LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods,
Or Keynesian Fascism?

by William Wertz

[Print version of this transcript]

This is an edited transcript of remarks delivered by William Wertz to the November 3, 2018 Manhattan Project meeting in New York City.

What I’m going to present is the distinction between Lyndon LaRouche’s conception of a New Bretton Woods system, and what you might call a “Delphic” or phony view of a New Bretton Woods, which is deliberately put forward to try to counter LaRouche’s view of a New Bretton Woods. The reason this is so important is that one of the driving forces behind the danger of war is the current fragility and bankruptcy of the London based, Wall Street based, trans Atlantic monetary system. This system has gone through a series of measures, particularly since Nixon abandoned the Bretton Woods system in August of 1971, including the introduction of floating exchange rates and the abandonment of the gold reserve system that had been set up under the original Bretton Woods conception of Roosevelt and his aide, Harry Dexter White.

After August 1971, you had the floating exchange rate as opposed to a fixed exchange rate policy. Then, in the 1970s, you had the introduction by Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve Bank Chairman under the Carter administration, of something called the policy of “controlled disintegration.” You had the introduction of massive outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, in particular from the United States and also from Europe, to cheap labor locations, to China, Mexico, and other nations, which was not to the benefit of either the United States or those nations.

This whole process resulted in a de industrialization of much of the advanced sector economies under the guise of globalization. A post industrial society was the conception put forward, dominated by limits to growth, dominated by a conception of entropy, dominated by the notion of climate change—that somehow man’s devotion and commitment to science and technological development—to industrialization—is the cause for the destruction of nature. Therefore, we should stop industrializing; we should stop developing nuclear energy; we should not be thinking about going to space. We should merely put solar panels on the roof of our houses, and somehow ignore what’s happening in the world; ignore the poverty which results from that kind of policy.

Lyndon LaRouche proposed to deal with the problems of the financial system that were brought about as a result of this process through a conception of a New Bretton Woods—going back to the original conception of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Dexter White.

For instance, in his campaign for President in the year 2000, his campaign was called LaRouche’s Committee for a New Bretton Woods. Over the years, however, particularly after the financial crisis broke out in 2008, there have been various efforts put forward which essentially advocated a completely different conception of the New Bretton Woods from Mr. LaRouche’s. I’ll come back to some of those, but the one I want to stress is the most recent effort in this respect put forward by Yanis Varoufakis, the former Finance Minister of Greece. Varoufakis was educated in Great Britain at the University of Essex and the University of Birmingham. He then moved to the University of Sydney, Australia. To give you a sense of his sense of identity, he acquired Australian citizenship while he was there.

The British Empire’s
‘New Bretton Woods’

Over the last two years, Varoufakis, who is no longer Finance Minister of Greece, has put forward a new conception of Bretton Woods, which really isn’t all that new. In fact, what he put forward was the British conception backed by the British government at the original Bretton Woods conference, that advocated by John Maynard Keynes. There is a very significant pattern of such advocacy of the Keynesian approach today. To make this clear, I will read to you from an English translation of an article written by Varoufakis. This is dated May 4, 2016, and it appeared in the Guardian newspaper. He wrote as follows:

The 1944 Bretton Woods conference featured a clash of two men and their visions: Harry Dexter White, President Franklin Roosevelt’s representative, and John Maynard Keynes, representing a fading British Empire.

This is already an indication of how dishonest he is, because of course the British Empire is the only empire which continues to exist on the planet Earth.

The new post war system provided the foundation for capitalism’s finest hour—until . . . White’s arrangement collapsed.

Well, White’s arrangement, as we will see, did not collapse. What happened was that after Roosevelt’s death, White’s conception was distorted by the combination of Churchill and Harry S Truman, and then finally President Nixon abandoned what was left of White’s conception. All of the problems that we’ve had since then are a result of the policies that I just mentioned, implemented over the last number of decades. Varoufakis continues:

Would Keynes’s discarded plan be more appropriate for our post 2008 multipolar world?

Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of China’s central bank, suggested so in early 2009, lamenting that Bretton Woods had not embraced Keynes’s proposal. Two years later, Dominique Strauss Kahn, then Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, was asked what he thought the IMF’s post 2008 role ought to be. He replied: “Keynes, 60 years ago, already foresaw what was needed: but it was too early. Now is the time to do it.”

Keynes’ solution was an international clearing union (ICU). . . . Members would agree to denominate all payments in a common accounting unit, which Keynes named the “Bancor,” and to clear all international payments through the ICU.

A new ICU, . . . in place of the abstract bancor, . . . would feature a common digital currency—say, Kosmos—to be issued and regulated by the IMF.

Suddenly, the world will have acquired . . . a global sovereign wealth fund. This would enable the transition to a low carbon energy system to be financed on a global scale and in a manner that stabilizes the global economy through investments in research and development dedicated to green energy and sustainable technologies.

Keynes was ahead of his time. . . . We . . . have a desperate need for the global green transition fund that a Keynesian Bretton Woods would automatically create.

Now, Varoufakis has been engaged in an organizing process in Europe and elsewhere globally on behalf of this conception since that time. For instance, he works very closely with James Galbraith, the U.S. economist and son of John Kenneth Galbraith, who wrote the famous book on the 1929 Crash. They formed a movement, along with Noam Chomsky, called Democracy in Europe Movement 2025. Varoufakis and James Galbraith put forward a questionnaire, a number of the questions of which give you a sense of exactly what they’re thinking. I’ll read those questions.

Does Europe need a formalized coordination mechanism involving all relevant central banks, e.g., a framework along the lines of Keynes’ International Clearing Union (ICU) proposal at the Bretton Woods Conference?

Should the large, universal European banks be broken up? If so, should they be broken by size or by function—as in the enactment of a European Glass Steagall Act?

What can monetary policy do to support Green investment, for instance by routing quantitative easing solely through the purchase of EIB (European Investment Bank) and other qualified investment bonds?

How can military budgets be converted to support a European Advanced Research Projects Agency for energy innovation, and a European Manhattan Project of the diffusion of sustainable technologies and the creation of Green Cities and a Green Countryside?

As you can see, the idea is to take such ideas as a New Deal and speak about an “International New Deal”—to speak in terms of a progressive New Bretton Woods; to speak about a European Glass Steagall Act; to speak about a Manhattan Project for the diffusion of sustainable Green technologies. This is what is meant by a Delphic operation. On September 13, 2018, Varoufakis wrote another op ed in the Guardian, this one titled, “Our New International Movement Will Fight a Rising Fascism and Globalists.” In it he says:

Our Progressive International must propose an International Monetary Clearing Union, of the type John Maynard Keynes suggested during the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.

Happily, there is no shortage of potential initiators: Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution” in the U.S., Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, our Democracy in Europe Movement, Mexico’s president elect, the progressive elements of the African National Congress, and various movements fighting against bigotry and austerity in India.

Following that op ed, on October 16, 2018, it was announced that Sanders and Varoufakis have created an alliance to craft a “Common Blueprint for an International New Deal.”

Varoufakis . . . proposed the formation of a “common council that draws out a common blueprint for an International New Deal, a progressive New Bretton Woods.”

In addition to the forthcoming progressive alliance, which incoming Mexican president Andres Manuel López Obrador, or AMLO, will reportedly be invited to join . . .

It goes on from there.

So, you can see, they’re targeting the incoming President of Mexico, López Obrador, to join this operation. Bernie Sanders is scheduled to hold a press conference, I think at the end of November in Vermont, announcing his participation in this operation. In New York, of course, you’ve got Alexandria Ocasio Cortez who has called for a “green New Deal.” She’s not the author of these concepts, but in fact, is reflecting this same kind of notion.

Sowing Seeds of Conflict

Such efforts have been going on for some time. On August 18, 2001, Felix Rohatyn authored an article in the Financial Times of London titled, “Back to Bretton Woods,” In which he stated, “I strongly believe in the benefits of globalization and of modern capitalism.” He called for President George W. Bush, the Secretary General of the UN, representatives of the developing world and the developed world, and also representatives of non-government organizations (NGOs), and the private sector, to join together to essentially develop a New Bretton Woods, which would be nothing more than Keynes and a policy of globalization.

At that time, Lyndon LaRouche challenged Rohatyn with a series of questions, demanding what exactly did he mean by this “Bretton Woods”? Did he disagree or agree with Lyndon LaRouche’s conception, which had been put forward earlier? I don’t think Rohatyn ever answered those questions.

In 2008, as the financial crisis was developing, there was a conference in Modena, Italy, organized by two former members of the LaRouche organization, whom Lyndon LaRouche denounced at the time. They brought together a number of elite figures from Russia, as well as Italy, and adopted a phony New Bretton Woods conception, which had a very negative impact upon some of the Russian elite.

They issued a declaration that included calling for “a new currency or basket of currencies (not necessarily limited to the U.S. dollar).” They were calling for a replacement of the U.S. dollar by a new currency or a basket of currencies, essentially the Keynesian approach. At the time, in 2008, Lyndon LaRouche made the following statement:

The Modena meeting had the global effect of temporarily misleading the Russian representatives to support that Modena scheme, since that hoax, pulled off there, disoriented the Russians’ outlook sufficiently to have impaired historical U.S. Russia relations significantly since that time, relations which are of presently crucial importance not only for Russia and the U.S.A., respectively, but the world as a whole.

These same former members of the LaRouche movement next held a conference in Brazil and later, a number of conferences in Mexico.

I want to focus on this period of 2008, because LaRouche also pointed out that what these former members of our association put forward was none other than the perspective of Gordon Brown, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—finance minister—of Great Britain and then Prime Minister.

In this period, except for the influence of LaRouche’s conception, you had numerous international spokesmen calling for a “New Bretton Woods,” but the Keynesian approach. In September or October of 2008, the Telegraph reported that Gordon Brown had called for a continuation of globalization and free trade, as opposed to a return to a fixed exchange rate. He also called for reforming the IMF to become a “global central bank.” At the same time, the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, called for a “New Bretton Woods,” and actually they had some competition between them as to who was the first one to call for the return to a New Bretton Woods.

This Keynesian viewpoint also, at that time, influenced leading figures in China. If you think back to what I said earlier, in quoting from Varoufakis’ Guardian article on a New Bretton Woods, in 2016, he referenced the governor of the central bank of China Zhou Xiaochuan. On March 23, 2009, Zhou wrote an essay on reforming the international monetary system, and what he wrote is the following:

The desirable goal of reforming the international monetary system, therefore, is to create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit based national currencies.

Though the super sovereign reserve currency has long since been proposed, yet no substantive progress has been achieved to date. Back in the 1940s, Keynes had already proposed to introduce an international currency unit named “Bancor,” based on the value of 30 representative commodities. Unfortunately, the proposal was not accepted. The collapse of the Bretton Woods system, which was based on the White approach, indicates that the Keynesian approach may have been more farsighted.

So, with that statement—I have no idea whether this individual continues to hold that view—you see the susceptibility to the Keynesian point of view, in terms of one of the major countries that must be included in the Four Powers Agreement. And this individual was very influential: He was the longest serving head of the People’s Bank of China, from 2002 until this year, 2018, when he retired.

If we look at John Maynard Keynes’ proposal, as reported in the Guardian of Nov. 18, 2008:

He proposed a global bank, which he called the International Clearing Union. The bank would issue its own currency—the bancor—which was exchangeable with national currencies at fixed rates of exchange. The bancor would become the unit of account between nations, which means it would be used to measure a country’s trade deficit or trade surplus.

Keynes put forward an accounting measure which would essentially tax countries which had a deficit and countries which had a surplus, prevent or insist upon the export of capital, depending on whether they had a surplus or a deficit; and if they had a surplus, to basically expropriate the surplus at the end of the year.

This was a real policing mechanism of globalization that Keynes was putting forward, and this was thoroughly rejected by Roosevelt at Bretton Woods. It should also be noted, that Keynes’s position, as I said earlier, fully endorsed by the British government at the time, was that the two founding states of a Bretton Woods system would be Britain and the United States. So, from the very beginning, the Brits wanted to maintain control over the world monetary system through their Keynesian conception of the Bretton Woods system. This was thoroughly rejected by FDR.

After Roosevelt’s death, and after a campaign of slander against Harry Dexter White, although the Bretton Woods system was put into motion and had many very positive aspects, its functioning became increasingly distorted.

I want to make it very clear that Keynes was a fascist, and a supporter of Nazi Germany. This is what we’re talking about in terms of the Keynesian proposal. The German edition of Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was published in Berlin in 1936, when Hitler was in power. And I’ll just read from the Introduction, written by Keynes himself, to the German edition:

For I confess that much of the following book is illustrated and expounded mainly with reference to the conditions existing in the Anglo Saxon countries. Nevertheless, the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [the German for that is totaler Staat —wfw], than is the theory of the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez faire.

He also continues to say that this policy of his is “applicable to situations in which national leadership [staatliche Führung] is more pronounced.” Of course, Hitler was called der Führer, so this is what he was referring to.

Not necessarily known by people who are advocating a Keynesian approach, is the actual fascist nature of Keynes’s monetarist policy, which is basically an empire, an imperialist policy.

We also have a further complication, particularly under conditions, such as now, of sanctions. There’s a great tendency in Russia—and LaRouche addressed this in respect to the Modena conference—where the idea was to abandon the dollar and to create a new currency or a basket of currencies. You have a certain kind of reaction among certain circles in Russia, against the idea of going back to the kind of New Bretton Woods proposal that Lyndon LaRouche has put forth. For instance, Yuri Skidanov who writes for Pravda, wrote an article appearing Oct. 8, 2013, “Dollar Era Drawing to Its End.” I’ll just quote from this as indicative of the problem. He writes:

At the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg. . .the first steps were made to rid the banking and financial system of the dictatorship of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

All international transactions are made in dollars. . . . All known attempts to get rid of the dollar leash have failed. . . . In St. Petersburg, Russia signed a series of agreements that undermine this monopoly. On the first day of the summit, Gazprom and the Chinese state oil company signed an agreement. . . . It is imperative that the currency of the agreement is the yuan or ruble. . . .

Another unprecedented step toward getting rid of the monopoly of the dollar is the creation of a stabilization fund of the BRICS countries and the Development Bank.

This is a definite problem, because the key to Lyndon LaRouche’s conception is that there is no New Bretton Woods, unless you have the cooperation of the four powers—the United States, Russia, China, and India—as the initiating body. And you can’t really address the problem in the world’s financial system, if you think that you can avoid an agreement with the United States, since the international reserve currency is the dollar, and if you just avoid that issue, you’re courting disaster—and you’re playing into the hands of the British.

Recently, at the Valdai Conference in Sochi, Russia, President Putin was questioned about this overall issue. He addressed the problem of the U.S. sanctions and said this is a problem of empire. Putin said that he does not desire to undermine the dollar and explained that Russia was forced to move into transactions using national currencies, out of self defense. While that’s understandable, it would have been actually better had he made a distinction between the British Empire, and what he himself knows is the positive history of the United States, particularly under President Franklin Roosevelt. That, in a certain sense, is what Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized throughout the last decade—that distinction between the British system, which is an imperialist, monetary system, and the American system, which operates on different principles altogether.

LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods:
Key Concepts

I would stress that there are a number of key concepts behind Lyndon LaRouche’s notion of a New Bretton Woods:

The first is national sovereignty. What he is proposing is not a system based upon a global central bank with a currency which is not a national currency. So, the first point is national sovereignty.

The second point is the Treaty of Westphalia, which implies the cooperation of nation states, in making treaty agreements to the mutual benefit of all of humanity—not just the four powers, but all of humanity. From that standpoint, you cannot have a situation where the United States is excluded from this process. It won’t really work in the long run. And it doesn’t address the danger of war; it doesn’t address the danger of financial collapse in the trans Atlantic system.

Third, which is implicit in the concept of national sovereignty, is that this must be based on national credit systems. The error that was made in the proposal to reform the IMF by Zhou Xiaochuan, the former Governor of the People’s Bank of China, is his opposition to using credit based national currencies.

Finally—and this goes to Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws—the concept must be of extending credit for the purpose of increasing the potential relative population-density through investment in capital intensive forms of technology, and this must be an anti entropic process, as opposed to the Green concept which is based upon the false notion of universal entropy.

Look at the proposal by Varoufakis and Chomsky and Galbraith and Sanders—they are calling for a European Glass Steagall, a so-called “progressive New Bretton Woods,” and a falsely named “International New Deal.” Their policies are, in fact, based upon “green” technology, which means that there’s no increase in the potential relative population-density; there’s no investment in capital intensive forms of technology, including nuclear energy; and there’s no investment in space or in fusion power, which are the future of mankind.

The Role of the United States

In 2008 and 2009, Lyndon LaRouche wrote a series of articles published in Executive Intelligence Review, spelling out his conception, particularly in the aftermath of the Modena conference that I mentioned. Let me just read from a number of his writings at that time.

The first is from an article titled, “New Bretton Woods: Russia’s Role in a Recovery” (EIR, Aug. 20, 2008):

While it were desirable that any among Russia, China, India and other nations would press the United States to initiate the New Bretton Woods reform which I have proposed, it is absolutely indispensable that that reform in international institutions actually be initiated as a proffer from the U.S.A. The reasons for that indispensable role of the U.S.A. lie, not only in the fact that “dollar” means “the big debt of the world system,” it also means, that only the U.S.A. Constitution provides the mechanism readily at hand by which a needed quality of New Bretton Woods system could be actually launched as an international treaty organization. . . .

The campaign for a “new Bretton Woods,” is one of those battles, like that of a great war already in progress, in which no acceptable choice but that either a Westphalian victory in policy is adopted, or the planet has already entered a new dark age. Sometimes, as in physical scientific practice, nature itself confronts us with choices like that.

In a second article, actually predating what I just quoted from, “Free Trade vs. National Interest: The Economics Debate about Russia” (EIR June 12, 2008), he writes:

What must occur soon, if a horror which would be worse than Europe’s Fourteenth-Century so-called “New Dark Age” is to be averted, must be the formation of an initial organizing committee composed of the governments of the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India, a committee whose agreement to what needs to be adopted as certain common principles of reform, principles which will serve as the needed catalyst for a general, more or less global agreement to a reform committed to certain principles of global cooperation among a majority of the world’s nation-states.

And then he says—and this is the distinction that he makes in terms of the constitutional principle of the United States—the ability to create credit as an implied power of the sovereign nation state:

There are two relevant, exemplary ways in which Constitutional money and related Federal credit can be generated by the U.S.A. The first, by consent of Congress. . .to authorize the U.S. Presidency (e.g., the Secretary of the Treasury) to utter credit which can be legally monetized.

The second way, is through the Congressional affirmation of draft treaties of the U.S. government. . . . The establishing of a network of such treaty agreements with the U.S., would challenge, and eliminate the present, hyperinflationary, floating exchange rate system. . . . That would be sufficient to establish a functioning form of new Bretton Woods system, not in the likeness of the monetarist schemes associated, through policies of the U.S. Truman Administration, with Keynes, but the original 1944 intention of President Franklin Roosevelt.

In an earlier article, “The New Bretton Woods System: Framework for a New, Just World Economic Order” (EIR, January 15, 2001), LaRouche wrote:

What Must Be Done—First, we must restore the characteristics of the old Bretton Woods system of the immediate post war decades. That means, a system of fixed exchange rates, capital controls, currency controls and financial controls, and global growth fostered by the same methods employed through institutions such as Germany’s Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau [Credit Institute for Reconstruction], to promote large scale development of basic economic infrastructure, and to use the market potential generated by that infrastructural development, as the base of creating a still larger rate of growth in the development of agriculture and industry.

Second, we must do as President Roosevelt had intended: all sovereign nations must be, on principle, full partners in the new international monetary system. This is the fundamental difference between the old Bretton Woods system, and what must happen now. We cannot have a system which is going to work, which does not treat the majority of the human race as full partners in the system. Otherwise, it won’t work.

Third, we must rely chiefly on credit created by the authority of perfectly sovereign nation state governments, to generate the medium to long term, domestic and international trade agreements on which the economic recovery and expansion will be centered.

In August 2008, in an article already cited, “New Bretton Woods: Russia’s Role in the Recovery,” he makes the following point:

What is required is a submission to a common universal principle, as it were to be conceived as an adopted principle of nature, as was that Peace of Westphalia. It must become a new, refreshed body of anti monetarist, natural, international law of economy, binding together a system of respectively perfectly sovereign nation states by a common, universal principle adopted in the likeness of a universal physical principle.

LaRouche elaborates on the two aspects of credit policy according to the U.S. Constitution—the ability, with the consent of Congress, through the Treasury, to issue credit, as in the case of Lincoln’s Greenback policy; and secondly, the capacity to form treaty organizations with the initiating group of the United States, Russia, China, and India, to extend credit for export of capital goods.

These two aspects were included, for instance, in an early 1990s proposal by Lyndon LaRouche for nationalizing the Federal Reserve: That is, credit for domestic use for productive purposes, and also credit extension for exports, in treaty agreements with additional countries. So, you could have a treaty agreement among the United States, China, Russia, and India, in order to extend credit for exports to other countries; and of course, this would put the United States into a situation where it would be collaborating with the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians, on such projects as the One Belt, One Road policy.

And just to conclude, in an article in 2009, “The Real ‘New Bretton Woods’: A Dollar Based Global Recovery” (EIR, May 1, 2009), LaRouche makes this point in terms of the relationship of a new system among nations:

A fraternal system of Hamiltonian credit systems: the replacement for the present world monetary system must be a credit system modeled upon the U.S. Constitution as understood by Alexander Hamilton as opposed to British imperialist monetarist systems.

We are at a critical moment now, coming out of these midterm elections and going forward—with major summits scheduled between the United States and Russia, and between the United States and China. It’s recently been stated that the Trump Putin meeting in Paris will be brief, but there will be a full scale summit between Putin and Trump in Argentina, as well as a summit between Trump and Xi in Argentina. And of course, Prime Minister Modi of India and others, including Prime Minister Abe of Japan, will be there, as well.

If we’re going to actually bring the world back from the precipice, we need a very clear conception of the New Bretton Woods as I’ve just indicated. It’s very important that we get this conception across to President Trump. Trump has various handlers and managers, but they are really not the decisive element, here. In the recent week Trump has polemicized against “handlers,” and in a reference to the World Series, polemicized against the manager of the Dodgers. The basic point is that he is his own man on these matters. But we have to make sure that he actually understands this conception of a fraternal Hamiltonian system, involving national credit extension through treaty agreements, to develop the world—which will, in addition to developing other nations, also result in a vast gear up of our economy in the United States.

We also have to make sure that countries such as Russia, which out of self defense have a tendency to move away from the dollar, overcome that defensiveness. The same is true with China, where you also have a susceptibility to British ideology, as I’ve indicated in terms of Keynes and the former Governor of the People’s Bank of China. The same is true with India, as well.

We have to create a situation where the distinction between a Keynesian British Imperialist System and an American Credit System is clear, and that the latter is the concept that’s adopted. Lyndon LaRouche goes through this in quite a bit of detail, but unfortunately, most Americans, and certainly most people in Russia, China, and India, among other nations throughout the world, do not understand the history involved here.

The Issue Before Us

Lyndon LaRouche, in many of his articles on the New Bretton Woods, goes back to the role of Nicholas of Cusa, during the Renaissance, particularly to three books by Nicholas of Cusa: Concordantia Catholica, where he developed the concept of the nation state, De Pace Fidei (On the Peace of Faith), an original expression of the concept of the Treaty of Westphalia; and De Docta Ignoratia (On Learned Ignorance), in which he develops an anti entropic conception of economic development and man’s role in the living image of the Creator in further developing the physical universe as a whole—which is what we do with the space program, what we would do with the development of fusion power, among other things.

Recently it was announced that we’ve had an increase in manufacturing jobs. In the month of October, I think, it was 32,000 more manufacturing jobs created in the United States—1,000 per day; and over the 22 months that President Trump has been in office, we’ve had approximately 450,000 manufacturing jobs created. But one of the really shocking figures, is that even with this increase, we only now have a total of about 12.5 million manufacturing jobs, whereas in June 1979, we had 19.5 million manufacturing jobs!

So, we have a long way to go: We would have to create 7 million more manufacturing jobs in this country just to get to the level we had 40 years ago. And that is just a quantitative picture.

The real issue is: What is the nature of these manufacturing jobs? Are we on the forefront of science, or are we just going back to the same old manufacturing practices that we’ve had for decades? Are we really moving forward, for instance, with magnetic levitation trains? Do we have the capacity to build nuclear power plants? Are we developing fusion power? Are we developing high grade metals for these processes, special types of steel and so forth? Do we have the capacity to produce the shells for nuclear power plants? Do we have the capacity to work together with other nations, to really expand our efforts in space? All of this will increase the potential relative population-density of not only our own population, but also of the world.

We need a revolution in the economic platform we have in this country, and which the world has globally. That requires cooperation. The only way to do that is with Lyndon LaRouche’s very clear conception of a New Bretton Woods system, and a clear rejection of the Keynesian/Malthusian—that is, green policy that’s being put forward, which would mean the doom of humanity, whether it’s through nuclear war as a result of the geopolitical policies of the British Empire, or through financial collapse, or through deliberate depopulation by moving toward enforcing green technology as the only future for humanity.

That’s the issue before us. That’s the issue before us in Kesha Rogers’ campaign in Texas, and Ron Wieczorek’s campaign in South Dakota right now, and in many other locations around the country. That’s what is at stake, not only this Tuesday, but also in the period following Tuesday, with these summits coming up. Remember, after Argentina (Nov. 30-Dec. 1), President Putin has been invited to Washington, D.C. by President Trump. So, we have a potential, if we speak with a certain trumpet and with clarity, for the alternative for humanity.