November 30, 2000

In the Footsteps of John Quincy Adams

My Strategy for the Americas

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[Print version of this article]

The combination of the current election crisis inside the U.S.A., with the immediately ongoing onrush of the greatest, global financial collapse in all history, has created a situation within the Americas which can be fairly described in the following words.

I know, from my highly placed informants in the governments, and in other relevant positions throughout the hemisphere, that we are gripped presently by a situation, in which none of the present governments of the Americas, the United States included, has the slightest conception of the realities which will face their respective nations, six months from now. Indeed, had the leading circles of the U.S. not been stubbornly ignorant in such matters, the Presidential candidacies of neither Gov. George W. Bush nor Vice President Al Gore would have existed on Nov. 7th.

In this situation, a certain unique responsibility has fallen to me. This obligation includes debt to old friends, such as the late former President Arturo Frondizi of Argentina, among many other old friends who are presently either deceased or still living, with whom I have shared a common concern in these and related matters over a period of decades. Recent circumstances, including the general discredit of my factional adversaries within the U.S. Democratic Party, and the spectacular vindication of my often rejected warnings respecting the world’s current financial and economic situation, have put into my hands a special kind of authority, within my own U.S.A., and internationally. With that added authority, there is a certain accompanying responsibility. It is their implied will that I speak now of certain matters in a certain way.

As the only public figure to be seen in any part of the world, who has accurately forecast publicly, and repeatedly, the exact nature of the currently onrushing, planet-wide collapse of the existing world monetary system, I must use the relatively unique knowledge and related political qualifications typified by that accomplishment, to set before all of the nations of the Americas a perspective which corresponds to the presently erupting realities of the situation now confronting each and all among them, my own crisis-torn U.S.A. included.

On this matter, I have already set forth my designs for specifically economic and related measures, in published locations which had been rather widely circulated among leading circles around the world today, if not the popular mass media. Therefore, to this, my intended present audience, it were sufficient that I limit myself to focus upon certain extremely urgent strategic points which were not likely to be presented from other sources.

I begin by viewing the present world situation from the standpoint of the legacy and also those deeper historical roots of the U.S. Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which are of urgent relevance for the presently escalating crisis in the relations among the nations of the Americas.

1.0 The Legacy of the Monroe Doctrine

Granted, all educated political figures of this hemisphere, are familiar with what has been a troubled continuity in the policy of all patriots of the U.S.A. toward the other nations of the Americas, since then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams designed the famous 1823 policy adopted by President James Monroe, the so-called Monroe Doctrine.

Nonetheless, unfortunately, some well-meaning but ignorant, and also other myth-makers from among the ideologues of Central and South America have polluted the environment of this discussion, by professing themselves to see a malicious intent within the Monroe Doctrine. Those myths have contributed significantly to the advantage of Ibero-America’s lusting adversaries. The truth must be emphasized, to clear the air. Without that clearing of the air of such myths, no solution for the current plight of the states of Central and South America were likely. What must be urgently reaffirmed among us is fairly summed up as follows.

It is known to those figures throughout the Americas, that the Monroe Doctrine was adopted in defiance of the leading European enemies of both the U.S.A. and of all of the emerging young republics of Central and South America. These enemies were, chiefly, both the British monarchy and the Habsburg-denominated forces of the so-called Holy Alliance. Those enemies, in those same or other disguises, are the only significant enemies of the states of Central and South America, both within and outside our republics, and inside the U.S.A. itself, still today.

There are some parts of that legacy of the Monroe Doctrine, which should have been more or less widely known, and which must be restated now, as indispensable for defining the basis for relations among the nations of the hemisphere today. I emphasize these points and their connection to the present situation.

The most important of the currently relevant, crucial points made by Adams, were two. First, the notion that a community of principle was the proper basis for all relations among the U.S.A. and all of the emerging republics of the Americas. Second, that although the U.S. refused to degrade itself to the role of a “cock boat in the wake of a British man of war,” in Britain’s neo-colonialist depredations against the emerging republics of the Americas, the U.S.A. did not have the power, at that time, to challenge Britain’s predatory practices directly with military force. However, as soon as the U.S. had such power, there should be an enforced end to the role of both Habsburg-denominated and British imperial ambitions in the affairs of all parts of the Americas.

The United States’ violation of its own fundamental principle and treaty-law, as that principle is expressed by the Monroe Doctrine, in supporting the British monarchy in the Malvinas War of 1982, is the watershed from which the presently ongoing, recent ruin of both the U.S.A. and the nations to its south, has been brought about.

I address leading points concerning the second of those two points, and, after that, turn to the first.

1.1 The War Between Patriots and Treason Inside the U.S.A.

Admittedly, the treasonous faction, of combined Wall Street and slaveholder interests in the U.S.A. itself, such as the leadership of the U.S. Democratic Party of Presidents Jackson, van Buren, Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan, had followed a policy contrary to the Monroe Doctrine. That Party was the leading adversary of a contrary, patriotic tradition maintained by the circles of John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, the Careys, and Abraham Lincoln, through and beyond 1848, continuing from Lincoln’s Presidency until the election of Wall Street Democrat Grover Cleveland as President.

Unfortunately, even after Lincoln’s great, hard-fought victory over the British monarchy’s puppet, the Confederacy, those Democratic and Republican parties’ factions representing the same alliance of Wall Street and slaveholder traditions, as typified, in more recent times, by Presidents Cleveland, Wilson, Coolidge, Nixon, Carter, and Bush, have represented a return to the same implicitly treasonous policies as the leadership of the Democratic Party of the period prior to Lincoln’s victory. With the exception of the Presidencies of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, the treasonous faction’s policies had prevailed since that 1901 assassination of President William McKinley which brought the British Fabian Society-linked Theodore Roosevelt into the Presidency.

During the Twentieth Century, the resumption of the policies of Adams, Monroe, and Lincoln, characterized the famous “Good Neighbor Policy” and the solemn treaty-agreements established under a great patriot of the U.S.A., President Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt’s policy was revived, once again, if briefly, by President John F. Kennedy’s “Alliance for Progress.”

Any competent diplomatic or other assessment of U.S. foreign policy today, must be premised on understanding the following turn back to pro-racist and neo-liberal policies in the U.S. today.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the successful assassination of President Kennedy, the revival of the racist legacy of Presidents Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ku Klux Klan enthusiast Woodrow Wilson, took over once again. This latter turn began with the 1966 launching of former Vice President Richard Nixon’s partnership with the Ku Klux Klan and kindred types, the 1966 launching of the Nixon “Southern Strategy.” The assumption of the Presidency by Jimmy Carter, expressed the process of takeover over the Democratic Party’s dominant machinery, by forces of the same ideological composition, and with the same orientation as the Nixon Southern Strategy.

Since the establishment of the “Southern Strategy’s” top-down, Tweedledee-Tweedledum control over the machines of both leading parties, with the 1982 installation of Project Democracy and U.S. violation of the Rio and other treaties in the case of the Malvinas War, the policies of the U.S.A. toward the other states of the Americas has returned fully to the tradition of such British agents and U.S. traitors as that uncle and political mentor of Theodore Roosevelt, Captain James Bulloch, the notorious Caribbean filibusterer who became the head of the Confederate intelligence service based in London.

Especially since 1989, U.S. policy toward the Americas has become worse than even the earlier overt treason to the hemisphere by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

The current policy is based on the Nazi-like, Malthusian population doctrines, such as the notorious U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), which had been set forth in 1974 by then Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, or the pro-drug-legalization policies, copied from Lord Palmerston’s China policy, which are gutting the nations of Ibero-America today. That is already bad, but it is far worse.

With the collapse of Soviet power which ricocheted from the 1989 collapse of the East German Erich Honecker regime, the Anglo-American forces, represented at that time by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, France’s President François Mitterrand, and U.S. President George Bush, reduced other members of the NATO alliance rapidly to the lowest rank of satrapy status, as was done with Mrs. Thatcher’s “Desert Storm” war against Iraq. These former NATO allies were dumped into the status of virtual colonial subjects of an English-speaking, global tyranny. Nazi-like Malthusian policies consistent with those of Kissinger’s NSSM-200, and of the British monarchy’s Prince Philip and Prince Charles, are currently the hegemonic policies of today’s collapsing, English-speaking world empire.

Thus, a pro-Malthusian, virtual world-dictatorship, was established by the relevant English-speaking powers, with the U.S. operating as the designated chief military policeman, the British monarchy’s perennial “dumb giant,” the rule which Mrs. Thatcher applied to her lackey, U.S. President George Bush. This was done under the virtual merger of the state authorities of the U.S.A. with the British monarchy’s personal state properties, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The result has been the establishment, under the Romantic slogan of “globalization,” of a virtual new, world-wide Roman Empire, one based on the virtual merger of the relevant, sundry state and supranational bureaucracies with a global rentier-financier oligarchical interest.

Now, slightly more than ten years since the Thatcher-Mitterrand-Bush actions setting up that new empire, that empire is now in the process of disintegrating. The Presidential election-crisis which erupted inside the U.S.A. on Nov. 7, 2000, can not be competently understood except in those terms of reference.

Like all doomed empires of the past, this one tends to be most savage, most ruthless, and most dangerous for the short term, at the moment it is dying, when its ruling circles become increasingly desperate, increasingly incompetent, and increasingly decadent. It is in these circumstances that we have reached the point, that, of all of the nations of Central and South America, at this moment of global crisis, only Brazil still retains a significant, if dwindling amount of its sovereign authority in its own territory.

Such are today’s relevant highlights of the past, often ugly, even murderous policies of the U.S.A.’s Wall Street-led factions toward the states of Central and South America.

For Ibero-America, a collapse of that power would come as a blessing, if that were the extent of the damage. However, for the U.S.A. and its people, too, a crash of that imperial power would be no calamity, provided that were the extent of the damage. On the good side, it would be the opportunity for us to resume our ancient sovereignty and freedom, liberated from the beast which a usurping, tyrannical alliance between a now hopelessly bankrupt Wall Street and its racist Southern Strategy confederates, has put upon our backs, as also upon yours. In such a circumstance, it would be our patriots’ more or less automatic impulse to return to the principles exemplified by the Monroe Doctrine. Only a profound crisis could bring about such a change, but that would be only typical of the way great changes, for better or for worse, have usually occurred.

That would provide us the opportunity to make the necessary changes, but the changes we must make must be the proper choice.

Taking into account all of the many, and vast uncertainties which the presently ongoing world-wide, and presently inevitable financial collapse brings upon the world, one thing is absolutely certain: Nearly everything is about to change in the most sweeping way. What remains undecided, is whether the changes will be for the better, or very much for the worse. The only important question, is whether this present crisis is the beginning of a global renaissance of civilization, or the onset of a planet-wide new dark age to last for a generation or more to come.

Any contrary view of the present situation, in any part of the Americas, is a delusion.

1.2 Five Centuries in the Americas

Throughout Central and South America, many silly things have been often said about the great Yankee republic to the north. Now, we have reached the point, that all such silly myths must be pushed to one side, because, under the world economic conditions determined by the present global financial collapse, unless we can bring the U.S.A. to play the kind of role which John Quincy Adams defined in his drafting of the Monroe Doctrine, there is no realistic hope for any among the states of the Americas during the decades immediately ahead.

There is a certain specific uniqueness in the coming into being of the U.S.A. during 1776-1789. The U.S. is an historical exception, but not of the kind President Theodore Roosevelt’s myth-makers claimed it to be. The key to the actual historical exception, the great benefit to all humanity, in the creation of the U.S. republic, is specifically the following.

Following the terrible New Dark Age of Europe’s Fourteenth Century, a great Renaissance erupted in Fifteenth-Century Europe, a Golden Renaissance based upon the Christian adoption of the legacy of Classical Greece and the work of Plato, a renaissance typified by the work and influence of the greatest single figure of that century, the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who had played a crucial organizing role in bringing into being the great ecumenical Council of Florence, and whose work founded the modern sovereign nation-state and established the principles of experimental physical science from which modern scientific and technological progress received its impetus.

Among the great causes to which that great Cardinal contributed a key role, was the establishment of new nations in the Americas. Through the work of Cusa and his close associates, great voyages of evangelization were launched, to the purpose of reaching across the great oceans to the peoples in lands beyond. The work of Christopher Columbus was directly a product of the encouragement, and technical assistance from the immediate circles of Cusa, and of the collaborators and other supporters of Cusa’s efforts in Italy, Portugal, and Spain. From this seed, sent out from Italy’s Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, the Americas acquired the premises for what John Quincy Adams defined as the community of principle underlying the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.

No competent statesman today will deny, ignore, or belittle the fact, that the modern sovereign nation-state republic first came into existence, brought forth by the circles of Cusa, during that Fifteenth Century, and that this form of state was a revolutionary change in all existing world history up to that time. When the leaders of that renaissance were prevented from establishing such a republic in Italy, they established the first modern nation-state in Louis XI’s France, and the second in Henry VII’s England. Spain’s Queen Isabella I contributed a special role in spreading this revolution into the Americas. It was in that century, thus, that a new principle of statecraft was established in the world, the notion that, under natural law, no government has legitimate authority to rule except as it is efficiently committed to promote what is known by names such as the general welfare, or common good, for all of the people and their posterity.

The idea that the world must be governed by a community of sovereign nation-state republics based on that principle, had been set forth in Nicholas of Cusa’s Concordantia Catholica. The principle of scientific progress was introduced to Europe during the period of the great Florence Council, by Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, the work on which the subsequent development of all valid modern science has been premised. The combination of these two policies, of the sovereign nation-state republic based on a commitment to promotion of the general welfare through the indispensable means of scientific and technological progress, has been the essence of every success in service of the common good, in the development of morally acceptable forms of nation-states among the nations of the Americas, from Columbus’ discovery, to the present day.

From the beginning, this great revolution in statecraft and public morality had powerful adversaries, within Europe, and, soon, within the Americas. These adversaries were none other than the tools of that old feudal order which had plunged Europe into the terrible New Dark Age of the Fourteenth Century: the combination of the forces of a feudalism based upon the heritage of pagan Roman law and the quality of rentier-financier oligarchy typified by a Venice which had risen to the status of a hegemonic form of imperial maritime power during the early Thirteenth Century.

These latter forces, the enemies of the Renaissance, sought to crush the benefits of the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance by the most hideous of weapons, the orchestration of the recurring religious warfare concocted and directed by Venice, from the early years of the Sixteenth Century, until the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia.

Under these circumstances of the Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries, the possibility of maintaining forms of nation-states such as those seen for a time in Louis XI’s France and Henry VII’s England, virtually vanished from Europe, until the brief period of leadership of France by Cardinal Jules Mazarin and his associate Jean-Baptiste Colbert.

Under the conditions thus prevailing in Europe, the immediate hope for building truly sovereign nation-state republics, lay in the colonies in the Americas. Despite the blessed impulses of Emperor Joseph II, for reason of the combined overreach of British and Habsburg power into the Americas, it was only in the English-speaking colonies of North America that the establishment of a republic became possible during the course of the Eighteenth Century, despite notable, frustrated efforts to do so elsewhere. From the middle of the Eighteenth Century, until the British Foreign Office-directed Paris event of July 14, 1789, all of the leading intellectual forces of continental Europe were rallied either in support, or significant sympathy for the cause of Benjamin Franklin’s efforts to bring such a republic into being.

That trace, from the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance and its great ecumenical Council of Florence, is, in essentials, the true nature of the historical exception which can and must be attributed to the U.S. 1776-1783 War of Independence, the Benjamin Franklin-directed Declaration of Independence, and to the Preamble of the U.S. 1789 Constitution.

Then the Jacobin Terror of 1789-1794, which had been directed, from the beginning, by Jeremy Bentham’s British Foreign Office, had stripped the young U.S. republic of its chief powerful ally, France: a France fallen prey to that first modern fascist, Napoleon Bonaparte, who had become the new tyrannical Caesar of continental Europe, was our mortal enemy. In that circumstance, for a time, the U.S.A. was condemned to that terrible state of combined menace and isolation from friends, against which U.S. President George Washington had warned, as the reason to avoid entanglements in the internal affairs of a Europe in such a condition, at that time.

So, the U.S.A. found itself in the period following the 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna, a period in which the forces of Metternich’s Holy Alliance and Bentham’s British monarchy were determined, in common, to conquer and ruin the emerging nations of both North and South America. It was in this period, that forces led by President James Monroe, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Henry Clay, Mathew Carey, and others, formulated that new strategic outlook for all of the Americas which was expressed in what is known as the Monroe Doctrine.

Since that time, all intelligent and informed patriots of the U.S.A. have regarded the unity of interest among the republics of the Americas as the first line of security for each of those republics.

Respecting the politics of the U.S.A. over the period since, the chief source of deviation from the long-range strategic principle set forth in the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, has been the recurring ascent to leading power within the U.S. by two packs of treasonous rascals, the unholy combination of the Wall Street rentier-oligarchical interest represented by British Foreign Office asset Aaron Burr of the Bank of Manhattan, and the slaveholder interest represented by the Confederacy created in the U.S. by the Giuseppe Mazzini Young America association of Jeremy Bentham’s successor, Lord Palmerston. That was the interest against which President Lincoln led the greatest war in U.S.A. history, the Civil War, the treasonous interest represented by U.S. Presidents Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and, since the launching of the racist alliance called the “Southern Strategy,” by Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush. That latter alliance of Wall Street and racist currents, is the interest represented, however poorly, by candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore today.

These are the forces from within the U.S.A. against which all patriots of the republics of Central and South America should be warned today; this is the anaconda whose loving embrace is to be avoided by those who prefer to remain among the living.

As it should be evident to all knowledgeable figures of the Americas today, a strong partnership between the patriots of the U.S.A. and the republics of Central and South America, is the first line of defense of the national security of each. Without the role of the U.S.A. as a partner of the kind prescribed by the Monroe Doctrine, the security of each and every other nation of the Americas would remain in doubt at any time a strategically perilous state of affairs existed in the world at large. The experience of the recent two hundred years has demonstrated this, repeatedly, to be the case, up to the present moment.

What I have thus just summarized as that lesson from history, must be the bedrock of U.S. foreign policy and related practice, and must be so understood by the patriots of every other nation of the Americas. As for the rest of the world, if we in the Americas adopt policies by which we do good on one another’s behalf, the world at large has nothing to fear from us.

Thus, the birth of the sovereign U.S. republic in the Americas, was hailed by all of the greatest poets and others of Europe as the establishment of a new state which would function as “a temple of liberty and beacon of hope for all mankind.” Those of us who know the actual history of the recent five centuries of today’s globally extended modern European civilization, know that this achievement was the fruit of a great revolution in statecraft, and in the condition of mankind, which was begun within Italy as the great Fifteenth-Century Golden Renaissance. This was not an achievement which sprang from the soil or other internal circumstances of the North American continent; it was a gift bestowed upon, and entrusted to the thus-imperilled U.S.A., by all that was good in the full extent of European civilization.

2.0 The Defense of the Americas

A great issue was resolved in principle by the Golden Renaissance and its promotion of the modern sovereign form of nation-state republic. With the establishment of France under Louis XI as the first modern nation-state, a form of society was set into motion on the principle of the general welfare. The first duty of such a state, as Louis XI pursued that goal, was to end the kind of political system in which the majority of the subject population were degraded to the status of virtual human cattle. Notably, this policy is directly opposite to the evil, pro-feudalist doctrine of the later Enlightenment’s notorious Dr. François Quesnay and other Physiocrats, which proposed to perpetuate forever the status of serfs as that of inhuman cattle.

Thus, from the beginning, the adversarial relationship which existed between the U.S. republic, on the one side, and the British monarchy and, excepting Austria’s Joseph II and his like, the Habsburg interests, on the other, was an irreconcilable difference of principle respecting the distinction between human beings and cattle. Although Christ’s mission, like that of such notable Apostles as John and Paul, redeemed all persons as made equally in the image of the Creator of the universe, that Christian principle was systemically violated in practice by the pagan Roman and Byzantine law, such as the law of the Emperor Diocletian. This same violation was the essence of a medieval European tradition of feudalism premised upon the legacy of Romantic custom.

The feudal and other oligarchical interests of Europe professed themselves Christian, but, in the practice of statecraft, they were chiefly all, like Bernard Mandeville, Adam Smith, and their present-day followers, theologically bogomils at heart.

It was only through the impact of the organizing around the Council of Florence, that a revolutionary new form of society came into being, one in which no government had the legitimate authority to rule, except as it efficiently served the principle of the general welfare.

From the beginning, even prior to the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, the enemy of mankind has been what was known to ancient times as “the oligarchical principle.” Under that principle, the power to establish law was conferred on either an emperor, as typified by the pagan Roman doctrine of Pontifex Maximus, or some agency performing that same function. Even kings were mere agents of such a supreme imperial or kindred lawgiver. Such was the prevalent understanding of law under feudalism, and has been the basis for similar perversions under systems of financier-oligarchical rule, up to the present day.

This point of law is crucial for understanding the conflict which has dominated globally extended modern European society from the beginning. The pivotal issue is the matter of the definitions of the nature of the human individual and of mankind, under law. That is, therefore, the fundamental issue in defining law itself.

The primary question of all statecraft, is: What is the nature of the human individual? In other words, is man simply a talking species of beast, or does the human individual possess an inborn quality which sets him or her absolutely apart from, and above all beasts? The axiomatic quality of answer given to that most fundamental of all questions of law and statecraft, is the only legitimate basis for what is called natural law, the law to which all other law must be subordinated.

That is the fundamental moral issue which separates all Christians, for example, from Malthusians such as Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. Without making that distinction, law itself is degraded intrinsically to that condition of Hobbesian swinishness which Kissinger praised so effusively in his celebrated London Chatham House address on what the well-informed patriots of Central and South America will recall as having been the notable occasion of May 10, 1982.

That is the fundamental moral issue expressed by the present-day U.S. violations of the natural human rights of the nations and persons of Central and South America. This conception is essential to defining functionally durable and equitable partnership among the American republics. That notion of law is the only truly efficient definition of a workable definition of common strategic interest.

On this and related premises, we must adopt a clear image of the uniqueness of the legacy of anti-Malthusian, or natural law, which we have inherited as a gift from the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance birth of modern European civilization. This image must be the axiomatic premise of a durable form of urgently needed new alliance among the republics of the Americas.

2.1 A Needed Doctrine of Natural Law

Our task at this perilous moment, is not to negotiate a new treaty-agreement among states of the Americas, but the more modest, but nonetheless indispensable task, of defining among ourselves the nature of those principles of law which we intend should be the goal and clearly understood intent of those kinds of agreements we hope to bring into being.

By intent of law, I mean close attention to the Apostle Paul’s I Corinthians 13, for example, where the Christian appreciation of Plato’s doctrine of agapē is stated. This is to be read against the background of the debate over the issues of truthfulness and justice among the figures Socrates, Glaucon, and Thrasymachus, in what is recognized more widely today by the title of Plato’s Republic. This notion of law, as set forth by Paul, goes much further, much deeper than the rather vulgarized definitions of caritas, or “charity,” too commonly encountered today. In first approximation, agapē requires the notion that no law can be enforced which violates the absolute obligation of the state to promote the general welfare (common good) of all of the people and their posterity. No law which might compel the state to violate, or overlook that consideration, is enforceable under natural law; any contrary law must be nullified for that occasion, by authority of the natural law. This is the great principle of Christian principle from which the Fifteenth-Century founding of the then-revolutionary new kind of institution, the modern sovereign nation-state, was premised.

First of all, we statesmen and others of the Americas, must clarify our agreement on the implications of this principle of natural law. For that purpose, I merely summarize here the exposition which I have supplied in extant published locations.

The notion that man and woman are each made equally in the image of the Creator of the universe, is often taught as received doctrine. It is also a scientific fact. The scientific proof is centered in the repeated demonstration, that the perfectly sovereign cognitive powers of the human individual, are the only means by which an experimentally validatable universal physical principle can be discovered, or the act of its discovery replicated in the mind of a student. It is through this means, and only this means, that the human species can accomplish what no other species can replicate, the willful increase of the potential relative population-density of the human species as a whole.

When mankind acts in that way, we demonstrate that the universe is so pre-designed, that it is predisposed to obey man’s will when man issues a validated discovery of universal physical principle as a demand upon that universe. Thus we know, with scientific certainty, that man is made in the image of the Creator of the universe, and is supplied, thus, the imperative to act accordingly, to change the universe in ways which the principle of agapē requires.

On account of such evidence, we are obliged, even by scientific evidence as such, to set all individual persons absolutely apart from and above all other living species. This also obliges us to treat our fellow human-beings in a certain way, in a manner cohering with the notion of agapē as a universal, highest principle of natural law. This informs us that there exists but one human race, that which shares this absolute, inborn distinction of the newborn human individual from all other living species. This informs us that we are required to provide for such persons by forms of education, and other care, suitable to this nature. We are also required to express that creative power which defines our species as the leading quality of our actions upon the universe, and actions bearing upon the human condition, most emphatically.

This pits the natural law not only against the Adolf Hitlers of the world, but also the followers of the dogma of Thomas Malthus, Bertrand Russell, the late Margaret Mead, Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, and Vice President Al Gore.

The principle is elementary, but not simple. It is elementary in the same general sense that all valid discoveries of universal physical principle are both elementary and universal. It is a principle which penetrates everything, everywhere, yet it is never simple.

Thus, on account of that principle of natural law, the state is obliged to act, and states are rightly obliged to act with respect to one another.

We of the Americas, share a vast and richly endowed territory, with vast areas awaiting development according to the principle of law known as agapē. Together with such regions as the desert areas of the continent of Australia, and the vast sparsely populated regions of central and north Asia, we of this hemisphere share one of the great treasure-houses of all humanity. Thus, that development of that treasure which some among us might lack the means to develop adequately, must be made available in a timely way to the nation within whose sovereignty it lies. In this category of cooperation among sovereigns, lie certain great infrastructure-development projects, which can not be installed except through cooperation of various kinds.

The planet as a whole faces certain needs which could not be satisfied by each acting as one nation alone. The combat against epidemic and pandemic deadly infections, is such a case. Also, the development of exploration of nearby space, to discover the principles by means of which we might control the cycles of glaciation, meteoric destruction, and so on, of life on this planet, are missions of common interest to all humanity, beyond any one nation, which nations must cooperate in ensuring are accomplished. Similarly, the right to share access to all scientific and related knowledge, is, as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa emphasized, a natural-law right and obligation of each nation.

2.2 The Sovereign Nation-State

Anyone who has been surprised, by stepping with a bare foot on a jellyfish on the beach, might be reminded of the emotion evoked by meeting with what one had assumed to be a sane and urbane member of modern civilization, who suddenly turns our stomach with the proposal that the elimination of the sovereign nation-state is a desirable goal for policy-shaping today. The sand on that beach had seemed so pleasant to the touch, until that thing expressed its presence!

We have come to a time, throughout the world, at which virtually every central banking system of the world, including the U.S. Federal Reserve System, is not merely bankrupt, but hopelessly so. There is no possible way, in which the world’s currently outstanding nominal debt, could possibly ever be paid. Hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollar-equivalents, must be abruptly written off, or placed in frozen, non-interest-bearing accounts, pending future disposition in bankruptcy-proceedings. The problem is, that if we do not write off, or freeze most of the outstanding financial-capital claims extant in the world today, the world as a whole will collapse into a protracted new dark age, in which it were likely that economic breakdown and related effects would bring the world’s total population down to levels approximately those of more than 600 years ago.

The only action which could prevent the present global financial collapse from producing that outcome, is certain qualities of action which can be taken only by perfectly sovereign individual nation-states. These actions include, the power of the sovereign government to put bankrupt institutions through government-directed bankruptcy reorganization, and to generate large masses of newly created credit, deployed through national banking methods of a Hamiltonian type, to suddenly increase levels of useful employment, rather than allow a collapse of employment and of essential services.

The principal emergency action which we must therefore hope that the sovereign governments of the hemisphere will adopt, at the moment the now inevitable, early collapse, the biggest in history, erupts, is just that. This kind of emergency action must occur not only within nations, but in rapidly expanding hard-commodity trade among nations, with special emphasis upon lines of trade within the hemisphere.

The first line of defense on this account, will include emergency forms of protectionist measures to reverse recent downward trends in food production, and vast expansion of investment in the basic economic infrastructure, such as transportation, power, water management, sanitation, education, and health-care, on which a general economic growth, in real terms, depends.

During the coming year, and during the coming five to ten years beyond that, without emergency, forced-draft economic reconstruction and expansion along such lines, many nations would not survive, even biologically. Without international cooperation among sovereign governments, along such lines, the otherwise manageable economic crisis immediately before us will not be overcome.

The practical measures implicit in those immediately preceding observations, constitute the pivots on which needed immediate changes in the relations among the states of the Americas must be premised, as matters of priorities.

Such are among the leading measures which ought to be the current basis for dialogue among relevant leading circles within and among nations of the hemisphere. The agenda for dialogue so implied, should be the concrete topic around which we hasten to define the practical side of the approach to making the Monroe Doctrine’s definition of a community of principle clear, concrete, and practical.

To make feasible the accomplishment of the other things we must settle in common among the sovereign nations of this hemisphere, is the development of the kinds of philosophical cooperation among statesmen and others, through which we may generate the needed degree of comprehension of deeper principles which is essential, in turn, for establishing a common intent for pursuit of common purposes, and the ecumenical resolution of what might appear to be difficult philosophical differences.