Any discussion of government, or of a related new construction of governmental dynamics must, of necessity, deal with an area which seems, at first, as darkly clouded with unfamiliar terms, an essence which fills many with dread, especially when dealing with their own checkbooks; in fact, however, Money, as a means of exchange for both personal and national debt, is both necessary and fundamental for any ‘system’ or ‘government’ – and the white nationalist must, at this juncture, be prepared to conceptualize, if not accurately assess the process so necessary to achieve any change whatsoever in our present predicament.
I am not, personally, inclined toward economics, but have been rewarded in life, by the association of several individuals who, as is their inclination, presented to me a simple formula, as it has always been impressed upon me that, in essence, money is no strange thing, neither the tools associated with the whole process of fiduciary production, nor in production and exchange themselves. I sincerely hope that I am able to represent this formula faithfully, and not withstanding my more ‘organic’ view of ‘production’ which, at first blush, seems to be in line with this more lineal presentation of fiduciary restraint and fiduciary freedom, relative to the larger continuum of white nationalism.
Money is regarded simply as a medium of exchange and has been rightly defined as a ‘certificate of work done’, or simply as a ‘measured title or claim’, specific in its amount, against the wealth of the entire community or nation. It is transferable from one man to another, and differs from a opera or concert ticket only in the fact that while the latter are exchangeable solely for a seat at the opera for a given time period or a seat in a particular venue at a specified time, money is exchangeable for any sort of goods or services that the market may have to offer at any time. As such, money need have, and should have, little more intrinsic value than a opera ticket or a pack of chewing gum.
The White Nationalist believes that money should be issued by the national Government, acting as the authorized agent for the whole citizenry, to pay for all its expenditures that may be necessary in the public interest. Moreover, in this respect as that new money is to be spent by the government for public purposes, the government should have the use of it interest-free. In addition, as it is lent to producers, the government should have the interest on the loan (i.e. not the federal reserve), while the individual ‘banker’ receives merely his commission, as is reasonable and proper.
Ultimately, the credit needed to give solid backing to any sound and any honest fiduciary system is a social phenomenon, a race-cultural or folk-community based phenomenon. Put plainly, this means that credit is not something that a nation, or its fiduciary mission, is forced to procure, and could procure only, from a ‘system’ or any permission outside itself, or from a specialized aspect of itself—as a service for which it has to pay. Moreover, it does not need backing from anything of intrinsic value, whether this be gold or silver or any other commodity. On the contrary, credit is something that a nation possesses by the very fact that it exists, as has been mentioned in ROTW, and which is so interwoven from its being that it must continue so long as the nation itself holds together. It is a matter of the folk-community, the very de facto citizenship of its members, that they all stand firm in their folk-community, having faith in their country as an ongoing imperative, as well as their faith in the probable prosperity of its soil, forests, mines and waterways, as well as in their ability to meet the total increase of their needs by transforming this potential wealth into real, discernible wealth through the application of their intellect and their personal toil. Hence, credit, which equates to the national need, comes at once to rest finally on the individual man’s belief that if he volunteers his labor or gives up goods in order to acquire money, and this ‘money’ which has his government firmly behind it, this money will, in all likelihood, be accepted by any other citizen of his nation.
Monies, just as now, in a fully integrated national government, would be printed (engraved) by the appropriate body (such as our present Congress), in a very real sense, that of the ‘people’s house’, while we would use as well, the denominations to be chosen by this same body, consistent with utilizing the public credit to write ‘checks’. The bills and checks would be paid into circulation for materials, wages, salaries, as well as to individual persons, or business concerns, this would enable the government to carry out all its fully sanctioned requirements. From this point on, each in turn, would pass these monies to meet their own particular obligations. In this way, monies issued would not incur debt by one cent. Nations have simply been led to believe that borrowing and debt is inevitable, without benefit of the implicit understanding that we, you an I, are the ‘gross national product’. Those who would control this, or of any other nation would, of necessity, only need to ‘charge interest’ on this debt, so as to completely control that nation. The present narrative in economic terms is presented by professor Carroll Quigley, an extraordinary economist in his own right, speaks of economic capitalism in this way:
The Primary Goal of Capitalism
The third notable feature of the whole development is closely related to this special nature of capitalism. Capitalism provides very powerful motivations for economic activity because it associates economic motivations so closely with self-interest. But this same feature, which is a source of strength in providing economic motivation through the pursuit of profits, is also a source of weakness owing to the fact that so self-centered a motivation contributes very readily to a loss of economic coordination. Each individual, just because he is so powerfully motivated by self-interest, easily loses sight of the role which his own activities play in the economic system as a whole, and tends to act as if his activities were the whole, with inevitable injury to that whole. We could indicate this by pointing out that capitalism, because it seeks profits as its primary goal, is never primarily seeking to achieve prosperity, high production, high consumption, political power, patriotic improvement, or moral uplift. Any of these may be achieved under capitalism, and any (or all) of them may he sacrificed and lost under capitalism, depending on this relationship to the primary goal of capitalist activity—the pursuit of profits. During the nine-hundred-year history of capitalism, it has, at various times, contributed both to the achievement and to the destruction of these other social goals.
The different stages of capitalism have sought to win profits by different kinds of economic activities. The original stage, which we call commercial capitalism, sought profits by moving goods from one place to another. In this effort, goods went from places where they were less valuable to places where they were more valuable, while money, doing the same thing, moved in the opposite direction. This valuation, which determined the movement both of goods and of money and which made them move in opposite directions, was measured by the relationship between these two things. Thus the value of goods was expressed in money. and the value of money was expressed in goods. Goods moved from low-price areas to high-price areas, and money moved from high-price areas to low-price areas, because goods were more valuable where prices were high and money was more valuable where prices were low.
Money and Goods Are Different
Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary, exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from failure to recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion. The value of goods, expressed in money, is called “prices,” while the value of money, expressed in goods, is called “value.”
The professor goes on to establish the other aspects of capitalism:
The Rise of Commercial Capitalism
Commercial capitalism arose when merchants, carrying goods from one area to another, were able to sell these goods at their destination for a price which covered original cost, all costs of moving the goods, including the merchant’s expenses, and a profit. This development, which began as the movement of luxury goods, increased wealth because it led to specialization of activities both in crafts and in agriculture, which increased skills and output, and also brought into the market new commodities.
The Development of Mercantilism
Eventually, this stage of commercial capitalism became institutionalized into a restrictive system, sometimes called “mercantilism,” in which merchants sought to gain profits, not from the movements of goods but from restricting the movements of goods. Thus the pursuit of profits, which had earlier led to increased prosperity by increasing trade and production, became a restriction on both trade and production, because profit became an end in itself rather than an accessory mechanism in the economic system as a whole.
The way in which commercial capitalism (an expanding economic organization) was transformed into mercantilism (a restrictive economic organization) twice in our past history is very revealing not only of the nature of economic systems, and of men themselves, but also of the nature of economic crisis and what can be done about it.
Merchants Restrict Trade to Increase Profits
Under commercial capitalism, merchants soon discovered that an increasing flow of goods from a low-price area to a high-price area tended to raise prices in the former and to lower prices in the latter. Every time a shipment of spices came into London, the price of spices there began to fall, while the arrival of buyers and ships in Malacca gave prices there an upward spurt. This trend toward equalization of price levels between two areas because of the double, and reciprocal, movement of goods and money jeopardized profits for merchants, however much it may have satisfied producers and consumers at either
end. It did this by reducing the price differential between the two areas and thus reducing the margin within which the merchant could make his profit. It did not take shrewd merchants long to realize that they could maintain this price differential, and thus their profits, if they could restrict the flow of goods, so that an equal volume of money flowed for a reduced volume of goods. In this way, shipments were decreased, costs were reduced, but profits were maintained.
Two things are notable in this mercantilist situation. In the first place, the merchant, by his restrictive practices, was, in essence, increasing his own satisfaction by reducing that of the producer at one end and of the consumer at the other end; he was able to do this because he was in the middle between them. ln the second place, so long as the merchant, in his home port, was concerned with goods, he was eager that the prices of goods should be, and remain, high.
Merchants Became Concerned with Lending of Money
In the course of time, however, some merchants began to shift their attention from the goods aspect of commercial interchange to the other, monetary, side of the exchange. They began to accumulate the profits of these transactions, and became increasingly concerned, not with the shipment and exchange of goods, but with the shipment and exchange of moneys. In time they became concerned with the lending of money to merchants to finance their ships and their activities, advancing money for both, at high interest rates, secured by claims on ships or goods as collateral for repayment.
The New Bankers Were Eager for High Interest Rates
In this process the attitudes and interests of these new bankers became totally opposed to those of the merchants (although few of either recognized the situation). Where the merchant had been eager for high prices and was increasingly eager for low interest rates, the banker was eager for a high value of money (that is, low prices) and high interest rates. Each was concerned to maintain or to increase the value of the half of the transaction (goods for money) with which he was directly concerned, with relative neglect of the transaction itself (which was of course the concern of the producers and the consumers).
The Relationship Between Goods and Money
Is Clear to Bankers
In the course of time the central fact of the developing economic system, the relationship between goods and money, became clear, at least to bankers. This relationship, the price system, depended upon five things: the supply and the demand for goods, the supply and the demand for money, and the speed of exchange between money and goods. An increase in three of these (demand for goods, supply of money, speed of circulation) would move the prices of goods up and the value of money down. This inflation was objectionable to bankers, although desirable to producers and merchants. On the other hand, a decrease in the same three items would be deflationary and would please bankers, worry producers and merchants, and delight consumers (who obtained more goods for less money). The other factors worked in the opposite direction, so that an increase in them (supply of goods, demand for money, and slowness of circulation or exchange) would be deflationary.
This may all be pretty boring to most readers, and the comparisons between the first ‘formula’ and the latter ‘definitions’ all but confusing, yet I thought it important to show the ‘mainstream’ economic theory, and that of a more simplistic, organic portrayal of the same; the synthesis, it is hoped, if all our minds are put to it, will present in the future a more easily understood and, more importantly, a more easily lived system, than that of what we have known.
This ‘social contract’, of which this chapter, if not the entire work, is part and parcel of any epilogue, cultural or political, in which a folk-community seeks to either reaffirm, or develop new systems by which they may live and prosper. This, of course, is the right of every Free people.
However, White Nationalists have heard all this before.
We have some of the most beautiful prose, the most attentive and understanding of the many programmes and literature which seeks, most rightly, to guide and direct the adherents of white nationalism to that ‘brave new world’, that world which many of us have, albeit dimly, lived and experienced; how, then, do we mobilize these aspects of racial identity and folk-community into a viable and powerful interest group into, let us say it again, an achievable force to be reckoned with? We shall attempt to provide some elements of this task, as we progress, and it would benefit the reader, new or old, that these elements, although much changed in the modern sense, remain the original intent and goals of the white nationalist, yesterday and today. Moreover, the evolutionary change we see today is, without a doubt, part and parcel in a continuing straining of these ideas and goals, but must always be weighed in the context of their inception, as this was the primal origin, the gut-felt response, of our folk-community – our Kinsmen.
Dr. Frank Salter (On Genetic Interests, 2003), an Australian researcher since 1991 at the Max Planck Society in Andechs, Germany adds to the panoply of brilliant writers, such as Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Kevin MacDonald, and Arthur Jensen on ethnic-nationalism, adds to this continuation of our folk-community:
“The importance of genetic continuity is an end in itself, for humans as well as for other species.” From an evolutionary point of view, “propagating one’s genes is life’s raison d’être.”
This exists because each ethnic-nationality is a storehouse of its members’ distinctive genes, just as their progeny are carriers of their parents’ genes, and so on. The folk-community, on the other hand, is much larger, yet holds the same genes, albeit somewhat diffuse; this allows for a greater pool of racial genetic copies, distinctively more related than even father to son. This theoretical ‘genetic claim’ extends in the same fashion as loyalty to one’s immediate family – even greater – as the associated relatedness, like the reservoir above, demands this. The larger one’s folk-community, or ethno-state, the larger a store it becomes of distinctive ethnic uniqueness and, it follows, that these associated members have a unique and distinctive interest in seeing their fellow members achieve a positive upward movement; this is a natural will-to-power of all organisms.
This positive interest is the passion and responsibility of White Nationalism, and White Nationalists in particular.
To succeed, we must influence our future with the ways and means to do it – Financial resposibility is our duty.
 This statement does not include, strictly speaking, the Idea of nation, and I am on the record as stating that ‘nation is more than idea’, and the ‘holding together’ simply, means that a nation only exists as long as the corporeal body, that collective racial bonding, that glue necessary for culture, not just civilization remains intact – this, of course, is the whole imperative of White Nationalism. FLS
 Carroll Quigley – Tragedy and Hope, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966.