad policy and needs to be stopped, they are in fact creating money out of thin air - but in contrast to the banks, they are then being forced to pay for this 'generated money' in interest to the banks. To put another way: the banks don't have this money, they've just printed it. So, why can't the Federal government just print it, and pay it back without paying interest to the banks? In reality, the banks have not served any purpose at all, yet they still get over one billion dollars a day in interest on money they never even had. When the banks loan this money to the government, they don't have this additional money to even loan out at the normal fractional reserve banking method. They make the federal government create a bond, a loan, which the bank buys, and then from this Federal Government-insured insured loan, the banks then create the money out of thin air and turn around and loan it back to the government. So, the federally insured bond was in fact created out of thin air.

This is exactly why the founding fathers of America were against the bankers having a central monopoly. To quote my favorite of the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin: "If the government can create a bond, the government can create money." So, if the government backs the creation of the money, then it is the authority that backs in value. So, why do we need banks? This doesn't mean that a private bank doesn't serve the nation in many ways, but there is no reason to have the US government or any government borrow money and pay interest to banks -- on money which the banks don't even have. This creation of money out of thin air should be reserved to the Federal government alone.

When these powerful banking families created their private central banking monopoly, they knew exactly what they were doing. Before President Wilson died, he stated that he had ruined America with his foolish signature authorizing the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. This bank is not a Federal entity, nor does it contain anywhere near the reserve that it would require for fraction reserve banking from the standard system. It in fact acts like a government itself.

Now, simply having the President give his rubber stamp of approval to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve every few years is basically just another national fraud. The department of the Treasury does not run the Federal Reserve, but rather the other way around. The Department of the Treasury does maintain the national mints, which make and destroy coins, as well as printing our national currency, which are actually private bank notes, from a private bank that is named the Federal Reserve Bank. The department of the Treasury merely maintains the currency, much the same way the Department of transportation maintains roads. The Department of the Treasury does not make any decisions pertaining to the printing of the currency or the prime interest rate. This is done by a private citizen. But, so many people think that the Federal Reserve is one of many arms of the Federal government, which it is not. Think of how many banks have the name national within their name. This doesn't mean they are apart of the Federal government. This is just a scam from the very beginning. As long as bankers stay in bed with the Jews, they have a symbiotic balance of power. The Jews control the US media and the old moneyed Blue-Blood Whites control their private banks, and currently the Federal Reserve is run by a Jew Allen Greenspan. This could change. The Federal Reserve has been run by Gentiles and there are many powerful Gentiles on the Federal Reserve Board, but this only shows the collusion of Jews and wealthy Gentiles. It does not offer a solution.

The solution is simple. We nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank and put it within the Department of the Treasury. All deficit spending the US government does is still a debt and needs to be stopped. But, this in itself cuts down the pointless interest paid to Banks for doing nothing. For those skeptics that think this would cause inflation because the banking middle-man is removed, they are wrong. The actual amount of currency printed when a private bank backs the currency or when a national bank backs the currency is identical. The only difference is we don't pay interest on money we borrowed from ourselves.

The worst currency inflation in history was in Germany in the 1920s. This was done through private banking firms. In the 1930s, after the regime change, the banks were nationalized; interest on new home mortgages was set at a half a percent and Germany experienced the greatest economic boon in all of Europe for the entire 20th century. The horrible mess with the US economy in the 1930s was created with a private central banking monopoly. The horrible inflation that America suffered in the 1970s was also with the current form of banking; privately owned, but regulated by the Federal government to be a central monopoly.

So, the amount of currency issued, whether it is by a private group of banks or by a nation bank would be identical. The only difference would be that the interest would not go into private hands.

How often have we not heard the argument that the private banks support its depositors? It actually has cash on hand, the argument goes. Yet, this money can't really be moved much, as only 10% of it actually exists. And all these invented funds are insured by the US government, which will always be the ultimate backer of the entire nation's wealth.

If the US government were to issue its own currency and cut out the middle-man overnight, then all the money that is deposited in all banks in America, and which is insured by the US government, would act as the backing of all of the national currency, plus all the wealth of the nation, from the real estate, the tax base, the military hardware, all of it. From that perspective, the US government is worth in just real assets, some $30 trillion dollars. From the fractional reserve method, then they would be able to issue some $300 trillion dollars on their own. So, the assets of the US government are the absolute maximum insurance of any currency that could possibly be issued in America, not just the private banks' current accounts statement.

To summarize my point, interest to the bankers from the US government is unnecessary in every aspect. A responsible government, which is an end goal of the National Alliance, is to reduce the corruption within government and stop blatant graft. We need to remove the bankers from the nation's coffers, so to improve our society and massively improve our nation's financial situation; we need to nationalize our banks.

This is a goal of the National Alliance. Please join with us to make this change a reality. Thanks for being with me today.