Will Wertz’s New Book: Four Nations, Aligned, Can Rout the Globalists
Will Wertz has published a new book outlining why Lyndon LaRouche’s decades long project for an alliance of the US, Russia, China, and India, to take down the modern globalist Anglo-Dutch system, known commonly as the British Empire, must now be taken up. Although seemingly impossible, it is the only sure path to overcoming the deep crisis facing the world, a victory requiring the participation of each of these four countries. The book in short title is: BEWARE The British East India Company! LaRouche PAC previously reviewed the work as a whole here. At our readers’ request and with consent of the author, we are publishing the first chapter of the book below.
In brief, despite the fact that the U.S. is presently at war with Russia in Ukraine, and the same imperious imperial faction is pushing a war with China, not to mention the internal cultural and political differences otherwise among these great power economies, there is increasing recognition throughout the world that the “post-war Rules based international order,” is toast. That central bank based oligarchical system is the most recent development of the Anglo-Dutch imperial system and the common enemy of all of these countries as it has been throughout history.
The imperial game of “divide and conquer” cannot deliver prosperity for humanity as a whole, only war and division. As Wertz outlines, these four countries share a common history of wars with this Empire and alliances with each other. At this moment of crisis, as delusions crumble, it is that historical memory of higher common cause and purpose which can be brought forward and resurrected.
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
Here’s the first chapter:
Only the elimination of the Anglo-Dutch Imperial System by the concerted efforts of the U.S.A, Russia, China, and India can create a just new world economic order based on the American System.
In the current world crisis, centered on Ukraine but not limited thereto, it would appear from an empirical standpoint that the idea of forging an alliance between Four Powers,1 the United States, Russia, China, and India, to form a New Bretton Woods economic system based on American System principles of political economy and to dismantle what has historically been the British, or more precisely the Anglo-Dutch imperial system, is impossible. However, since the current trajectory leads to a disaster for humanity, including the possibility of a global nuclear conflagration, what now appears to be virtually impossible, is in fact the only thing worth devoting one’s energies to accomplishing.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to achieving a Four Power agreement to create a just new world economic order today, is the widely held idea that there is no distinction between the American System of political economy embedded within the U.S. Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, on the one hand, and the Anglo-Dutch imperial system, on the other hand.
The American System of political economy derives in principle from the Platonic-Christian idea expressed by Nicolaus of Cusa that man is created in the living image of the Creator (imago viva Dei) and therefore is inherently capable of creative reason and love (capax Dei). From this idea, Cusa developed the concept of the sovereign nation-state and the principle of government by the consent of the governed in his The Catholic Concordance (1433).2
These ideas were further developed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz whose concept of the inalienable right to the “pursuit of happiness” inspired the U.S. Declaration of Independence and were concretized by a succession of American System economists including Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, and Henry C. Carey.
The American System of political economy is characterized by national banking, in which low-interest credit is extended for the purpose of developing manufacturing and improving agriculture through advances in science and technology. The emphasis of the entire system is upon further developing the productive powers (creativity) of the population, which is the sole source of wealth (capital of the mind). The American system utilizes protective tariffs in order to promote the development of the national economy. It encourages productive rather than speculative investment. This is measured by increases in potential relative population density. It encourages cooperation with other nations based upon respect for national sovereignty. The American System of political economy is inherently anti-entropic.
The Anglo-Dutch imperial system, in contrast, is derived from the Aristotelian idea of man characterized not by creative reason and love, but rather as a mere animal who is only capable of sense perception and logical reasoning and who operates on the basis of desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain. The Anglo-Dutch imperial system thus endeavors to maintain its imperial control by keeping its subjects in an animal state and by denying the principle of national sovereignty and the consent of the governed.
In his writings, one of the leading ideologues of the Anglo-Dutch imperial system, John Locke, who is wrongly regarded by some as the person, rather than Leibniz, who inspired the U.S. Declaration of Independence, promotes the “preservation of property” rather than the “pursuit of happiness.” From this standpoint, he as well as his Dutch counterpart, Hugo Grotius, follow Aristotle in justifying slavery. The economists of the Anglo-Dutch system include Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and John Maynard Keynes.
The Anglo-Dutch imperial system is characterized by so-called independent banking, free-trade, aggressive wars of colonial subjugation in violation of the principle of national sovereignty, drug trafficking, slavery and Malthusian population reduction (genocide). The Anglo-Dutch imperial system is inherently entropic.
The burning of Washington, D.C. on August 24, 1814.
The burned-out White House.
Today, the prevalent view is that there is no differentiation between the American System of political economy and the Anglo-Dutch imperial system. While this perception is understandable given the extent to which the U.S. is currently under the influence of its historic enemy, the Anglo-Dutch imperial system, this view only tends to obscure the difference between the American System of political economy and the Anglo-Dutch imperial system and to strengthen the stranglehold the Anglo-Dutch imperial system currently exercises on the U.S.
To a certain degree the issue may be expressed as follows: Is the U.S. a dumb giant on a British leash? Or, as was said of Tony Blair at the time of Iraq War, is the UK merely the USA’s poodle? You may say that this is splitting hairs, but the key to the world strategic situation lies in this distinction.
It is the thesis of this book that the American System of political economy and the Anglo-Dutch imperial system are two qualitatively different species and that even if the American System of political economy has become diluted in the U.S. under the influence of the Anglo-Dutch imperial system, the two concepts remain qualitatively different species.
The difference between the American system of political economy and the Anglo-Dutch imperial system can be compared to the difference between a circle and a polygon inscribed within and circumscribed around a circle. Although some pseudo-scientists argue that a circle can be squared by increasing the number of sides of an inscribed or circumscribed polygon, the truth, as proven by Nicolaus of Cusa in his “On the Quadrature of the Circle” (1450), is that the circle is a different species than a polygon and the more sides the polygon has, the more discontinuities exist between the circle and the polygon. Moreover, even if a circle is circumscribed by a polygon, the circle remains ontologically superior to the polygon, because the polygon can be derived from the circle, but not vice versa.3
The empiricist does not see the species differentiation between these two systems. Rather he is like the prisoners in Plato’s cave analogy in the Republic,4 who merely see the shadows cast by the sun on the walls of the cave instead of seeing the truth. As Plato wrote, these prisoners were compelled to hold their heads unmoved throughout life and, as a result, they think reality to be nothing other than the shadows of artificial objects manipulated by puppeteers.
Leibniz vs. Locke
The view that John Locke’s ideas were the basis of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution ignores the fact that John Locke was an investor and beneficiary of the slave-trading Royal Africa Company founded in 1672 and his ideas were actually reflected in the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, which he helped draft, which gave Carolinian planters absolute power over their enslaved chattel property; the constitutions pledged in Article 110 that "every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves.”5
In his Two Treatises of Government, written immediately prior to the Glorious Anglo-Dutch Revolution of 1688, Locke thus wrote:
“But there is another sort of Servants, which by a peculiar Name we call Slaves, who being Captives taken in a just War, are by Right of Nature subjected to the Absolute Dominion and Arbitrary Power of their Masters. These Men having, as I say, forfeited their Lives and with it their Liberties, and lost their Estates, and being in the State of Slavery, not capable of any Property, cannot in that state be considered as any part of Civil Society: the chief end whereof is the preservation of Property.”6
In his New Essays on Human Understanding, in opposition to Locke’s advocacy of the preservation of private property, Leibniz develops the concept of inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Leibniz argues that “the happiness of created beings” consists “in continual and uninterrupted progress towards greater goods.” For Leibniz, “happiness is a lasting pleasure” and it is “reason and will that lead us towards happiness, whereas sensibility and appetite lead us only towards pleasure.” “To be determined by reason to the best is to be most free…. To speak against reason is to speak against the truth…. This is to speak against oneself, and against one’s own good, since the principal use of reason consists in knowing the good and pursuing it…. Unless appetite is directed by reason it endeavors after present pleasure, rather than that lasting pleasure which is called happiness….”7
In addition to his influence on the ideas of the American Revolution, Leibniz had a profound impact on Russia and China.
Leibniz met Tsar Peter the Great three times. The first meeting was in Torgau (in present day Saxony) in October 1711, then in Karlsbad in 1712, where he first presented Peter with his plan to modernize Russia, and finally in June 1716 in Bad Pyrmont, where he presented the final plan. After the Karlsbad meeting, Leibniz was named an official advisor to Russia. These proposals included the improvement of the arts and sciences which led to the creation in St. Petersburg of the Academy of Sciences; magnetic and astronomical observations, geographical expeditions to determine if there was a land connection between Asia and America, which led Tsar Peter the Great to launch geographical expeditions in Siberia and Kamchatka; collecting and investigating minerals, plants and animals in Russia and nearby lands, for the purpose of increasing commerce between Russa, Europe, India, and China; collecting samples of Eastern languages.8
In a letter Leibniz wrote to Tsar Peter the Great in 1716, just before Leibniz died on Nov. 14, 1716, Leibniz wrote:
“… since my youth, I have given myself to the sciences that I loved;… I needed only a great prince who might want to interest himself sufficiently in the thing; I hope to have found one in Your Majesty who wishes and can take the best measures on this subject in his great empire…. Your Majesty is in a position to draw from Europe on one side and from China on the other what there is of the best, and to perfect the institutions of both these countries by means of wise reforms…. What constitutes this new and vast edifice, are libraries, museums, theaters of rarities, workshops of models, objects of art, chemical laboratories, and astronomical observatories…. We could also to the same end establish a sound commerce between Moscow and China….9"
In addition, Leibniz also wrote a number of important works on China including “The Latest News from China” (1697-99), “On the Civil Cult of Confucius” (1700-01), “Remarks on Chinese Rites and Religion” (1708), and “Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese” (1716), in which he proposed that Russia mediate a productive relationship between China and Europe.10 These works by Leibniz reflect the same ecumenical methodological method used by Nicolaus of Cusa in his “On the Peace of Faith.”
If one recognizes that the American Revolution was influenced by ideas of Leibniz rather than those of Locke, then the fact that Leibniz influenced not only the American Revolution, but also had a profound impact on Russia and China contributes to identifying a principled philosophical basis for an enduring alliance among the three nations, and by extension India.
National Sovereignty vs. Imperial Trading Companies
While the United States of America and the American System of political economy emerged from the creation of the sovereign nation-state in Europe in the 1400s, the Anglo-Dutch imperial system was an extension of the Venetian imperial system, which became centered in the Netherlands and then in Great Britain.
The latter system found its expression in the creation of the two piratical trading companies, the British East India Company (1600) and the Dutch East India Company (1602). The competition between these two companies resulted in three Anglo-Dutch wars 1652-1654, 1665-1667, and 1672-1674. These three wars were all waged prior to the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 placing William of Orange on the English throne as co-ruler with his wife Mary, thus formally establishing the Anglo-Dutch imperial system.
Because the sovereign nation-state had not been able to establish its hegemony as an anti-imperial form of government throughout the world, it was forced into a parasitic relationship first with the Venetian system and then with the emerging Anglo-Dutch imperial system. The sovereign nation-state as a concept of government and economy, especially since the consolidation of the British (Anglo-Dutch) empire at the conclusion of the Seven Years War (1756-1763), has thus been in a subordinate position having to operate within the lattice theorem framework of the Anglo-Dutch System. This has been the case for the United States of America, India, China, and Russia among all other nations to one degree or another.
It is this parasitic relationship which must finally be broken, if humanity is to continue to progress. All of the major problems facing the world today are as much a product of the continued domination of the Anglo-Dutch system as were the 100 Years War and the 14th Century Dark Ages a direct product of the Venetian system before it.
The Necessity of the Four Power Alliance
These Four Powers, the United States of America, Russia, China, and India, because of their diverse history, population size, economic and scientific power, combined, uniquely have the power to lead humanity in finally breaking the parasitic relationship between Empire and sovereign nation-states, in favor of a community of principle among a family of sovereign nation-states.
Moreover, none of these Four Powers alone or in combination to the exclusion of one or more of the other Four Powers would be able to succeed in canceling the Anglo-Dutch system. Instead, the world would be frozen into hostile blocks and perpetual conflict.
For example, the current situation in the world of an alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States against Russia, is precisely the danger that Franklin Roosevelt forewarned his son Elliot must be avoided at all costs. As Franklin Roosevelt told his son:
“The one thing that could upset the applecart, after the war, is if the world is divided again. Russia against England and us. That’s our big job now, and it’ll be our big job tomorrow, too.”11
An alliance between Russia and China without the U.S. and India, or Russia, China and India without the U.S., would force the U.S. to deepen its present subjugation to the Anglo-Dutch imperial system. Also, without the United States, European nations, which have already relinquished their sovereignty under the European Union, imposed upon them by the British under Margaret Thatcher and British agent-of-influence Francois Mitterrand of France, would have no exit from the Anglo-Dutch system; whereas, if the U.S. can be induced to break from its special relationship with the U.K., European nation-states would have the possibility of regaining their sovereignty by joining the new system.
Thus, the only way to escape the dilemma facing humanity at this juncture is for the above Four Powers to finally cancel the Anglo-Dutch system and replace it with a new global system based on the concept of the sovereign nation-state and the American System of political economy.
The fact that the United States of America is currently under the control of the Anglo-Dutch imperial system should not be seen as irreversible. Throughout its history, the U.S. has experienced a number of long periods in which it was taken over by the Anglo-Dutch system only to revert to its Constitutional American system purpose once again as was the case under Lincoln during the Civil War and under Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II.
Such a reversion to the American System of political economy can only take place today, however, if the Anglo-Dutch imperial system is correctly viewed as distinct from the American System of political economy and all people of good will endeavor to remove this Anglo-Dutch albatross from their collective neck. However, it is only possible to accomplish this reverse paradigm shift, which is the prerequisite for world peace and a just new world economic system, if political leaders and individual human beings rise above the level of sense certainty and rational logic characteristic of man as a mere animal to the level of creative reason in harmony with the Logos as reflective of man’s true nature.12
Three Critical Periods in Which the Four Powers Have Allied Against the Anglo-Dutch Imperial System
The Four Powers have been in direct or indirect alliance against their common enemy, the Anglo-Dutch imperial system, at three critical inflection points in their respective histories. Although at these critical junctures certain victories were achieved, including the creation of the United States of America, the preservation of the Union at the time of the U.S. Civil War, and the military defeat of Nazism and Japanese militarism during World War II, the Anglo-Dutch imperial system has persisted, because the coincidence of the interests of the Four Powers against their common enemy was in large part pragmatic rather than reflecting a durable philosophical agreement, capable of defeating the divide and conquer stratagems of the Anglo-Dutch imperialists.
The first point of coincidence among the Four Powers was at the time of the emergence of the British Empire following the Seven Years War. The second point was the period of the American Civil War, the Opium Wars, and the Sepoy Mutiny. And the third point was during World War II when the United States under Franklin D. Roosevelt was in alliance with both Russia and China and attempted to free India from British control.
In the first period, beginning with the granting of Diwani in 1765 to the British East India Company, the Indian people were subjected to British imperial rule. At the same time, the British East India Company had already begun to wage an undeclared Opium War against China in order to force China to buy opium produced in India. The money derived from this illicit commerce was needed by the British East India Company to pay for the tea increasingly consumed in Great Britain, which at that point was only produced in China.
Following the Seven Years War, in the same year the Diwani was granted to the British East India Company in Bengal, the British government of George Grenville, an ally of Robert Clive of the British East India Company, began a campaign to subdue the 13 American colonies and deprive them of their liberties. This included the Stamp Act of 1765, but was part of a larger effort as expressed most clearly at the time by John Dickinson in his Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of British Colonies (1767), and in the second of two letters on the Tea Act (November 27, 1773), in which he identified the role of the same British East India Company in plotting to enslave the British North American Colonies.13
In 1780 during the U.S. Revolutionary War, Hyder Ali of Mysore invaded the Madras Presidency of the EIC and at Pollilur on September 10, 1780, Mysore under Hyder Ali’s son, Tipu Sultan, smashed the Company’s forces, as part of the Second Anglo-Mysore War. The battle was waged between two forces commanded by Tipu Sultan of the Kingdom of Mysore and Lt. Colonel William Baillie of the British East India Company. The army of the East India Company surrendered and suffered a high number of casualties. It is considered the worst loss the East India Company suffered on the subcontinent.
In honor of Hyder Ali and as an expression of solidarity between the U.S. revolutionary forces and the Indians fighting the common enemy in 1782, Pennsylvania purchased Hyder Ally, a small sloop (single mast ship) equipped with sixteen six-pounder guns to help protect American vessels. Under the command of Lieutenant Joshua Barney, the Hyder Ally defeated and captured the General Monk under the command of Captain Rogers of the Royal Navy.
Russia since the time of Peter the Great has had the intention of striking a blow against the British in India. His successor Catherine the Great had a similar intention. Although neither acted directly on this intention, Catherine the Great did support the American Revolution by establishing the League of Armed Neutrality, and later in 1800, her son, Tsar Paul I, put a plan into effect to invade India in order to free India from the yoke of the British East India Company. The plan was aborted by the assassination of Paul I by Russians working with the British Ambassador to Russia Lord Charles Whitworth, who in turn took orders from William Grenville, the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain and the son of George Grenville who had conspired with the British East India Company against the American colonies.
The second point of coincidence among the Four Powers against the British Empire and its British East India Company was later in the 19th Century. Following the assassination of Tsar Paul I and the order from his successor Alexander I to recall the troops already on their way to invade India, the British East India Company was preoccupied with constructing a barrier in Persia and in Afghanistan to prevent Russia from invading India in the future to defeat the British East India Company. This was the origin of what has become known to this day as the British “Great Game” in Central Asia directed at containing Russia. This was the purpose of the first Afghan War in 1838-42.
At the same time, in 1838-42, the British launched the first Opium War against China after China seized all of the opium in Canton and threw it into the ocean. The second Opium war took place from 1856-60 at the end of which opium was officially legalized as demanded by the British.
Even as the British were waging war against China, in 1857-59 the Sepoy mutiny took place in India. After the sepoys mutinied, they marched to Delhi where they urged the King of Delhi to declare himself Emperor and lead the revolt. In the trial of the Mughal Emperor, the King of Delhi Bahadur Shah Zafar, after the mutiny failed, testimony was given that an approach had been made both to Persia and to Russia to intervene in behalf of the revolt against the British East India Company. Although neither Persia nor Russia did in fact intervene, such testimony points to the long-standing threat perceived by the British that Russia would strike against the British East India Company in India again as Tsar Paul I had ordered in 1801.
The mutiny in India ultimately failed because it was a feudal uprising as Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in The Discovery of India. It lacked a unified perspective and looked only to restore the Mughal dynasty.14 The same view was expressed in The Tale of revolts: India’s mutiny and the American civil war, by Rajmohan Gandhi whose paternal grandfather was Mahatma Gandhi.15
When the British threatened to intervene with France in support of the Confederacy during the American Civil War, it was Russia under Alexander II, which intervened to prevent such action by deploying the Russian fleet both to New York City and to San Francisco to defend those ports.
The third point of coincidence among the Four Powers against the British Empire and its British East India Company was in the 20th century during World War II. Although elements in Britain had supported Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco and had encouraged Hitler to march East against Russia, when Hitler threatened the continued existence of the British Empire by marching West, Churchill reached out to the United States for support. Although the U.S. was allied with Britain during the war, Roosevelt made it clear to Churchill, as reported by his son Elliot Roosevelt, that the United States was not waging war to preserve the British Empire. Roosevelt’s vision was to create an anti-imperial just new world economic order based on American system methods of the economic development of the former colonial regions of the British, Dutch, and French empires.
Roosevelt allied with Russia and China during the war against the Nazis and the Japanese militarists and attempted to intervene with Churchill to allow India to participate in the war effort under its own leadership. However, Churchill rebuffed Roosevelt’s efforts, and the British prevented India from taking its place as a sovereign nation during the war. Churchill had agreed to the Atlantic Charter drafted by Roosevelt in 1941, but explicitly refused to allow the principle of self-determination expressed therein to be applied to India. Roosevelt’s intension to free India was expressed most clearly in the letter Roosevelt sent to Churchill on March 10, 1942, in which he proposed using the model of the inception of the United States of America, to set up “what might be called a temporary government in India, headed by a small representative group, covering different castes, occupations, religions and geographies—this group to be recognized as a temporary Dominion Government.”16
All Four Powers attended the Bretton Woods Conference held in New Hampshire in 1944. This included full delegations from both China and the Soviet Union. The Indians, however, were only able to attend as subjects of the British Empire, because they had not yet achieved their independence. The U.S. Congress ratified the Bretton Woods Agreements Act in July 1945 (shortly after Roosevelt’s death) and Great Britain ratified them in December 1945. The Soviets attended the conference but failed to ratify the agreement after Roosevelt’s death.
Roosevelt’s vision of the Bretton Woods System was to use it to create the conditions necessary for world economic development and the elimination of colonialism. At the Bretton Woods conference he explicitly rejected the counter British proposal of John Maynard Keynes whose major work The General Theory written in 1932 was based on the Principles of Thomas Malthus of the British East India Company. Thus, the original Bretton Woods system was a reflection of Roosevelt’s unique commitment to the American system of Alexander Hamilton as opposed to the Anglo-Dutch Malthusian system of Keynes.
However, after the death of Roosevelt, and with Truman’s subservience to Churchill, the U.S. increasingly came under British control. This was reflected in the assertion of a special relationship between the U.S. and Great Britain, the creation of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing establishment of the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States in the Cold War, the deployment of U.S. troops to the former French colony of Vietnam, and the termination of the Bretton Woods System on Aug. 15, 1971—when U.S. President Richard Nixon terminated the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, thus introducing floating exchange rates.
After that, under the Trilateral Commission administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker and Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski, the leadership of the U.S. moved to destroy the U.S. as a manufacturing nation (controlled disintegration) and intensified the Anglo-Dutch “Great Game” against Russia (Arc of Crisis). With the fall of the Soviet Union, a unipolar world was proclaimed (Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man). The U.S. deployed under successive U.S. Presidents to effect regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. NATO was expanded despite assurances to Russia that no expansion would take place. And in 2014, a violent coup d’état was carried out against the constitutionally elected government of Ukraine.
Thus, the post-World War II period as Roosevelt envisioned it has yet to be created. We are all still living within the lattice theorem framework of the Anglo-Dutch imperial system at our own peril. The ultimate task of this book is to impart the historical knowledge and scientific principles necessary to release the world from the continuing prison of the Anglo-Dutch system and to realize a new birth of freedom globally, based upon the true nature of man.
Only the elimination of the Anglo-Dutch Imperial System by the U.S.A, Russia, China, and India can create a just new world economic order based on the American System.
- LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr., “A Four-Power Agreement Can Create a New World Credit System,” to the Seventh Annual Session of the World Public Forum Dialogue of Civilizations (Oct. 8-12), held on the island of Rhodes, Greece, October 23, 2009, EIR; see also Nehru, Jawaharlal, The Discovery of India, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1985. Nehru emphasized the unique “vital energy” and independence of these four countries. “Among the peoples of the world today I have sensed this vital energy chiefly in three—Americans, Russians, and the Chinese; a queer combination!... Something of that vitality… I have sensed in the Indian people also.” pp. 55-56 “Today probably the only such countries [which have the resources and capacity to stand on their own feet] are the United States of America and the Soviet Union…. China and India are potentially capable of joining that group.” p. 535.
- Sigmund, Paul E., editor and translator, Nicolaus of Cusa, The Catholic Concordance, Cambridge University Press, 1991. For references to the consent of the governed see pp. 202, 206, 208, 210, and 230; also see Wertz, William F. Jr. “The Christian Roots of the ‘Ideas of 1776,’ ” Fidelio, Vol. 1, No. 2, Spring 1992, pp. 57-62.
- Wertz, William F. Jr. Toward a New Council of Florence, ‘On the Peace of Faith’ and Other Works by Nicolaus of Cusa, Washington, D.C., Schiller Institute, Inc., 1995, pp. 595-610. In “On the Quadrature of the Circle” written in 1450 Cusa writes that “polygonal figures are not magnitudes of the same species as the circular figure.” (p. 598) Therefore, there cannot be perfect equality between the perimeters of curvi- and rectilinearly bounded figures. Thus, the precise equality of a circle and a square is impossible, because the circle’s area remains incommensurable to any area of a non-circle. “Every polygonal perimeter falls short of the circumference and every polygonal area remains disproportionately behind the area of the circle.” (p. 607) The distinction made in this work between the species characteristics of the rectilinearly bounded Anglo-Dutch imperial system and the curvilinearly bounded American system of political economy is based on this fundamental scientific concept.
- Plato, The Collected Dialogues, edited by E. Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series 71, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1961, Book VII, 514a to 520a.
- “The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina”: March 1, 1669, Article 110, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nc05.asp.
- Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government, introduction and notes by Peter Laslett, New York, The New American Library, 1960, p. 366.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, New Essays on Human Understanding translated & edited by Peter Remnant & Jonathan Bennett, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981, pp. 189, 194, 199 and 200.
- Kuentzel-Witt, Kristina, “Peter the Great’s Intermezzo with G. W. Leibniz,” and G. Delisle, “The Development of Geographical Knowledge in Russia,” Hamburg, Germany, 2018, https://qr.urfu.ru/ojs/index.php/qr/article/view/282/2803, also see Gale, George, “Leibniz, Peter the Great, and the Modernization of Russia,” Divinatio, studia culturological series, Vol. 22, Autumn-Winter 2005, pp. 7-36.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Leibniz Selections, edited by Wiener, Philip P., New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951, pp. 594-99.
- Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Writings on China, Cook, Daniel J. and Rosemont, Henry, Jr., Chicago, Open Court Publishing, 1994.
- Roosevelt, Elliott, As He Saw It, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946, p. 207, https://archive.org/details/ashesawit00roos/page/n9/mode/2up. (The author had an opportunity to meet with Elliot Roosevelt on two occasions in the late 1970s, when Roosevelt lived in Bellevue, Washington.)
- This Platonic-Christian idea is expressed in a number of works by Nicolaus of Cusa including “On Catholic Concordance,” “On Searching for God” (1445), “The Filiation of God” (1445), and “On Equality” (1459). The latter three appear in Toward a New Council of Florence, ‘On the Peace of Faith’ and Other Works by Nicolaus of Cusa, translated by William. F. Wertz, Jr., Washington, D.C., Schiller Institute, Inc., 1995. According to Nicolaus of Cusa, to be in harmony with the Logos, one must rise above mere sense perceptions, beyond all logical reasoning (ratiocination) to the level of creative intellect in order to become a living similitude of the Creator and thus to be in harmony with the Logos. In such a state, one is in what Nicolaus of Cusa refers to as “timeless time” (“On Equality,” p. 367) or the simultaneity of eternity.
- Dickinson, John, “Two Letters on the Tea Tax,” Fairview, October 30, 1773, and November 27, 1773.
- Nehru, Jawaharlal, The Discovery of India, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1985.
- Gandhi, Rajmohan, The Tale of Two Revolts: India’s Mutiny and the American Civil War, London, Haus Publishing Ltd., 2011.
- Letter from Roosevelt to Churchill written on August 8, 1942 and declassified on Nov. 1, 1971.