This is a book about Empire. In one sense, its main focus is on the modern manifestation of Empire, i.e., the misunderstood Anglo-Dutch System, which was born in the late 16th century, and came into maturity between 1688-1763. That empire is still very much with us today. In another sense, this book deals with the basic question of the nature of Empire itself, not any particular empire, but the ongoing oligarchical idea of Empire.
Most people today think of empires as something of the past. Were that only true, the world presently would be in a much happier condition. Whether you realize it or not, the issue of Empire, and the human race’s long struggle to free itself from Empire is the most critical political concern facing us today. We are currently confronted with a profound economic and strategic crisis, and defeating the current schemes of the Empire is now a matter of life or death for humanity.
Much of this book is very detailed, with names and places that may not be familiar to many. I urge you to be patient, and to work your way through the material. The sections on Rome, Salamanca, John Locke, Empiricism, and banking may seem tedious, but hopefully, when you are finished, you will understand that Empire is the mortal enemy of humanity, and that the historical mission of the United States is to eliminate that enemy once and for all.
* * * * *
Virtually all modern academically-approved histories are incompetent. That statement will probably provoke some PhD recipients to dismiss the following work out of hand, but there are two legitimate reasons for making such a claim. The first reason is the pervasive failure of accredited American, as well as European, historians to appreciate the profound importance of the American Revolution, and the axiomatic species-difference between the American constitutional republic and the British Empire, a difference which persists down to the present day. The evidence of this failure is perhaps most glaring in the almost universal inability, or unwillingness, to distinguish between the American methods of national banking and the constitutional issuance of currency, contrary to the European system of private central banking. The second failure of modern historians is the almost universal contamination of historical analysis with a mechanistic-fatalist approach. This latter flaw is particularly obvious with Marxist, as well as various neo/pseudo-Marxist types, but the same condemnation can be made of the Chicago and Vienna schools' incompetent view of impersonal “market forces.” Philosophically, the followers of both Marx and Von Hayek, as well as their many and varied derivatives, are identical in their empirical-mechanistic methodology.
In truth, the subject of history is Man, yet the university libraries are satiated with history books, which evade the most basic obvious question: What is man's nature which sets him apart from the lower beasts, allows him to create both science and great symphonies, and to increase his mastery over the planet? Or to put it more plainly, what is it about man that allows him to even hypothesize about human history, since monkeys, donkeys and whales have no such capability? How can anyone write a competent history of mankind, without even addressing that question? How does one understand Man's history, and the long periods of progress, and retrogression which have characterized it, unless one starts with the fundamental question: What does it mean to be human? The literary journals are full of articles, written by university professors who write like bad-imitation Joe Fridays: “Just the Facts.” But in reality, such factuality produces lies, because of what it leaves out. This problem has become much worse with the advent of the so-called “information society,” a false reality in which real history is butchered by the “fact-checkers” of Wikipedia, and their ilk.
This book does not pretend to be a “history of the human race from beginning to end,” nor does it make any claims of profundity in the realms of science or philosophy, but, if we return to the question, “What is it in Man's nature which sets him apart from the lower beasts?,” as we work our way through the history and nature of the Anglo-Dutch Empire, hopefully some glimmers of understanding will come forth.
The subject of this work is the millenia-long struggle of the human race to free itself from Empire: to free itself politically, economically, culturally, and morally. Not from any particular empire, such as the Ottomans or the Persians, but from the continuing ontological reality of an ongoing oligarchical idea of Empire, the which, continues to infest this world in our 21st century. The specific focus at hand is the modern Anglo-Dutch System of empire, because that is the one we are currently threatened by. The majority of this writing will concentrate on how this monstrosity came into existence and consolidated its power. Hence the years from 1582 to 1763 will require most of our attention. However, the rise of Venetian power after 1100, as well as the 19th and 20th centuries' British targeting of the American Republic, will also be examined, but not with the same depth of historical detail. The specific structures of the Anglo-Dutch System have evolved over time, but the axiomatic nature of the modern oligarchical empire was complete by 1763. My purpose here is to report on the origins of that Anglo-Dutch System, and to provide insight into its evil nature.
All of recorded human history encompasses a centuries-long fight between those who view man as a noble creature, as Genesis says: “made in the Creator's image,” versus the oligarchic view of man as a beast, expendable, a “worthless wretch.” All human progress has emanated from champions of the first view; empires result from proponents of the second view. To be clear, this is not a connect-the-dots conspiracy theory of history; this is a question of axiomatic views as to the fundamental nature of what it means to be human.
This book defies all mechanistic versions of history. This is very much a voluntaristic view of history, which is, after all, the only human way to view mankind's development. History is not determined by “events,” nor by inevitable economic processes. From the pre-historic years when mariners and astronomers first studied the progression of the constellations, mankind's history on – and increasing domination over – the planet, has been shaped by voluntaristic human action, action catalyzed by the creativity of individual human minds. When societies have been imbued with this notion of what it means to be human, civilization has progressed. When empires have dominated, when the few rule the many like cattle, mankind has suffered.
A few examples of the difference in these two views of man might be useful. Some of the following quotations are well known, but they bear repeating:
present the population of the world is increasing ... War so far has
had no great effect on this increase ...
I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are
others ... If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could
procreate freely without making the world too full ... the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but
what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others."
Bertrand Russell, in his book, The Impact of Science on Society, (1952)
Or, take the case of George Soros, who, when questioned about his role as a Nazi collaborator in 1944 Budapest, where he helped to strip condemned Jews of their possessions, stated that he felt no guilt about this whatsoever:
"But there was no sense
that I shouldn't be there, because that was--well, actually, in a funny
way, it's just
like in markets--that if I weren't there--of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would--would--would be
taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was
being taken away. So the--I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."
From an interview on CBS' 60 Minutes, December 20, 1998
Bertrand Russell and George Soros are not merely two "private" individuals. Russell, who also publicly advocated pre-emptive nuclear war against the Soviet Union,1 was a descendant from one of the most prominent British imperial families. His ancestor Edward Russell was a leader in the 1688 Glorious Revolution, and his grandfather Lord John Russell was the Victorian British Prime Minister during the years of Britain's genocide against the Irish, known today as the "potato famine." George Soros, the organizer of the off-shore Quantum Fund, and the founder of the Open Society, is today one of the leading financial speculators in the world, and the financial angel behind U.S. Democratic Party Presidential pre-candidate Barak Obama.2
In contrast to the anti-human outlook expressed above, take a look at how others view humanity:
How fair, O Man, do you, your
palm branch holding
Stand at the century's unfolding
In proud and noble manhood's prime
With faculties revealed, with spirit's fullness
Full earnest mild, in action-wealthy stillness,
The ripest son of time,
Free through reason, strong through law's measure,
Through meekness great, and rich in treasure,
Which long your breast to you did not disclose,
Nature's own lord, she glories in your bridle,
Who in a thousand fights assays your mettle
And shining under you from out the wild arose!
Friedrich Schiller, from The Artists (translated by Marianna Wertz)
“God made men different so that “every man might have need of
and from hence they might all be
knit more nearly together in the band of brotherly affection.
* “No man is made more honorable than another... out of any particular and singular respect to himself,
but for the glory of his creator and the Common good.
* “We must love one another with a pure heart, fervently, so that we delight in each other, mourn together,
labor and suffer together... We must bear one another’s burdens.”
John Winthrop, from A Model of Christian Charity (1630)
is that wherein man goes before all other earthly creatures and comes
after God only... For whereas
God and nature hath furnished other creatures, some with hoofs, others with other instruments, and weapons
both defensive and offensive, man is left naked, and destitute of all these, but may comfort himself in that one endowment of reason, and providence, whereby he is able to govern them all.”
John Robinson, Pastor of the Plymouth (Pilgrim) Church, from Of Faith, Hope, and Love, Reason and Sense
These two sets of quotations do not represent merely subjective differences of opinion about the nature of Man. Rather, these two violently contrary views of Man define, at least in principle, the difference between Empire and Republic. The following two quotations from Henry C. Carey, the foremost American economist of the 19th century, demonstrate this difference in an historically concrete way:
systems are before the world…. One looks to pauperism, ignorance,
depopulation, and barbarism; the
other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks toward
universal war; the other to universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the
American system, for it is the only one ever devised, the tendency of which was that of elevating while
equalizing the condition of man throughout the world."
The Harmony of Interests, (1851)
it is that we see the slave trade prevail to so great an extent in all
the countries subject to the British
system.... The system to which the world is indebted for these results is called "free trade;" but there can be
no freedom of trade where there is no freedom of man, for the first of all commodities to be exchanged is
labour, and the freedom of man consists only in the exercise of the right to determine for himself in what
manner his labour shall be employed, and how he will dispose of its products.... It [the British System] is the
most gigantic system of slavery the world has yet seen, and therefore it is that freedom gradually disappears
from every country over which England is enabled to obtain control."
The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign, (1853)
This, then, is the battlefield, the two opposing sides, in a fight that has existed for thousands of years, a fight whose outcome is still undetermined as of today.
- 1582 -
In 1582, a political revolution in Venice brought to power the Giovani party, associated with the Servite monk Paolo Sarpi. The seeds of this revolution were already planted some years before 1582, but it was with the ascension to power of the Giovani, and the continuing career of Sarpi, up until his death in 1623, that the modern Anglo-Dutch System was born. The locus of this new empire was gradually shifted to northern Europe – first to Amsterdam, then to London – and new theories of finance, trade, international law, and government were created, for the purpose of ensuring continued oligarchical rule. Those theories, and the anti-human philosophical method behind them, continue in practice up to this very day.
1582 was not the beginning of "Empire," but it was the beginning of the modern form of empire, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal System. The philosophical, economic, and scientific ideas that have come down to us from that 1582 revolution are virtually all-encompassing. To be sure, they include concepts of private finance, money and trade, which evolved over decades into what became the British System of "free trade." In addition, however, the philosophical empiricism of Sarpi and his epigone, has had profound influences over virtually every branch of philosophy, science, and mathematics. Some of those influences will be taken up in this current work. For now, however, the important guidepost to keep before us, is Sarpi's denial of basic human nature. Coherent with the Empire idea of "rule of the few over the many" is the necessity to deny the idea of lawful human creativity. The prospect of a self-governing republic, in which the fostering of human reason, scientific and technological progress, and individual creativity is consciously promoted, is anathema to the Empire crowd. Theirs is an Olympian oligarchical view, and from their standpoint, Sarpi's most invaluable contribution is his understanding that "mental chains" are more effective then armies in enforcing human servitude.
The falsity of modernism
Frequently, today, it is all-too-common to hear an apologist for the Empire – such as Felix Rohatyn – state that the policies of Franklin Roosevelt are passé, a "thing of the past." Putting to one side the ulterior motives of someone like Rohatyn in making such a statement, too many gullible people have been mis-educated in the idea that history progresses in irreversible linear "stages," each of which determines a fixed set of policy options. A lunatic clinical example of this type of thinking is Alvin Toffler's "Third Wave" nonsense. A more widespread type of British propaganda is the assertion that we have moved, again irreversibly, from an industrial to a post-industrial economy, and the related assertion that we have moved from a world of national economies to a globalized economy of limited or non-existent national sovereignty. This is all asserted as historical fact. The irony here is that it is the same people making those assertions – the City of London and Wall Street crowd – who have been attempting, since Richard Nixon abolished the Bretton Woods System in 1971, to turn back the clock on history, to reverse the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, to eradicate the American System of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Carey, and Abraham Lincoln, and to GO BACK to a system of private financiers ruling the world.
The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia established a system of relations among perfectly sovereign nation-states. The subsequent American revolution and 1789 U.S. Constitution defined the intent of the new nation to be the promotion of the General Welfare, and led to the development of the American System of Economics. These were all efforts to free humanity from the degradation of Empire. Since 1876, the Empire crowd has been determined to REVERSE these historical breakthroughs, to return to a pre-1776 world controlled by a private financial elite. Today, this reactionary design is always put forward with the most ardent claims that globalization, “universal democracy,” and the information age represent something new, and are ushering in a 21st century enlightened era for humanity. Protective tariffs are declared reactionary; Social Security is declared outmoded; unregulated off-shore banking is defended as an example of the "new freedom." With all of the chutzpah of a carnival barker, the Empire has convinced millions of fools that "snow is black," in their claims that the 21st century manifestations of Empire represent progress and human freedom.
This transparent Empire propaganda is actually a rather tired tactic. It's the same line that British spokesmen used in attacking the protective tariffs of Abraham Lincoln, and it has been used many times since. Consider what Sun-Yat Sen, the founder of modern China and a proponent of the American System of Economics, said about British designs in 1924:
new theory is emerging in England, proposed by intellectuals, which
opposes nationalism on the ground that it is narrow and illiberal; that
doctrine is cosmopolitanism... I constantly hear young men saying,
'(Sun Yat-Sen's) Principles are not adapted to the tendencies of modern
times; the latest and best doctrine is cosmopolitanism.' Is it
really?... Cosmopolitanism is the same thing as China's theory of world
empire two thousand years ago... (Today) the nations which are
employing imperialism to conquer others and which are trying to
maintain their own favored positions as sovereign lords of the whole
world are advocating cosmopolitanism and want the world to join them"
The Three Principles of the People, 1924
Simply substitute the word globalization for cosmopolitanism, and you see the same British imperial outlook, resurrected today, clothed in the language of the 21st century.
The crisis and the opportunity
As we move towards the November, 2008 Presidential election in the United States, this modern system of empire is facing a profound existential crisis, perhaps the the gravest crisis of its several centuries existence. Its own policies have produced chaos, hyperinflation, financial ruin, and – most important of all – a growing resistance by the world's peoples to the continuation of oligarchical rule. More and more people are "looking behind the curtain," and beginning to see that the wizard is really a pathetic creature. The recent defeat of the Lisbon Treaty in the Irish referendum, the increasing resistance of nations to the imperial genocidal demands of the World Trade Organization, and the unprecedented response of American voters to Hillary Clinton's campaign in defense of the “invisible Americans,”3 all portend an historic opportunity for revolutionary economic and monetary change.
The danger to humanity today is great, and without the necessary reforms, human suffering will increase dramatically in the months and years ahead. Nevertheless, this crisis is also an opportunity, and we can rejoice, that the means exist to to rid the world forever of the pestilence of Empire.
In earlier times a work such as this would have been unnecessary. Although some of the details which will be presented below may have been unknown to previous generations of patriots, it is indisputably the case that Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, the Careys, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln all understood precisely that the System of Empire was the mortal enemy of America. And they also understood that the Empire had roots which went far back into human history. Remember, it was the American patriot Thomas Paine who referred contemptuously to King George III as “Mister Welf.”4 Tragically, today this knowledge is largely gone. Hopefully, this work will help to rectify that.
1 In the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 1948
2 Your Enemy George Soros, published June, 2008 by LaRouchePAC
3 In a campaign which increasingly evoked memories of Franklin Roosevelt's defense of the “forgotten man,” after March 5, 2008, Clinton scored a string of primary victories, by increasing margins, eventually passing Barack Obama in the total popular vote, despite massive opposition from the George Soros-controlled Democratic Party leadership.
4 For an explanation of the terms Welf and Guelph, see Chapters 2 and 3 of this work