On May 8^th we published the first chapter of Will Wertz’s book, Beware the British East India Company! discussing Lyndon LaRouche’s battleplan for finally routing the globalist Anglo-Dutch financial empire. 

Today, Tuesday, July 11^th, the NATO summit convenes in Lithuania to plan continuous war in Eurasia until, in the words of the puppets of the Anglo-Dutch financial empire, Russia is defeated and captured, and whatever resistance exists in the United States, China, and India is snuffed out.  Millions will be killed in this process, which is the goal of the Malthusian monsters running the present “rules based” international order.  This entropic economic order can only continue to exist by savage depopulation measures directed at the “too many people” they believe presently inhabit the Earth.

No nation can defeat these monsters standing alone—their criminal enterprise extends world-wide, and they presently run a speculative financial system which holds whole nations in debt fed bondage.  The solution, sought by LaRouche, the famous politician, scientist, and philosopher, is a four-power agreement between the nations the Empire has set at one another’s throats.  The agreement centers on a a gold reserve backed stable financial system operating among sovereign nation states which share a community of principle centered on developing the entire world to human standards.  These four nations continue to hold the economic potential for just such a revolution.

We think it urgent, at this turning point, to focus on creating the conditions through which LaRouche’s idea is implemented in the new American Administration of Donald J. Trump in 2024, if not through his leadership during the financial crisis which may hit even before then.  Hence, we publish the last chapter here of Will Wertz’s book for your thought and deliberation. It is available on Amazon. The full title is: BEWARE The British East India Company! Toward an Alliance Between the USA, Russia, China, and India to Finally Defeat the British Empire, by William Wertz. Self-published. Available on Amazon Kindle $9.99; Paperback 361 pages $15.00

Chapter 12:  Proposed Agreement Between the United States, Russia, India, and China to Initiate the Creation of a New Bretton Woods System

In August 2018, the author, who at the time was President of the Schiller Institute, wrote a proposal, which was addressed to President Trump, President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and President Xi Jinping.

The following unpublished article, based on that original open letter, but expanded upon to some extent, was written in the Spring of 2019. Even if the leaders of the Four Powers were so inclined, the Russian collusion hoax and the outbreak of the coronavirus in China made it difficult for them to act on the proposal. Despite the fact that the prospects for such an agreement might appear to be extremely unlikely, if not impossible, under present circumstances, the proposed agreement remains both valid and urgent.

Whether the United States of America, and not only the United States of America but other countries as well, will now free themselves from their historical enemy, the Anglo-Dutch imperial system, is the most crucial issue facing humanity. The positive resolution of this issue is in the vital interest of the entire world community of nations.

In fact, any other focus tends to play into the geopolitical hands of the British Empire by dividing the leading nations of the world.

The only way to eliminate the danger of war and to ensure the economic development of all humanity is to eliminate the Anglo-Dutch imperial monetarist system which has dominated the globe to varying degrees since at least the Treaty of Paris in 1763. Although that domination was spearheaded by the British East India Company at that time, with the formal elimination of the British East India Company, that domination was taken over directly by the British Empire.

As proposed by statesman and economist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., that empire can only be eliminated by the creation of a New Bretton Woods system by agreement among Four Powers, the United States of America, Russia, India, and China. Only those four nations combined, despite and perhaps even because of their differences, have the power to accomplish this feat.

At some point in the not too distant future, a renewed compact among sovereign nation-states must be created. This compact must be based upon a shared community of principle, which establishes the principled framework in which the myriad of seemingly individual conflicts can be solved to the mutual benefit of all humanity.

To this end, now is the time to prepare for what may seem to be an impractical, counterintuitive initiative by the current or future leadership of the U.S., Russia, China, and India, with the support of others, to finally eliminate the Anglo-Dutch imperial system and its monetarist system once and for all.

Instead of sticking one’s hand into the plethora of traps set by the British Empire, why not dismantle the traps by cancelling the power of the trapper setting the traps in the first place by creating a new higher order political-economic geometry of cooperation?

The only means to fundamentally eliminate the British imperial monetarist system is for the above Four Powers to create a New Bretton Woods System, as defined by Lyndon LaRouche, to put the bankrupt London-centered Trans-Atlantic monetary system through bankruptcy reorganization and to generate credit through sovereign national banking systems to fund domestic and global economic development and to cooperate in the development of fusion power and space exploration.

This is the one bold action which can set things straight for all humanity. The principles upon which such a compact must be shaped as defined by Lyndon LaRouche over a number of decades are as follows:

Article 1: Recognition of the Common Enemy of Humanity

Since the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the above Four Powers have had to fight repeatedly for their sovereignty and the well-being of their respective populations against the British Empire in the form of the British East India Company. The Boston Tea Party was organized against the British East India Company. Genocide was committed against India when it was forced by the British East India Company to grow opium for export to China. The British East India Company later waged two Opium Wars against China to force China to consume opium. Russia, which supported the American Revolution against the British East India Company through its membership in the League of Armed Neutrality and later deployed its navy to New York City and San Francisco during the U.S. Civil War to prevent British intervention in behalf of the Confederacy has been and continues to be the target of geopolitical campaigns of destabilization and conquest by the current day followers of Harold Mackinder.

To this day the imperial methods of free trade, genocide, geopolitics, limited sovereignty and preemptive nuclear war, what can be scientifically referred to as the Anglo-Dutch liberal system of Adam Smith, Thomas Robert Malthus, Halford Mackinder, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, John Maynard Keynes, et al., continue to plague humanity as a whole in order to prevent the emergence of a just new world economic order.

The British Empire was directly involved in the attempted coup d’état against the elected president of the United States, Donald Trump, beginning 2016 through the efforts of MI-6 and GCHQ and the “Five Eyes.” The same British Empire has simultaneously orchestrated a lying campaign against Russia for the purpose of preventing collaboration between the U.S.A. and Russia. The same British Empire has deliberately manipulated tensions between the U.S.A. and China and between China and India.

Therefore, if there is to be a solution to the current world crisis, the above Four Powers must finally put an end to the machinations of the Anglo-Dutch imperialists for the sake not only of their own nations, but for the sake of all humanity.

It must be stated that the problem is not the United States of America or Russia or China or India. None of these four nations is an empire. The problem is the Anglo-Dutch liberal imperial system of free-trade, globalization, Malthusianism, radical environmentalism as advocated by the World Wildlife Fund founded by Prince Bernard and Prince Philip of the Netherlands and Great Britain. The problem is the policy of limited sovereignty advocated by H. G. Wells and Tony Blair and the policy of perpetual war and preemptive nuclear warfare advocated by notorious “peace” advocate Bertrand Russell after World War II.

The four abovementioned powers must join efforts to finally free humanity from the elephant in the room, the Anglo-Dutch liberal system, which also oppresses, among others, the citizens of the United Kingdom.

All Four Powers must recognize that the Adam Smith-inspired British free trade system institutionalized under the World Trade Organization (WTO), which among other things prohibits nations from achieving food sufficiency, and the anti-technology radical environmentalism institutionalized under the Paris Climate Control agreements are anti-human imperialist frauds. This proposal is designed to eliminate such supranational monstrosities and to establish a new anti-imperialist basis for relations among nations.

Article 2: Definition of the General Conditions of Peace

Contrary to the British doctrines of geopolitics and limited sovereignty threatening world stability today, the political foundation for durable peace must be: (a) The unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and (b) cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all.

This conception is an expression of the fundamental principle of the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended 30 years of warfare in Europe, the principle of acting in the “benefit, honor and advantage of the other.”¹ Contrary to ill-informed public opinion, this conception is also the historical basis of the much maligned and misrepresented U.S. Monroe Doctrine, originally formulated by John Quincy Adams, which doctrine was based on the concept of a “community of principle” among sovereign nation-states.

The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as “developing nations.” Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, as was the intention of Franklin D. Roosevelt in creating the original Bretton Woods System, there can be no durable peace on the planet.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s conception of the original Bretton Woods system reflected his differences with the British Empire’s Winston Churchill as documented by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s son Elliot Roosevelt in his book As He Saw It. Roosevelt was committed to ending the British Empire and implementing an international New Deal. To this end, he created the Bretton Woods system before his untimely death.

That system, created at a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire July 1-22, 1944, was originally committed to extending low interest credit for development projects throughout the world to end poverty. The credit extended was not to be used to refinance already existing usurious debts, but only for strictly defined productive purposes.

However, on August 15, 1971, U.S. President Nixon jettisoned the Bretton Woods System created by Franklin D. Roosevelt, by abandoning the fixed exchange rate gold-reserve system and introducing a floating exchange rate system. That fateful decision was followed by the introduction of free trade, globalization, outsourcing to exploit cheap labor, and the deindustrialization of advanced sector nations including the U.S. and Europe.

As a result of nearly 50 years of floating exchange rates and over 30 years of free trade policies, problems have been created among nations, including between the United States of America and China, which must be corrected.

Protectionism, including tariffs (as distinct from unjustified, geopolitically-motivated sanctions), is a valid American System method for addressing inequities created under the WTO free-trade system, although not the only method.

The fundamental, legitimate purpose of protectionism should only be to protect the productive powers of labor of each nation.

Elimination of the WTO free-trade system and the Malthusian Paris Climate Control agreements and their replacement by a New Bretton Woods system based on the principles outlined here is the preferred alternative.

Such an objective is in the vital strategic interest of each and all nations, therefore, the Four Powers must be bound by a common interest in protecting and expanding the productive powers both of their own populations and also of other nations throughout the planet.

Such a commitment represents the true common interest of the Four Powers.

Article 3: Concrete Technology Policy

Technology is understood to be the indispensable means not only for increasing the potential relative population-density of societies, but as also indispensable to maintaining even any present level of potential relative population density.

In all aspects of production excepting agriculture, and in respect to industrial goods required by agricultural production, advances in technology are transmitted into the productive process as a whole through the incorporation of improved technologies in capital goods, most emphatically capital goods of the machine-tool or analogous classifications. Therefore, the only means by which a national economy can sustain significant rates of technological progress is by placing emphasis upon the capital-goods sector of production, and maintaining sufficiently high rates of turnover in that sector to foster high rates of technological innovation in the goods produced.

This policy is diametrically opposed to the Green New Deal policy, which is no different than the World Bank policy of restricting investment to low energy-flux density so-called “appropriate technologies,” which would relegate so-called “developing nations” to a condition of genocidal backwardness as advocated by Prince Philip and Prince Bernard, and would deindustrialize the so-called developed nations at an even more accelerated rate than has occurred thus far.

Article 4: Economic Policies

By supplying increased amounts of high-technology capital goods to developing nations, the exporting economies foster increased rates of turnover in their own most advanced capital-goods sectors of production. As a by-product of such increased rates of turnover in that sub-sector of the exporting nation’s production, the rate of improvement of technology in such categories of goods is increased, with great benefits to the internal economy of the exporting nation. Thus, even were the exporting nation to take no profit on such exports, the promotion of higher rates of capital turnover in the capital-goods sector of that exporting nation would increase the productive power of labor in the exporting nation’s economy as a whole, thus supplying great benefit to the exporting nation’s economy in that way.

The importer of such advanced capital goods increases the productive powers of labor in the economy of the importing nation. This enables the importing nation to produce its goods at a lower average social cost, and enables it to provide better-quality and cheaper goods as goods of payment to the nations exporting capital goods.

Not only are the causes of simple humanity and general peace served by such policies of practice; the arrangement is equally beneficial to exporting and importing nations.

This is the actual scientific basis of the conception of a win-win approach.

It is also the alternative to trade war. While tariffs may be necessary to protect domestic industry and agriculture, by increasing production of capital goods for export, the exporting nation will rapidly reverse the effects of deindustrialization and increase the productive powers of its own population.

Article 5: New Bretton Woods System

The original Bretton Woods system as promoted by Franklin D. Roosevelt and his aide, Harry Dexter White, was based on the American System of economics as opposed to the British system as advocated during the conference by John Maynard Keynes.

American System methods as developed by Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, and Henry C. Carey among others are well known in China, India, and Russia in particular and have contributed to the economic development of those nations among others including Japan and Germany.

As reported by his son Elliot Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt was intent upon eliminating the British Empire after World War II. He wanted to use American System methods to develop the developing sector nations. The World Bank was originally called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

According to Elliot Roosevelt, his father, Franklin D. Roosevelt made his intentions clear to Winston Churchill:

“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods…. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation—by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.

“I can't believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.

“The peace cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples.”²

In response, Churchill told Roosevelt: “Mr. President, I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it.”³

A number of the current BRICS nations, including China, India, South Africa, and Brazil were prominent participants in the conference which created the original Bretton Woods system. The U.S.S.R. signed the Bretton Woods Final Act, but then decided not to ratify it. The Russian Federation later joined in 1992, but by then the Bretton Woods system of Roosevelt had been destroyed and had become a global looting mechanism for the City of London. India participated in the Bretton Woods conference, but at the time was still a colony of the British Empire.

What is now required is for the Four Powers to come to an agreement to create a New Bretton Woods system to fulfill the original purpose envisioned by Roosevelt and to eliminate the flaws in the system as it was implemented after Roosevelt’s death under Winston Churchill’s undue influence on Harry S Truman.

On Nov. 21, 2008, Lyndon LaRouche wrote an article entitled “Only My Reforms Can Save The Planet from a Dark Age,” in which he proposed the following:

“So, if we create this seed crystal, of these four nations, and others who join them, we now can have, any time we decide to do it—if the President of the United States says, to the President of Russia and to the President of China, and to the government of India, and some other countries: ‘Let's make this agreement!’, the United States has Constitutionally, the Constitutional apparatus and the authority, to do this!”⁴

This proposal is even more urgent now. The Four Powers are the only powers, which combined, can cut the current Gordian knot of the deteriorating international state of affairs under the continuing influence of their common enemy—the British Empire in its current incarnation.

This proposal is the unique means by which, for example, trade relations between the U.S. and China can be resolved.

The only equitable and workable policy for financing of world trade among sovereign states with different economic and social systems is a system of credit based on fixed parities of national currencies, parities by aid of a gold-reserve monetary order among states.

The price of monetary gold shall be a fair market price, a parity price. On the basis of agreements, a pegged stable parity price shall be established.

The compacting governments shall each establish a national bank fully accountable to its head of state for administration and to its legislature as to its lawful authorities in respect to policy. This national bank shall coordinate a well-regulated national banking system in each participating nation. The national bank shall be the channel for lending of currency notes issued by the treasury of the government.

To prevent a gold-reserve system of fixed parities from becoming subject to disabling inflationary spirals, it is necessary to limit the extension of credit within the monetary system to “hard-commodity” categories of lending for import and export of physical goods.

It is agreed that such American System, as opposed to British System methods shall be the style for defining large-scale projects, and for economic activities of nation-building in international transactions within the new system.

Interest rates on loan of currency-notes shall be kept low within the range of combined administration and reasonable average risk.

Other nations will happily join this initiative. But the United States, Russia, India, and China must lead the way. At some point in the near future, the leadership of the above Four Powers should form a committee mandated to create an anti-Keynesian New Bretton Woods system based on the proposals made by Lyndon LaRouche.

Article 6: The U.S. Monroe Doctrine and the Establishment of a Community of Principle Among Sovereign Nation-States

During the Presidency of Donald Trump, his National Security Advisor John Bolton stated the following in respect to U.S. policy regarding Venezuela: “Look, in this administration, we are not afraid to use the phrase ‘Monroe Doctrine.’ This is a country in our hemisphere.”⁵

John Bolton is not the only one who doesn’t understand the actual content of the Monroe Doctrine as defined by John Quincy Adams.

When the United States supported the British Empire’s claim to the Malvinas Islands in 1982 against Argentina, the United States violated the Monroe Doctrine, which was designed to protect sovereign nations from the British and other imperial powers.

Today the use of the Monroe Doctrine to justify intervention in Venezuela is equally in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.

What the illiterate John Bolton expressed was not the Monroe Doctrine, but rather the Theodore Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. This corollary is rightfully denounced as an imperialist doctrine, but it is not the Monroe Doctrine, in fact, it is totally contrary to the actual Monroe Doctrine.

The Theodore Roosevelt corollary reads as follows:

“If a nation shows it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, require intervention of some civilized nation.”⁶

Contrary to the uninformed view of John Bolton, to many if not most members of the U.S. Congress and most of the international community, including leading representatives of Russia and China, the concept underlying the Monroe doctrine as enunciated by John Quincy Adams and supported by Lyndon LaRouche is not imperialism, but rather a community of principle among sovereign nation-states.

Lyndon LaRouche gave a speech on November 25, 1984, in which he stated as follows:

“The only proper foreign policy doctrine of the United States today is a revival and expansion of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams’s formulation of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.

“Today, the Monroe Doctrine must be greatly expanded in scope, to include the republics of Europe, and also those nations aspiring to free themselves from the last vestiges of European colonialism in Africa and Asia.

“It must be a pact of friendship and alliance among republics which are each fully equal in respect to their sovereignty in all matters of economic and political life. Among the ranks of its friends, the United States must never aspire to anything more than the status of first among equals.”⁷

Thus, the proper conception of the Monroe Doctrine, which must govern U.S. foreign policy, is based on the principle of respect for national sovereignty, the concept embedded in the Treaty of Westphalia, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and the United Nations Charter.

Any other policy is contrary to the natural law upon which the United States of America was founded in its War of Independence from the British Empire.

Footnotes—Chapter 12

Proposed Agreement between the United States, Russia, India and China to initiate the creation of a New Bretton Woods System

1. Article 1, Treaty of Westphalia, Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp
2. Roosevelt, Elliott, As He Saw It, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946, pp. 36-37, https://archive.org/details/ashesawit00roos/page/n9/mode/2up
3. Roosevelt, Elliott, As He Saw It, Duell, Sloan and Pearce,1946, p. 41, https://archive.org/details/ashesawit00roos/page/n9/mode/2up
4. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr., “Only My Reforms Can Save The Planet from a Dark Age,” [https://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3546only_my_reforms.html]
5. Bolton, John, Washington Examiner, March 3, 2019, by Daniel Jativa, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-bolton-were-not-afraid-to-use-the-word-monroe-doctrine
6. Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (2005), https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/roosevelt-corollary
7. LaRouche, Jr., Lyndon H., “Renew and expand the Monroe Doctrine of John Quincy Adams,” EIR, Vol. 11, No. 48, December 11, 1984 https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1984/eirv11n48-19841211/eirv11n48-19841211_028-renew_and_expand_the_monroe_doct-lar.pdf