The Utopian World Empire Has Come To An End -- TIME FOR THE NEW BRETTON WOODS!
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
July 2, 2023

During the postwar period, from the time of the death of Franklin Roosevelt, until approximately the middle of the 1960s, there were two systems functioning throughout the Americas, as a whole, in Europe, and in Japan, and elsewhere. One was the system launched by President Franklin Roosevelt, which was the new Bretton Woods. What was accomplished afterwards, for the new Bretton Woods, was not entirely what Roosevelt had intended, but large aspects of the policy were implemented. This aspect of the postwar reconstruction of the Americas, of Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, was generally successful, was not necessarily just, but it was successful, from an economic standpoint.

During the same period, a different, opposite tendency was in motion, a utopian tendency, whose ultimate aim was a new military policy, under which the English-speaking powers would eventually take over the world, in the form of a new English-speaking Roman Empire. As long as Eisenhower was in sight, the memory of Franklin Roosevelt was fresh. Until Eisenhower left office as President, the utopian faction was growing in influence around air power--ideas of air power, and so forth--but it was in check, as the Suez Crisis illustrates. Eisenhower would not put up with those utopians he identified in his concluding speech as President, as the "military-industrial complex."

So, this is the way the world ran outside the Soviet system, generally. With the retirement of Eisenhower from the Presidency, despite the fact that John Kennedy shared many of the impulses--that is, the Roosevelt legacy impulses, of Franklin Roosevelt--Kennedy was not in a position to control, effectively, the military-utopian, and associated group, which Eisenhower had called the "military-industrial complex." As a result of that, you had things like the assassination of Mattei in Italy; you had the Bay of Pigs--the invasion of Cuba by the utopian faction; you had the 1962 crisis, which was created by a utopian faction associated with Bertrand Russell; you had the assassination of Kennedy, in 1963; the attempted assassination of Charles de Gaulle in 1962; the early ouster of Adenauer in Germany; and similar kinds of things around the world. This led into the post-Kennedy period, and in 1965, the United States entered the Indochina war. This change was a fundamental change in the policies of the United States.

You can identify this by one other feature which was important: When Roosevelt died, at that time, something had happened in Italy. You had had meetings between the Emperor, diplomatic representative of the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito, through the Extraordinary Affairs Office of the Vatican, through [Cardinal] Montini, later [Pope] Paul VI. A friend of ours--I was not known to him at the time, but he knew me very well later--Max Corvo--who was the OSS chief in Italy, on the ground, who was involved in the process, of auditing some of things of that negotiation.

Then, Roosevelt died. The terms of prospective agreement between the Allies and the Emperor of Japan, had already been negotiated by the time Roosevelt died. Now, after that, Truman very quickly moved to decide to drop two totally unnecessary nuclear weapons on Japan--on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only was this known to have been unnecessary--and the military specialists at the time knew it was unnecessary--Douglas MacArthur said so, the commander in the Pacific: that peace and surrender was imminent, as soon as the United States would deliver an assurance to the Truman Administration to accept Hirohito as the peace partner for the surrender. Eisenhower, in Europe, was consulted, and gave the strongest recommendation not to drop these unnecessary bombs, nuclear weapons, on Japan. They were dropped. The question is, why were they dropped? This gives you a key to understanding a lot of things that have happened since then.

The ‘Open Conspiracy'

The reason they were dropped was because a utopian faction in the United States and in Britain, typified by a man who recently died--Herbert George Wells--who was a key member of British Intelligence, and his confederate, Bertrand Russell, had conceived of a policy of using nuclear weapons in order to establish a method of warfare so terrible, that nations would give up their sovereignty in favor of world government, in other words, world empire. The general details of this were laid out by Russell and Wells in 1928, in a book called The Open Conspiracy. And you can trace, if you know the details, all the characteristics of the so-called utopian faction inside the United States and Britain, in particular, all the world-government faction, can all be traced, explicitly, to this Wells-Russell group.

This is the basis for the military-industrial complex: the use of nuclear weapons, or so-called weapons of mass destruction, of a new type, beyond those used in World War II. The use of these kinds of weapons to cause nations to be terrified into surrendering their sovereignty to an English-speaking New World Roman Empire, administered by a military force of the type, typified historically by the role of the Roman Legions, especially under the Caesars, and beyond. And also typified, in fact, by the Nazi Waffen SS, the international Waffen SS, the units formed of recruits from many different nations into the same Waffen SS.

This policy is the policy of a group which is now notorious because--it's centered at Harvard University, in the Department of Government at Harvard University--for the production of such monsters as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Samuel P. Huntington; this is an international group.

NSSM 200

So, if you look ahead, to understand this group, and understand what happened in 1965, you look at a document which was issued under the signature of Henry Kissinger in 1974, called National Security Study Memorandum 200. Now this--do not blame Kissinger for authoring this policy--Kissinger was simply reflecting a policy which already existed in the minds of many people, including the founders of the so-called Club of Rome, including the OECD report on education in 1963 by Dr. Alexander King, including the founding of the so-called environmentalist movement. All of these people were part of the same process. And what Kissinger was saying, in writing what was then this secret document of the United States, national security document, was--by Brzezinski, in the Carter Administration in 1981, January of 1981, issued Global Futures and Global 2000--the same thing. Here's what it was, in short; Kissinger's argument was this: The nations of South America, Africa, and Asia contained immense natural resources, mineral and other resources, which really belonged, in the future, to the English-speaking people of the world. These resources must not be used up by the people in these countries; therefore, we must do a number of things. First of all, we must prevent the people of these countries from continuing their aspirations for technological progress. By preventing them from having technological progress, we will prevent them from using up these resources.

We must also make clear that these resources belong, in the future, to the United States and the British monarchy. And therefore, we are going to move to seize control over the natural resources of these parts of the world. As part of this--the policy was, that if you are going to establish a world dictatorship, in a world which had known Franklin Roosevelt, which had known the achievements of Europe through the 1960s and into the 1970s, you could not do it, if the people were not stupid. You can not keep intelligent people as slaves. Now, in order to have a modern industrial economy, agro-industrial economy, you have to have intelligent farmers--farming is not such a brutish thing--modern farming requires a great deal of skill and knowledge and devotion. You can not have modern industry, without technological progress and without a population which is capable of maintaining that progress. You can not have technological progress without scientific progress; you can not have this without a well-educated population; you need a population with a lot of university graduates, qualified in these fields, to contribute to the scientific discoveries of the future.

Therefore, you must have a brutish society. You must do what the Romans did, especially after the end of the Second Punic War, to Italy. You must reduce the population to mass entertainment, as in the Coliseum; to mass entertainment of killing, or like television sports, or World Cup events today. You must keep them quiet with bread and circuses, with a dole, entertainment, mass entertainment, like modern television, where you can see all the sex you want on television, all the mayhem you want on television. You can play video games and kill people en masse, and that's your recreation, which can not be taken away from you. That kind of a people, a brutish people, can be induced to accept the kind of utopian world, in which you have a controlled population, virtually enslaved, which accepts these kinds of ideals, which are expressed by Britain's Thomas Huxley in the 19th Century, by Thomas Huxley's trained protégé H. G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell, and their many followers around the world. The "peace-loving" followers, the "peace-loving" doctors of mass murder, extermination.

Outlawing Classical Humanist Education

So, this is what the issue was. The utopians set out to bring that about. In NATO, in the OECD, the 1963 education reforms: outlaw Classical humanist education. The result today in Germany is that the generation which was educated under Classical humanist standards, prior to the Brandt reforms, and the population which was educated in German schools, secondary schools after the Brandt reforms are almost two different species. They don't think--the modern ones have lost the power to think cogently, as a result of that. And similar things in most parts of the world. In the United States, an education today, university education: The cost of tuition is in inverse proportion to the amount of education delivered. The more you pay for it, the more stupid you become. At Stanford University in California, the policy is, that no person shall be deprived of the right to graduate from that university, on the basis of having required studies of the writings and ideas of dead, white, European males. Now, what is there, in terms of European civilization, in the past 2,500 years, without dead, white, European males? Practically every bit of culture we have in European civilization was developed by presently dead, white, European males!

So, the cultural destruction of the nations, the cultural destruction of the economy, the prohibition against technological progress by the so-called environmentalist movement--also created by Bertrand Russell--all of these things were part of an idea of creating a Utopia, whose potential most conspicuous feature of this utopianism was the military aspect: to create a mass of killers, called military and police, who would enforce the Empire, exterminate unwanted people, terrorize those they didn't exterminate, with that kind of military force which is now being deployed today.

So, that is what happened. This was the history of the past 35 years.

A Nation Based on Looting

As a result of these policies, beginning about 1964-65, there was a fundamental change in the policy of the United States, which echoed what happened in Italy, following the Second Punic War. Italy had gone from a national area, which lived largely on the production of wealth within Italy itself--it became then, gradually, rapidly, especially after the failure of the Gracchi Reforms, became entirely a nation which was based on looting other nations: developing slavery in place of farmers; corrupting the population with bread and circuses, internally. And as the world, being conquered by Rome, was depleted and ruined, by this policy, the Roman Empire in West disintegrated, and moved to the East, where the population still existed in significant numbers. And that, only temporarily.

That was the objective. That's what we've been moving toward. We've moved toward a total destruction of everything that Franklin Roosevelt represented. It meant eliminate the idea of the General Welfare, which is the fundamental law of the United States--this is effectively eliminated today, an actual radical-positive Lockean policy dominates the U.S. Federal courts today. Eliminate all the things that enabled the reconstruction of the United States and Europe out of the Depression and the War. This is 1971: the elimination of the Bretton Woods agreement from a system of fixed-exchange rates, with a gold-reserve guarantee, or backing, and the promotion of low interest to maintain international loans, which enabled the development of developing nations, both as markets and internally. That ended.

Later, under the successor of Kissinger--Kissinger was the virtual dictator, or overseer of the Nixon Administration, for eight years; Brzezinski was the overseer and dictator of the Carter Administration for a period of four years. Twelve years of that set into motion a process which destroyed the character of the United States, in large degree. We made one last effort to prevent that, a couple of times. For one thing--my own effort, which became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was an effort to stop this conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, to bring it under manageable conditions, and open the door for development of the developing sector, to reverse, in effect, this ban on technological progress, to inverse the kinds of things which Kissinger stood for in National Security Study Memorandum 200.

You Can Not Cross the Bridge that Does Not Exist!

All right, now we've come to the end--35 years after the launching of this policy--we have come to the end of the road. We've come to the end of the Empire. The great idiots of today have decided to launch an English-speaking world empire at the end of the Roman Empire, rather than at the beginning! And, it won't work. We've now reached the point that the system is collapsing. There's no possibility of a protracted continuation of this system, for the near future. People have a wishful idea: First of all, they wish, somehow, that this wouldn't happen; secondly, they wishfully believe that someone has something up their sleeve which can prevent it from happening. Now, as you will probably hear today, among other matters, you can loot pension funds, but sooner or later, you will run out of the pensions. You can not keep the system of looting going forever! It comes to an end-point. You can postpone the end-point, but you can not prevent it from coming. You can not cross the bridge that does not exist. And that's the situation.

So therefore, where do we stand, we as people? People generally--well, they are what Christ viewed them as: They have to be saved, but they aren't much good at it. People today are stubborn, opinionated, ignorant, selfish, narrow-minded, so forth--they really are not good people. But they're human, they're precious to us, they're our people, and we have to save them. So those of us who somehow come into leading positions, have to try to figure out how to save these friends of ours, these people who are so stubbornly foolish about the way they behave. And people say "No, we don't agree with you. Popular opinion is against you." Vox populi. "Popular opinion is against you. Popular opinion wants to accept the existing system. Popular opinion says ‘the people in power will remain in power.' You have to learn to get along with them. Don't fight them. Don't fight City Hall." I say, "No. That's wrong." The people are wrong.

No nation was ever destroyed from the inside, except by its own people. Not by a few misleaders. Don't blame the misleaders. Blame the people, because the people accepted the misleadership, when they should have known better. Often the leaders were not corrupt in the ordinary sense. The leaders were corrupted by the people. This is typical of politicans. A politician will say to you, "Ah! Yes, you're right. But I can't do anything about it, because I depend upon popular opinion for my election, and popular opinion's against this. Therefore, don't say I supported you on this." This is typical. And that's how nations go down.

But then, you come to a point, you come to a point at which it's no longer possible to survive under that system. Maybe a generation later; maybe 35 years later, or as now, or 37 years later, as now--you'll get one that works. There is no hope for the people if they continue with the present system! Now, they say they disagree. Ah, but reality does not disagree. Reality says that the world as we now know it is finished, and it's finished in the very near term. What day, what month, we don't don't know. It could be--it's probably this year. Probably, later this year. The crash on markets you're now seeing is part of it.

You saw the crisis of confidence around the President of the United States, on his speech between June 24 and what happened with the [Rose Garden] Israeli speech, remarks, on June 26. The credibility of the President of the United States has collapsed, inside the United States and around the world. A sudden phase-shift has occurred in leading opinion around the world. This is the condition which we face. We've come to the end of the road.

Two Sets of Facts

So therefore, what do the people do? How do you speak to the people about matters like this? You say, "Well, look, it's now a long time, between 1945 and '46, since Roosevelt died. But Roosevelt did, under conditions of depression, from 1933 on, to the present, Roosevelt led the United States out of the Great Depression, through the war, and laid the foundations for a great period of reconstruction during the 20 years immediately following the war. This worked in the Americas; it worked for Japan; it worked in Europe, with the help of things such as Jean Monnet's work, and the Schumann plan. These things worked. It helped in other parts of the world as well.

Then, we destroyed the system, over the course of the 1961-65 period when the change occurred. Then, beginning with the coincidence of the launching of the Indochina war, we destroyed everything. And over the past 35 years, we've gone to a system which is now at its end, which is a great failure, the cause of great suffering.

So, let's take the two sets of facts to the people: Compare the two sets of facts. What was different between the Bretton Woods system, set into motion under Roosevelt's initiative, from the period 1945 to 1965; and the system we've had since, especially since 1971. Which one would you rather have? Would you rather have the inevitable doom of the present system, or would you rather learn the lesson of the success of the previous model, and start a reform, based on a successful experience of history. And that's why I use the term New Bretton Woods. Because, coming with a great reform, we're dealing with people as they are, poorly educated, less well-educated than they were 30 years ago. What do you do with such people, who are about to be destroyed by the ideas which they have upheld? You have to present the case to them in the simplest possible way. You say, "Let's compare what you and your parents and grandparents knew, and what you know. Let's look at the two periods: 1965 to the present, which led to a disaster, which is now occurring; and the period prior to 1965, the period of the Bretton Woods agreement, which was a success, despite the included injustices. So, let us go back to the lessons of successful reconstruction of the postwar world, and let us learn the lessons from that, and try this time, to take the benefit of the example, but without the injustices.

Thank you.

Return to the Home Page
Top