My Unique Role in the Americasby Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
This statement was released by the LaRouche in 2004 Presidential campaign, on July 30, 2003. See also: "A Short Definition of Synarchism."
I report here on certain leading, essential implications of that profound responsibility of my presently indispensable role in combatting the ongoing process of attempted obliteration of the republics of Central and South America. Already, under the conditions which have developed since 1982, the economic and related features of sovereignty of some of those republics have ceased to exist in fact; others, such as Argentina, are under immediate threat. Under the impact of the presently ongoing general breakdown crisis of the post-1971, "floating-exchange-rate" form of the International Monetary Fund's world monetary-financial system, the early total destruction of the sovereignties of all of the Central and South American republics, is now the imminent catastrophe to be averted. In such a period of world history, only one sane free choice of commitment is available to the world at large. Therefore, I, as measured in popular financial support, a leading candidate for the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, am devoting all that I have the means to accomplish, to promoting the single choice of solution available to civilization at this present conjuncture. The case of Central and South America is a prominent, personally special part of an integral effort which reflects my broader dedication on behalf of humanity as a whole.
Not only am I committed to that cause. My contribution is presently indispensable, if there is to be hope of survival of the nations of Central and South America, in particular. Specifically, at this moment, under those conditions, the prospect for the survival of those nations, depends upon the effectiveness of my continuing that uniquely personal role, as an intellectual and political leader on this issue, throughout our hemisphere.
This role is a continuation of that which I have continued to play, more or less conspicuously at various times, since my Spring 1982 defense of Ibero-America against Prime Minister Thatcher's Malvinas War. This was a continuation of my activity begun during the closing phase of that Malvinas War, in my attempt to avert, or, at least, resist the expected late-Summer attack on Mexico from what were then New York-centered financier interests.
That concern about Mexico's situation for the near term, involved me in hastened preparations for precautionary action, preparations which including the preparation and publication of my Operation Juárez report. That report was the manual guiding my part in the subsequent, August-October 1982 defense of Mexico, against the attack from specific alien forces. These were forces which were in fact descendants of the same Europe-based financier interest on whose behalf France's Napoleon III had deployed Habsburg Maximilian's Nazi-like occupation and looting of Mexico. That Operation Juárez report reflects the essentials of my continuing policy for the Americas today.
In the cases of Argentina and Mexico that year, I acted, as a significant U.S. public figure, upon a lawful authority which was in the same U.S. tradition of international law, under which, since the mid-1970s, I, as a Presidential candidate of the United States, have conducted a presently continuing defense of the sovereignty of the republics of Central and South America. That issue of international law may be summarized as follows.
This tradition in law which I invoked in defense of Argentina and Mexico then, is rooted in an official policy, which was sealed by sundry subsequent treaty agreements, which was first introduced to law as U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams' 1823 advice to President James Monroe. As I wrote in my 1977 book-length The Case of Walter Lippmann, that Monroe Doctrine, uttered by Monroe, but crafted by Adams, defined a vital, long-term U.S. policy of strategic defense, a long-term commitment to the effort to establish and defend a community of principle among the emerging republics of the Americas. This Adams doctrine committed the United States to organizing a common defense, as soon as the U.S.A. had the power to do so, against those internationally predatory forces of Europe known in the Americas since the 1920s by the name of Synarchism.
That U.S. doctrine, as crafted by Adams, was applied with force for the first time in the United States' 1866 expulsion of France's occupation troops from Mexico. Those French troops left under U.S. orders, thus ending the attacks by the Spanish and other partners of Napoleon III in their Nazi-like enterprise of putting the puppet-bandit Maximilian as proconsul for that occupation and mass-murderous looting of Mexico. That U.S. order led to the downfall of the tyrant Maximilian, and made possible the restoration of the legitimate government of President Benito Juárez. Those were the historical circumstances of the 1860s which I adopted as precedent for the title of my August 1982 document Operation Juárez.
Approximately two years after the publication of that document, I obtained a large collection of freshly declassified, formerly secret U.S. military intelligence, and also of similar OSS, FBI, and French intelligence files, on the subject of the Synarchists. These files, reporting facts from the period from the 1920s through 1945, supplemented what I learned from relatively high-ranking, veteran, first-hand participants in war-time combat against fascism. These reports have been supplemented at later times by an additional mass of documents of and about the Synarchists, documents collected as part of a continuing counter-intelligence investigation of the continuing roots of fascism. Some reports incorporating verified evidence from these sources, were published by me as reports in Mexico and elsewhere. In one nationally broadcast report, on related matters of U.S. foreign policy, during the close of the 1984 U.S. Presidential election-campaign. I detailed some of the fascist connections of the Mexico Synarchists there at that time. Most recently, this same subject has been covered extensively by me and my associates in reports based upon both that and greatly expanded knowledge of current strategic problems, in reports which are currently widely circulated in the U.S.A. and Europe (see Children of Satan: The "Ignoble Liars" Behind Bush's No-Exit War, LaRouche in 2004 mass-circulation pamphlet).
Maximilian is long dead, but the Synarchists who represent his cause, are still rampant in Central and South America, and are among the neo-conservative circles associated now with U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney. The survival of the states of Central and South America, requires the recognition and early defeat of the danger these fascists represent. I identify them again, summarily, here.
As I emphasize in the body of this report, Synarchism is an outgrowth of a financier-controlled organization dating from the Eighteenth Century, whose influence and effects were typified in Adams' time in the combined and competing predatory practices of the rival British monarchy and the Habsburg-led Holy Alliance. Those known as the Synarchist financiers today, are the heirs of a cabal of private bankers, which was typified during the Eighteenth Century by the French-speaking Swiss-French circles of Schlumberger, de Neuflize, and Mallet, and also by the illustrative historical case of Jacques Necker. Those typified the circles which emerged as contender for world financier power through their association with the first modern fascist, the tyrant Napoleon Bonaparte. They came to an imperial form of power as bankers for that bandit Bonaparte, and have continued as a form of ultra-conspiratorial variety of cabalistic, wildly occult freemasonic cult, known as the Martinists. They have continued to be the leading adversary of the states of Central and South America under that name, since the 1920s, through the present time.
It has been my personal war against those same Synarchists, since 1984, and since even two decades earlier in fact, which has supplied me since the 1970s all of my presently notable leading enemies from any part of the world, including sundry fascists operating under religious cover, in the U.S.A. and Mexico, from that time up to the present moment. The neo-conservative cabal around the present U.S. Administration's Vice-President Cheney, is typical of the liveried lackeys deployed by a Synarchist private banker's cult, a set merely typified by the neo-conservative circles of Robert Mundell et al., in or around the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, such as my long-standing personal enemy Robert Bartley.
In the present report, I shall first identify, first, what every concerned citizen of the nations of the Americas must come to recognize, soon, as the Synarchist threat to each and all of our republics. After that, secondly, I shall outline the rudiments of the needed policy for crushing this enemy.
1. What Is Synarchism?
Since a time from the initial consolidation of the combined power of Venice's imperial form of financier-oligarchical maritime power, and Venice's Norman chivalric allies, during an interval from before the Norman Conquest through the doom of England's Richard III, the left-over tradition of that Venetian-Norman-dominated, feudal form of pro-imperialist, financier-dominated tradition, has been the leading, perpetual enemy of the institution of the modern sovereign republic, a reform proposed successively by Dante Alighieri and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. This reform was first established in practice by the precedents of Louis XI's France and Henry VII's England, during the course of Europe's Fifteenth-Century Renaissance. The subsequent, brutish religious wars and related Satanic obscenities of the Venice-directed, Habsburg-dominated 1511-1648 interval, preceding the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, are typical of the role of the feudal reactionaries who fought to revive and continue the tradition of the medieval Norman-Venetian symbiosis.
Unfortunately, despite the great legacy of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the combined impact of the crime of Spain's 1492 expulsion of the Jews and Moors, and the Venice-led reaction of 1511-1648, left deep cultural wounds in European culture as a whole—wounds whose effects have not been healed to the present day. In those circumstances, an orgy of sophistry was launched by the Seventeenth-Century empiricism of Paolo Sarpi, Galileo Galilei, and René Descartes, and continued by the Eighteenth Century's neo-Cartesian and Kantian "Enlightenment." These are each and all philosophically reductionist cults which, as I have emphasized in my "Visualizing the Complex Domain," express, as the existentialists do, a specifically Satanic denial of the possible existence of any knowable difference between man and beast.
It was the orgy of sophistry which such reductionist currents represent, which created the climate in which the enemies of republicanism launched the roles of British agents Philippe Égalité, Jacques Necker, Danton, and Marat against 1789 France. It was the circumstances so produced which fostered the subsequent tyranny of the first modern fascist dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte. These developments in 1789-1815 France are of same type of evidence on which the 1920-1945 U.S. military intelligence characterization of Synarchism as "Nazi/Communist" was, rightly, factually premised. The cases of U.S. contemporary Synarchists, such as neo-conservative Richard Perle, and sundry former Trotskyists who appear to swing from left to right without pausing at center, like the cases of Boris Souvarine, Alexandre Kojève, or the Hudson Institute's Laurent Murawiec, are—like Napoleon's own swing from Jacobin to fascist—are typical of that Nazi-Communist characteristic of Synarchism today.
Synarchism was created to become counter-measure to the American Revolution of 1776-1789. To this day, as I have personally studied a sampling of such clinical cases at close range, their hatred against the legacy of that American Revolution is frequently an immediate apparent hall-mark of the Synarchist type of fascist personality, which often appears, clinically, as the pivot of a violent shift of a subject from "left" to "right." This curious anti-Americanism has a relevant historic sociological precedent in the 1789-1815 history of Europe.
The French Revolution was generated, willfully, from above, as a reaction against the infectious influence—on Europe, and on the emerging states of Central and South America—of both the achievement of U.S. Independence, and the implications for international law of the U.S. Federal Constitution. Typical of that U.S. influence itself, is the draft constitution for the French monarchy presented, unsuccessfully, by Bailly and Lafayette. On the opposite side, the anti-American "Old Europe" of that time was represented by an uneasy alliance among an assortment of liberal-imperialist maritime powers such as the British and Dutch monarchies, with sundry continental monarchies of a more traditionally pro-feudal inclination. The potentates of "Old Europe," as typified by the rival British and Habsburg, anti-American monarchies, trembled in their seats of power, trembling in response to a seismic American rumble felt from across the ocean. The pro-feudal conservatives among those European leaders, sought to defend their thrones. Whereas, in France, a different form of reaction against the U.S.A. erupted: the successive, right-left waves of the Jacobin Terror and the emergent right-wing "reactionary" tyranny of the Emperor Napoleon.
A summary of that different reaction from 1790s France is needed here, to show how what we call fascism today came into being.
Throughout the 1776-1789 interval, support for the American cause had reverberated throughout the British Isles and the continent. The greatest scientific intellects and artists, and others, such as participants in Germany's Readers' Societies, were usually supporters of the American cause. The strongest political sympathy came from among a certain section of the intelligentsia of France's aristocracy. This portion of France's intelligentsia, as typified by the judicially murdered Lavoisier, was the principal target for eradication by those British and other foreign services directing agents and assets such as Philippe E@aAgalité, Swiss banker Jacques Necker, Danton, Marat, and so on.
So, the first stage of the French Revolution was consumed by the emergence of the Terror, a reign of terror intended to eradicate much of those forces in France allied to the U.S. republic's cause; the second, reactionary phase was the effort to establish an empire modelled upon the precedents of the Roman Law of the Caesars. This became that Napoleonic form of imperialism known to the Twentieth Century as fascism.
The financial organization of the system built around the emerging imperial figure of Napoleon, was dominated by a certain type of merchant-banking influence, largely from a French-speaking Swiss pedigree, a type of banking mentality which both tended toward parodies of the Rhone Valley's Cathar cult, and also enjoyed relevant business connections to the circles of the Anglo-Dutch India Companies' principals. Jacques Necker's connection, through Gibbon, et al. to Barings' Lord Shelburne, was merely typical.
Notably, Danton and Marat were London-trained agents of the British Foreign Office operations directed by Shelburne's favorite Jeremy Bentham. The Swiss-linked circles of the type of Schlumberger, de Neuflize, and Mallet, who came upon the stage of the French Revolution as signal participants, were key figures of the Napoleonic arrangements; these bankers brought long-standing connections of this type to the fray. The marketable military figure of the Swiss Jomini, whose aberrant doctrinal notions contributed to Polk's war with Mexico, and, as a consequence, later, the Confederate side of the U.S. Civil War, turns up amid the collection.
Not only did one-time Jacobin and artillery captain Napoleon require special funding for his rapid rise from the rank of a Maximilien Robespierre agent, to Emperor. Especially after the twin battle of Jena-Auerstedt, Napoleon the Emperor turned pretty much into a bandit, seeking out and conducting wars in search of the loot to fill his treasury in Paris, pretty much as Vice-President Cheney's friends at Halliburton and Bechtel swoop like vultures upon the prostrate remains of Iraq today. For the market of this pillage, Napoleon required financier traders in loot. The included fruit of this symbiosis between bandit and banker, was the sociological framework upon which the occult ideological side of contemporary Synarchism was draped: the addition of a curious ideological parody of cabalism and other arcane bric-a-brac formed the mystical, specifically Martinist freemasonry of the Napoleonic cult.
With the defeat of the Emperor Napoleon, his temporary triumphs became the "lost cause" adopted as a model for creating future empires. Typical was the case of G.W.F. Hegel, formerly a wild-eyed pro-Jacobin leftist, like many U.S. neo-conservatives today who were Trotskyists—such as RAND Corporation's Albert Wohlstetter—or the like, but turned fascist. Hegel became, after 1803-1806, the wild Romantic whose almost sexually rapturous admiration of Napoleon, served as the model for the first systemic doctrines of fascism, Hegel's doctrines of history and the state. The wilder Romantics, who followed Romantics Kant and Hegel, included the Twentieth-Century existentialists, such as Martin Heidegger and his "Frankfurt School" cronies, who reflected that explicitly pro-Satanic doctrine of Nietzsche. The latter, the set of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers, Adorno, Arendt, and their followers, designed the pro-Synarchist pre-image of Adolf Hitler as the terrifying beast-man, a design fit for the new Bonaparte, which Hitler, to one degree at least, saw himself to be.
The Utopian Essence of Evil
These followers of Napoleon's imperial legacy were not merely bandits, but monsters. Killing and stealing are criminal behavior, but they are not Satanically evil behavior in themselves. The Synarchists are not merely criminals, they are monsters, as evil as Hitler may be considered to be. They are evil because of the adopted nature of the utopian form of religious-like devotion to wickedness, such as that of Texas' notorious Tom DeLay, embedded in their system of behavior.
This is the key to understanding mankind's Synarchist adversary today. The role of Hegel in outlining a theory of history and the state to fit the Napoleonic model, is key to pinpointing the crucial Satanic factor. Hegel gave the Napoleonic phenomenon a systemic character; the way in which insightful Synarchists such as Paris's Alexandre Kojève have recognized the "end of history" doctrine and the prescription of a Dionysiac "beast-man" leader of society in Hegel, is a relevant illustration of the point.
Since the principal intended audience for this report is composed of speakers of Spanish or Portuguese, let us consider three examples of a systemic form of evil from the history of Spain and its colonies.
First, there is the example of the expulsion of the Jews and Moors from Spain. This gave Isabella's Spain a touch of systemic evil from the beginning.
Second, however, she was not guilty of one of the principal crimes of the Spanish monarchy, the toleration of slavery, a toleration which, with one most notable Eighteenth-Century interruption, was, with peonage, the continued practice by Spain into the late Nineteenth Century. Spain's religious apology for slavery, was excused on the presumption that persons of dark-skinned African descent were naturally predestined to be property, on grounds they were not truly human. The use of such a theological argument, presented as within the bounds of Christianity, represents a pro-Satanic quality of evil, precisely because it is a crime against the institution of Christianity itself.
Third, was the ostensibly theological argument, related to that in support of slavery, for the already referenced institution of peonage, as in Mexico. Again, when made by gnostics using the violated name of the Christian Church, such defense of peonage is a crime against Christianity as in other ways. That is a feature of the trend toward evil in right-wing currents of Synarchism found in Spanish-speaking nations, such as among the ideological followers of Dictator Francisco Franco.
To hold a man in slavery, is not only wrong, but wicked. However, if the slave-holder is only relatively stupid, and does not attempt to make a universal law out of such practice, he is committing a crime against natural law, but is not evil in the sense of seeking to make a explicitly Satanic law of nature out of his wicked act. Hegel's evil is that he seeks to make a perfectable universal system out of the Napoleonic system of banditry, just as the thoroughly Satanic Bertrand Russell introduced the doctrine of "preventive nuclear war" as a necessary means to bring about the submission of the world to a system of world government.
Take the comparable case of "free trade." If a man tries to impose the practice of "free trade" on his personal conduct, he may be stupid, or even felonious, but not necessarily evil. If a set of governments attempts to impose "free trade" on the world, a deed which would inevitably promote a genocidal effect, the attempt to make "free trade" a utopian sort of universal system, is an evil. In the case of the Synarchist, he is attempting to make a compulsory universal system out of murder and other forms of banditry. That is what Hegel does; that is the intrinsically evil character of that freemasonic cult known as Synarchism.
Kojève made the point indelibly with his recognition of the fusion of Hegel and Nietzsche, and his related, Dionysiac doctrine of an "end of history." How did the implicit Synarchist Bertrand Russell propose to establish the system of "world government" which his confederate H.G. Wells prescribes in his 1928 The Open Conspiracy? Russell proposed the threat of "preventive nuclear war," just as Synarchist Vice-President Cheney has done. In other words, unleash a monster so awful that nations would cringe before that virtual but consummately evil god. That is Nietzsche's "Superman." That is the supreme hero of Hegel's implicitly Nazi-like history of philosophy and theory of the state. On that count, Kojève's reading of Hegel is accurate.
The same argument of Hegel's is reflected as Kojève's and U.S. neo-conservative Kojève follower Francis Fukuyama's notorious babbling about "the end of history." Fukuyama's is a purely Satanic cult-concept, but one already implicit in Hegel. This feature of Synarchism, while congruent with Spanish monarchical apologies for slavery and peonage, is closer to the bone of Synarchism as a system; it is key to a comprehensive understanding of Synarchism's hatred of the legacy of the Solon, Pythagoras, et al., who, in turn traced the foundations of their conception of history to Egypt. The crucial features of this Greek contribution to European civilization as a whole, which Synarchism seeks to uproot, are traced to Plato, and to the incorporation of the most essential features of Plato's work in the mission of Jesus Christ and such Apostles as John and Paul, most notably.
Certain essentials of this "Christian Revolution" were extended into Judaism—as in the work of the Apostle Peter's associate Philo of Alexandria—and within Islam. The "Andalusian phenomenon," which 1492 Spain sought to destroy, reflects, as did the Baghdad Abassid Caliphate, an example of that ecumenical principle which underlies European civilization as a whole.
The essential feature of this European civilization, from Solon through today, is most clearly expressed in the Christian's notion of the Mosaic principle of Genesis 1: that man and woman are made equally in the likeness of the Creator of the universe, and assigned and empowered to manage that Creation. This systemic distinction between man and beast, which the pro-slavery and pro-peonage gnostics of the Spanish monarchy violated, is the basis for European civilization's notion of history.
As I detail the argument in my "Visualizing the Complex Domain" (EIR, July 11), the human mind is absolutely distinguished from all lower animal species by the human mind's capacity to discern objects, called universal physical principles, which rule the universe, but which are beyond the powers of direct observation by sense-perception. By discovering and mastering the principles discovered by that uniquely human capacity (e.g., capax Dei), man is able to change the universe systemically, transmitting discoveries of this type from one mortal generation to the next. That process, of increasing mankind's power to exist, through such discoveries and their transmission, is history. Christian man, man in the Classical Greek tradition, is inherently Promethean, struggling against the Satanic oligarchical forces of Zeus's fascist Olympus.
Beginning of Modern History
The Fifteenth-Century European Renaissance, by imposing upon the modern sovereign state the responsibility for the general welfare of all of the people and their posterity alike, established real history, modern history. The state and its people must now judge their decisions, the outcome of their performance, by the connections of general welfare and posterity, the synonyms for the common good, the commonwealth.
The "end of history" signifies bringing the planet under the role of a candidate for the title of "Anti-Christ," a Nietzschean monster who commits unspeakable evil abominations publicly, as a device of such a "superman" for terrifying the spectators not only into submission, but even into a Hegelian master-slave emulation of the obscenities he displays. The result is a state of political affairs in which the intended permanent rule of the planet by such Hegelian monsters eradicates the practice of those qualities which express man and woman as in the likeness of the Creator. That is the "end of history" as attempted by the sheer horror of World War I, by the horror which was Hitler, by Bertrand Russell's and Vice President Cheney's doctrine of "preventive nuclear warfare," and by the impact of the successive 1962 missiles-crisis and 1963 assassination of President Kennedy upon the generation entering young adulthood during the middle through late 1960s.
This was the banker-backed ideological tradition, and social composition of the cult which assumed the conspiratorial matrix of those forms of Synarchism which came to be associated with the notorious European fascist regimes of the post-Versailles Treaty decades.
This implicitly Satanic cult of Napoleon was perpetuated beyond 1815 by, among others, veteran Napoleonic officers who deployed as filibusterers on the borders of the young U.S. republic, and who exerted a great influence on pre-shaping the later ideology of the plotters of the Confederacy. The myth of Napoleon, as echoed by Stendahl's Le Rouge et le Noir, and other wild-eyed adorations, was given fresh incarnation by the regime of France's Napoleon III, the Napoleon III who called the region "Latin America," thus expressing the intention to take over the former colonies of Spain and Portugal. As in the case of the intervention against Mexico by the combined forces of the pro-slavery Spanish monarchy, the British, and French, Austrian, and other occupation forces, the immediately controlling motives were chiefly two. First, the immediate interests of a cabal of financiers, who were mainly typical of what are known as the Synarchists today. Second, the re-enforcement of a feudalistic landlord system which reduced the majority of the population of Mexico to human cattle.
2. Briefly, the Solution
The solution for the present crisis has two aspects. One is the formally economic aspect of the solution. The other, the political. Consider the political first.
The Fifteenth-Century European Renaissance took the revolutionary step of introducing the modern form of sovereign nation-state, a form of state whose authority to govern was made conditional on the government's efficient devotion to promotion of the general welfare of all of the persons of present and future generations. This reflected a principle of law extensively argued in Plato's The Republic, the principle later central to Christianity, as stated most famously by the Apostle Paul in his I Corinthians 13.
This revolution in statecraft went further and much deeper than a hand-waving interpretation of "general welfare." The notion of general welfare was premised on the conception of capax Dei: that the sublime nature of the human individual, man or woman, placed each apart from and above the beasts, a creature distinguished from the beasts by the power to participate in God. This notion, which the greatest theologians and others of that century identified with the implicit theology of Plato's Classical Greek, and of I Corinthians 13, signified the human individual's power to know, and to command those efficient universal physical principles which are invisible to the merely animal-like powers of sense-perception.
These considerations identify what Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, and Leibniz defined as anti-reductionist physical science, and Classical forms of artistic composition, as those forms of individual and social practice which are characteristically human, as distinct from bestial. Although progress in discovery and realization of universal physical principles and Classical art, is necessary for maintaining and improving the demographic condition of society, the moral aspect of this activity is what is morally essential. It is mankind's participation in the discovery and practice of these sublime qualities, rather than merely their so-called practical use, which is essential for the moral condition of society. That participation must be the expression of man's likeness, however imperfect, to God.
The essential obligation of the state, is not to care for the people as if they were farm animals. The essential responsibility is to care for mankind in ways which are consistent with the protection and further development of man's sublime nature. The only thing which is sacred about human life, as distinct from animal life, is that it is specifically human. Society must love human life, as Plato's Socrates and Paul's I Corinthians 13 defines the functional, intrinsically sublime meaning of that principle of agape which is consonant with the knowledgeable reading of the reference to "general welfare" in the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution.
This universal principle of agape, so comprehended, requires that society as a whole must be composed of a community of principle among respectively sovereign nation-states. This does not mean a Hobbesian kind of sovereignty which might afford a nation the hermetic sovereign right to condone cannibalism or slavery; it means a universal principle of truthfulness as such, to which all states are subject. This does not mean a fixed code of positive law; it signifies common submission to a Socratic activity of truth-seeking among persons and peoples. For such a community to come into being in practice, requires that nations have risen, at last, to the beneficial state of mind in which the intent of such a principle may become understood and efficiently adopted.
It is my persuasion, that mankind has entered a nuclear-weapons age in which a categorical rejection of an implicitly imperial (e.g., ultramontane) world government, in favor of a community of principle among sovereign nation-state republics, is both indispensable and feasible. I know, that were I the President of the U.S.A., under presently erupting conditions of world economic and other crisis, agreement to such a community of principle were feasible among most nations, and therefore implicitly all. The intent to realize that accomplishment, forged in memory of Nicholas of Cusa, Leibniz, Benjamin Franklin, and Abraham Lincoln, should it prevail, will be known thereafter as my life's-work mission. So be it. Such is the temper of my intention; let that be known in those terms.
The world is presently gripped by the terminal phase of existence of a foredoomed, "floating-exchange-rate" form of IMF-dominated world monetary-financial system. Were that foolish and cruel system not placed in bankruptcy receivership by governments, and subject to those measures of general reorganization which transform it into a regulated, protectionist form of fixed-exchange-rate system, this planet were doomed to plunge soon into a new Dark Age of possibly several or more generations. There is a set of outstanding, both moral and practical, considerations which must be recognized and honored in practice if any nation, in the Americas or elsewhere, would be capable of surviving much longer. I conclude this report with a summary of some of those considerations.
Sometimes, Money Is Evil
At the close of a 1995 Vatican conference on the subject of health, I submitted a paper in which I featured a diagram intended to illustrate the economic pressures on health-care, for laymen, in the relatively simplest possible way. On later reflection, I employed the same illustration for my 1996 campaign for the U.S. Democratic Party nomination. I have used that and related forms of illustrations frequently since that time, bringing the figures into conformity with the need to bring up to date, a showing of the effects of crucial changes in the world economy since. The same type of illustration makes a moral as well as a technical economic point, both of which are of outstanding relevance for the conclusion of this present report.
To begin, I describe the relevant features of the figure.
The figure shows the general nature of the changes in relationships among per-capita magnitudes of nominal financial assets, monetary circulation, and net real physical output, over an interval from U.S. fiscal period 1966-67 to approximately the present time. Until approximately 1999-2000, the pattern for the U.S.A. was as follows. There was a trend toward a hyperbolic increase of nominal financial assets; a slower rate of growth of monetary emission; and a downward, accelerating plunge of physical values.
A qualitative change occurred from approximately the time of the October 1998 Washington, D.C. monetary conference, the conference which was convened in the wake of the Long Term Capital Management disaster. With the ominous threat of a February 1999 Brazil crisis looming, and the Presidential election-campaign of 1999-2000 taken into account, the desperate U.S. decision was made, to attempt to drown threatened new major financial crises with "a wall of money." Not only printing presses, but electronic uttering was harnessed for what was, in fact, a hyperinflationary mission. During 1999, the rate of monetary emission tended to exceed the troubled financial assets being rolled over. The U.S. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage-based asset bubble is a current reflection of some of the effects of that monetary flooding. By Spring 2000, the pattern had become unquestionably a systemic trend. By Election-Day, November 2000, the presently accelerating collapse of the U.S. economy could no longer be concealed from any but the most foolish observers.
This nearly forty-year decline of the U.S. economy was accelerated by the 1971-1972 transformation of the IMF from a fixed-exchange-rate to floating-exchange-rate monetary system, but the decay of the U.S. and U.K. physical economies was fully under way at the time of the U.K.'s first Harold Wilson government. The sterling crisis of Autumn 1967 and the succession of dollar crises of January-March 1968 reflected this. The monetary insanity of the post-1971 floating-exchange-rate system, was a complement to a deeper, long-range shift of the U.S. economy, from the world's leading engine of production, into a rusted-out, predatory, now disintegrating "consumerism" culture.
Against that historic background, what my pedagogical figures illustrate, is essentially the following.
Money has no intrinsic value in itself. Even the price of monetary gold is not an expression of self-evidently intrinsic worth. In any sane organization of society, the utterance of money is a monopoly of perfectly sovereign nation-state governments. To avoid the kind of divergence among financial, monetary, and physical assets which the pedagogical figures illustrate, government and governments must act. They must act singly; and, they must act jointly, as was done under the fixed-exchange-rate phase of the IMF system.
Two general objectives must be served. The national and international systems must be managed, top-down, by government, in the interest of promoting real capital formation, and to ensure that the price of money does not run ahead of the production of per-capita physical values of production.
On the first account, the development of modern economy requires relatively massive rates of formation of the physical capital of production and basic economic infrastructure. Basic economy infrastructure investments involve primary capital cycles of from one to two generations, that is, from twenty-five to fifty years. In modern economy, the healthy ration of investment formation and maintenance of basic economic infrastructure represents about half the total output of a national economy. To this end, international trade and lending requirements require a fixed-exchange monetary system, with primary lending rates at between 1 and 2% simple interest per year.
On the account of current production, various protectionist and related measures are required. A commitment to development of an industry often requires the protection of a fair-trade policy. Taxation policies must be crafted to channel flows preferentially, while providing for the requirements of government. The contrast between the prudence of President Kennedy's investment-tax credit and the utter folly of the Kemp-Roth reduction of the financial capital-gains tax, is an example.
To actually accomplish such ends, the legitimate, essential role of private entrepreneurship must be understood, fostered, and protected in the following ways.
Ultimately, there is no source of real profit of a national or the world economy, but the function of those same creative powers of the individual mind which generate experimentally validated discoveries of universal principles, such as those discoveries made by the methods of Johannes Kepler and Gottfried Leibniz: capax Dei. I qualify that in my "Visualizing the Complex Domain." Progress in the functions of basic economic infrastructure depends upon that source of principled innovations; the primary function of private entrepreneurship is to give the freest possible play to the useful expression of such creative powers of the individual minds of the entrepreneur and his or her associates.
This obliges the state to consider its responsibility to foster the production and labor of such producers, both entrepreneur and employee. This responsibility is economic; it is, at the same time, a moral responsibility for cultivating the powers associated with the principle of capax Dei. Of these two, the moral responsibility must prevail, as for example, in education, and, therefore also in the conditions of family and community life.
The primary mission of economy is not the production of wealth, but rather the promotion of the essential role of production for the production and maintenance of people according to the creative potential which they, in turn, express in such included forms as scientific and technological progress in developing the productive powers of labor. Let the present mission of economy be defined, as to free people from the last vestiges of slavery and peonage, to reawaken the true force of history, and to foster the moral development of people to their highest possible degree of potential for that time.
This terrible present crisis of world economy presents us with the obligation and opportunity to craft a new set of cooperative relations among sovereign nation-states. We must transform crisis into opportunity seized. This means, inclusively, the Phoenix-like revival and flourishing of the nearly crushed nations of Central and South America. We urgently require the world system in which that development of those nations becomes possible once more. To that end, bury Synarchism where it lies, and let it, or its like, never trouble us again.