By Matthew Ehret-Kump
Our current society has the choice of either collapsing into a long dark age, or renewing the great birth of mankind which expressed itself brilliantly with the establishment of its first Constitutional Republic via the American Revolution of 1776. As those foolish decisions shaping history would have it, the world of sovereign republics free of colonialism would not be carried into reality with the birth of America.
All developments leading up to the present crises have been shaped directly by the intrinsic tension between two inclinations. On the one side, we find the spirit of discovery and faith in the perfectibility of the universe and man embodied in the best traditions of the United States of America, while on the other do we find an inclination towards stasis and the pessimistic attitude that not only is the universe a cold, evil place, but so too is the humanity found within it. While history has been a struggle between representatives of these two outlooks, with the advent of thermonuclear capabilities, and the actual possibility of self extermination, no longer is mankind afforded the liberty to tolerate their co-existence. One must prevail.
Canada must locate its true character within this historical dynamic if it is to overcome the greatest obstacle to its evolution. This obstacle is to be found within the un-principled British imperial system which formed its historical and present behaviour.
It is the design of the present report to shed light several key fallacies embedded within the foundations of Canada’s paradoxical system in order to ensure that she does not remain a tool of those interests intent on subverting the best traditions of humanity during this time of economic crisis and war. Rather, the author intends that these existential crises provide an opportunity of honest self examination such that this great northern territory take up its vital role as a servant to the interests of humankind as a true sovereign nation.
To re-emphasize; this system has proven to be one of the greatest sources of confusion and evil in our nation’s history and if we are to overcome its intended limitations, we must take a moment and evaluate what underlies it.
What is a Sovereign Nation?
The very toleration of something as self contradictory as a Party System as a pillar of a nation state, could only occur to the extent that a fallacious idea of sovereignty were maintained. Contrary to popular belief, nations are not the effect of some “social contract” agreed upon to check the innate selfishness of mankind. Nor can it be assumed that empires are simply the natural outgrowth of nations, within a Hobbesian world of each against all.
Since modern international law and the sacred right to national sovereignty now being threatened by the Blair doctrine of R2P and the `World Government“, is rooted in the 1648 Treaty signed in Westphalia, it would do well to look to that founding document to see first hand upon what basis a nation is to be considered sovereign. In this way, we may re-evaluate to what degree sovereignty has been destroyed under the monetarist system of Globalization… especially in those nations popularly perceived to be the most free and democratic of the world.
`That there shall be a Christian and Universal Peace, and a perpetual, true and sincere Amity, between his Sacred Imperial Majesty and his most Christian Majesty as also between all and each of the Allies…That this Peace and Amity shall be observed and cultivated with such a Sincerity and Zeal, that each Party shall endeavour to procure the Benefit, Honour and Advantage of the other; that thus on all sides they may see this Peace and Friendship in the Roman Empire, and the Kingdom of France flourish by entertaining a good and faithful neighbourhood
The preamble goes on to outline the need for mutual forgiveness of transgressions, and mutual cooperation of all parties. What is remarkable is that for the first time in history, was a legal framework crafted that not only put an end to war, but established the necessary ingredients foe a durable peace… not as a negation of war, or a list of `do nots`, but rather as a positive principle` of creative change.
One is also struck by the spirit of Grace, Forgiveness and Charity which shine forth in these words, especially the mandate of `the benefit of the other`. This spirit did not embody the vast majority of signers of the Treaty, but rather only a small minority of individuals working directly with its leading architect, Cardinal Mazarin of France. Yet, even so, the principled character of the individual personality, not some mob, was necessary to forge its success, and as an effect has had a durable effect upon the cultivation of personalities born and raised under the new framework shaped by Mazarin and his law. A handful of such personalities would go on to found the United States of America as a direct outgrowth of this revolution in statecraft.
What we find is that Sovereign nations have a character analogous to the character of what we would classify as the virtuous individual. Just as some individuals are weaker and stronger, some are foolish, and others wise, some are trapped by selfish impulses they themselves don’t fully understand and others by principled motives, so too do we discover nations are similarly defined. As the character of a human is also known as his or her constitution, so too are statesmen obliged not to act as careerists or pragmatists for present concerns as is too often the case today, but rather to ensure the foundation, defence and cultivation of good constitutions which will form the character of its people, in order for its people to reciprocally reinforce and develop their nation’s constitution.
This fact has been a matter of intense reflection by the most powerful minds and strategists for good and evil throughout history, so it would be wise for any reader to take such considerations as seriously as the founding fathers did when they chose to risk their lives for those universal ideals expressed in the words written on the founding documents of the U.S. republic. It must also be considered when evaluating the unprincipled founding documents of Canada, a nation which, though many believe to be a beacon of democracy and freedom in the world, is actually one of the most tightly controlled colonies of an unseen empire. This British empire advocates nothing less than the reduction of humanity both in quantity and quality as proposed by the likes of Prince Philip. This has been the legacy of the British Empire System of Empire, of which Canada is still an unacknowledged part, as juxtaposed against the empire’s mortal adversary, the American system of political economy embedded in the United States Constitution.
A Necessary investigation of two constitutions:
Before embarking upon a comparative study of these two systems, it must first be noted that Canada has no explicit single constitution. It has a list of “founding documents” which include the Quebec Act of 1774 included among the intolerable acts of the 13 colonies, the Act of 1791 that established Upper and Lower Canada, the failed Act of Union of 1840 and the British North American Act of 1867. The later was established as a response by a bankrupt British oligarchy to keep Canada from developing a real constitution modelled on that of Lincoln’s USA after the British-run Confederacy operation failed in its attempted dissolution of the Union with Lincoln’s victory in 1865. While this Act lasted another century, a final Canada Act passed by an order in council in the British and Canadian Parliaments in 1982, now called The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was added to the mix of legal documents. Many believe (falsely) that this document is now the sole Canadian Constitution.
In the case of the United States, two founding documents exist, amended over time, but unchanged in principle. These are the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787). Just as Abraham Lincoln argued that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were to be viewed as one doubly connected document, so too will we here.
The American Declaration of Independence begins with the words:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
In the midst of a laundry list of rights granted by order of the Queen, we find article 7 of the Canadian Constitution of 1982 that reads;
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” And then a little later, in article 15: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”.
After a comparative reading, a nominalist would conclude that both systems are almost equivalent. The right to life, and liberty are to be found in both, as well as the acknowledgement of individual equality. So why is the Canadian Constitution vastly inferior to its American counterpart? To answer this, it is useful to pose another question, namely, what is the source from which these rights are derived in both cases? In the case of the American system, such rights are deemed self-evident and inherent in the soul and as such to be given or taken by no mortal as one would treat a physical object. In the Canadian Constitution, a very different beast rears its head. These rights are granted to the people, as a form of legal contract! While souls cannot be made null and void based on whim and circumstance of a dictator, a contract always can. If the source of Canada’s true director is still ambiguous to the reader, let them merely refer to the last article (62) of the act; “This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975”
It is here that the cat is let out of the bag. The Constitution Act of 1982 did not replace the longstanding British North American Act of 1867 as most Canadians have been led to believe. Rather, the Act of 1867 was merely amended, and renamed, though its principles and intent never repealed. Thus, let us see what the 1867 constitution establishes clearly in its preamble, as the true purpose of Canada:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom: And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire”
There it is. The rights of people in Canada are presumed to be derived from the “fount of all honours” otherwise known as the monarchy, while Canada’s stated purpose is nothing more than to “promote the interests of the British Empire”! Looking towards the geopolitical dynamics of Canada’s history, one is struck that not one ounce of blood was ever dropped for liberty in establishing our founding documents, and for that reason, no honest liberty was ever won. Only a cheap counterfeit for liberty prances around the Canadian soul calling herself “comfort”, or the freedom to ”go along to get along”.
Let us compare this with the “mission statement” of America by looking at the preamble of its Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The liberty derived from this idea is a far different matter than the thing roaming around with the same name in Canada. The fact is that nowhere in the U.S. founding documents do we find that the republic is at all a party system, nor even a democracy, but rather a democratic republic, designed explicitly around the principle of the General Welfare, not only for present generations, but into infinite posterity. That is an idea of freedom worth fighting for.
Canada’s founding documents were modelled explicitly on the British geopolitical doctrine known as balance of power, derived from the bestial social program of each against all. The absolute power of a monarch using her appendages of the Privy Council and Governor General must “counter balance” the power of an unelected House of Lords representing the aristocracy and nobility (in Canada known as “The Senate”) who in turn “balance” the power of the those elected by “the commoners” known as the House of Commons. The Commoners must not be allowed to decide their destiny on principle, but only according to a perverted form of group think known as “party politics”.
Siamese Twins: The Party System and Free Trade
In observing the root evil of the Party system, we must come to recognize that its foundation hinges upon the total destruction of individual conscience. Not only that, but any standard of truth and justice upon which competent deliberation about national policy should be based is reduced to a “hedonistic calculus” of pleasure versus pain. This same “pleasure-pain” fallacy can be clearly seen when evaluating the unprincipled structure of the bastard sibling to the Party System known as British Free Trade. It is impossible to evaluate one child of the British System while ignoring its ugly twin. A useful excerpt from the official architect of Free Trade Adam Smith in his 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments will suffice to communicate the issue at hand:
“Hunger, thirst, and the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply those means for their own sake, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by them.”
Just as the Party system is designed around the negation of truth and its replacement by popular opinion, so too is British Free Trade designed around the pre-eminence of hedonistic personal desires, and popular opinion before the well being of the nation as a whole. Why plan for the future, when the “hidden hand” of the market guides our personal vice to those mysterious “beneficent ends” which only “the gods” may know… but not lowly man.
With that said, we may ask: how could it be possible that the superior reason and morality of an exceptional individual be permitted to win over adherents to his or her policy initiative, when that individual’s views and opinions must a-priori conform to the desires of “the party”? How can a place exist in a civilized society for such a function as a party “whip” whose function is to ensure that all party members are kept in line with “the party”? How can the general welfare ever be assured when the Party’s primary mandate is to be maintain power by being popular with “the right demographics”? Where do we find a place for “truth” in such a world?
Similarly, in the case of Free Trade let us ask: How can the wise understanding of a nation builder favour the debt incurred to build a hydroelectric dam, relative to a network of whorehouses, when the monetary sums associated with both of them may be equal, and in fact promise a far greater return when invested in a whorehouse (or a hedge fund)? In the logic of free trade, a nation must allow both its infrastructure, and productive powers to rot in favour of the types of “investments” that bring ever more obscene rates of momentary pleasure (aka monetary profit) by the gods of “the market”, even at the expense of the future survival of society. How else could one explain the recent explosion of derivatives to the scale of 10-20 times the world GDP? How about the satanic case of 40% of a nation’s corn production transformed into ethanol for gas tanks and speculation in a world that suffers the deaths of 30 000 children by starvation every day?
While the British system has been sometimes adopted and sometimes resisted by America (seen in hindsight as times of alternating growth and collapse), it has almost perpetually held the Dominion of Canada in its clutches, with very few respites from the corruption, confusion and impoverishment which are its children. As one American economist observed the sad case of Canada in the early 1850s:
“Though the ratio of the increase of the population has been greater in Canada than in the United States, yet their increase of wealth has barely kept pace with the population, and they are all as poor as they were half a century since. They have enjoyed the blessings of free trade all of the time, we only a part of the time. Whenever we have attempted to supply ourselves by our own industry, with the comforts and necessities of life, we have improved our condition as a people; and during the intervals of free trade and large importations of foreign goods, we have relapsed again into a condition bordering on bankruptcy; while the Canadians have been constantly exhausted, and kept so poor by free trade, as to be unable to get sufficient credit to have the ups and downs of prosperity and bankruptcy in succession”.
A leading American political economist of the Hamiltonian school named Henry C. Carey not only led Abraham Lincoln’s national economic program that turned the USA into the preeminent force for progress by the end of the 19th Century but explicitly laid bare the methods of the Union’s true enemy in his many books, speeches and pamphlets, one of which is called The Harmony of Interests in 1858:
“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labour of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the labourer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.
The idea of Progress
While the principles of republicanism embodied in the American System demand a protective tariff, and productive credit, while the British System demands the inverse, it is worth asking; “do the upper quotes mean to infer that Free Trade is intrinsically an evil?” Not at all. In fact, guided by a principled intention towards progress and development among all sovereign participants, freedom of trade has had the effect of uniting and empowering all involved. Among the clearest cases, we need only look to the newly liberated colonies themselves just after the Declaration of Independence. These former colonies, left to their own personal self interest, local currency controls, and fragmented tariff policies on imports, were so divided that a re-conquering was all but inevitable. However, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s bold program to federalize legitimate debts opened up an ability to pay off the debt occurred during the war, and trade freely amongst themselves under a federal government acting for the general welfare which ensured great unity and national power. A similar case can be viewed in the formation of the German Zollverein led by the follower of Alexander Hamilton, German economist Friederick List, or the attempted Reciprocity Treaties arranged between America and Canada of the late 19th century by the Canadian followers of Abraham Lincoln such as the statesmen Isaac Buchanan and Wilfrid Laurier.
The key that united these case studies is 1) their common blocking, via protective tariffs, of Monopolized private interests controlled by the financier oligarchy centred in London, 2) the abolishment of usury and wild speculation and 3) the instituting of visionary programs which were designed to promote the general welfare. These long-term projects would not only be fuelled by 4) national credit issued via national banking procedures, but would ensure that 5) investments and private industry would be tied to physically productive enterprises. Profit is good… as long as it is tied to something truly useful to the success of humanity, as well as the entrepreneur.
However, when no guiding principle is actively moving the participant states towards common aims of all, and only the mindless unruly beast known as “the Market” is left to rule freely over the many, then no durable good has ever, will ever or could ever occur. A society that tolerates a system which severs human intention and principle so absolutely from its behaviour, in favour of popular opinion and pleasure worshipping, has lost all moral fitness to survive, and the oligarchy which will run free to monopolize all commodities under such a “laissez-faire” logic of enslaved nations shall, by its very nature, not stop until the society which it has trapped in its ideological web has consumed itself into oblivion.
Case Study: Changing Nature
The final test of any system will not occur in a class room, or academic high tower, but in applied reality. In this way, by acting on our concepts, and observing how the universe responds to our ideas may we competently judge whether to keep or discard a hypothesis. This is no less true for political economy as it is for the so-called “hard” sciences. If someone were to confront us and assert: Isn’t the notion of the superiority of the American System over the British System merely a matter of opinion? We may with self-assurance warmly reply that they are mistaken. Just as universal gravitation was not discovered by a mystical fraud like Isaac Newton, or by a consensus, but by the genius of a Kepler, so too can we assert that the universal validity of the American System is discoverable to self conscious reason. As mankind has become more aware of nature’s secrets, keys have been discovered unlocking doors to her bounty, and the unruly chaos which is her “natural” state has yielded in increased tameness to the gentle hand of the plough, the sail, and the dam.
Where wilderness of the West had kept civilization at bay, Lincoln’s Transcontinental Railway program opened new corridors to development and the blossoming of new cities. Where deserts have made way to valleys and farms such as California’s Imperial Valley, so too have swamps been tamed as under the Tennessee Valley Authority, both programs effected under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Where unruly rapids and shallow waters prevented shipping, has the St. Laurence Seaway opened up rivers to humanity’s field of activity, and where the earth had determined the limit of man’s existence for all of human history, did JFK’s dream extend our field of activity to other planetary bodies.
The Anti-Entropic Science of Physical Economy
In refuting British Imperial thinkers Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, and Charles Darwin by name in his book The Unity of Law, Henry C. Carey observed that the only reasonable metric to determine a nation’s success is the increase of the productive powers of labour, manifest in 1) the unbounded increase of powers of association of producer and consumer, 2) the unbounded increase of the ratio of Mind’s dominance to Matter. In refuting the British notion that returns on production MUST always diminish and decay over time, leading inevitably towards overpopulation, starvation and war, Carey makes his case for the higher unity of law which is apparent with the acknowledgement of creative reason:
“Here was further proof of the universality of natural laws- the course of man, in reference to the earth at large, being thus shown to have been the same that we see it now to be in reference to all the instruments into which he fashions parts of the great machine itself. Always commencing with the poorest axes, he proceeds onward to those of steel; always commencing with the poorer soils, he proceeds onward toward those capable of yielding larger returns to labor; increase of numbers being thus proved to be essential to increase in the supply of food. Here was a unity of law leading to perfect harmony of all real and permanent human interests, and directly opposed to the discords taught by Mr. Malthus… Reflecting upon this, he (Carey) was soon brought to expression of the belief, that closer examination would lead to development of the great fact, that there existed but a single system of laws; those instituted for the government of inorganic matter proving to be the same by which that matter was governed when it took the form of man, or of communities of men.”
In the 20th Century, Lyndon LaRouche, having independently come to Carey’s conclusion and without any foreknowledge of the American System of Political Economy, established in his science of physical economy the metric of the unbounded increase of mankind’s Relative Potential Population Density, measured as an increase of the productive powers of labour measured per capita and per square kilometre. Redefining notions of Work, Energy and Power behind notions of Leibnizian Dynamics rather than Newtonian statistical notions prevalent in academic circles, LaRouche explained his discovery in various texts, not the least among them is the Science of Christian Economy where LaRouche writes:
“The science of political economy is premised upon conclusive, empirical evidence of a fundamental difference which sets the human species absolutely apart from and above, all of the animal species, as Moses specifies in Genesis 1:26. This crucial difference is mankind’s power to increase the potential population density of the human species as a whole by means of the voluntary generation, transmission, and efficient assimilation of scientific and technological progress. Mankind is capable of increasing, intentionally, the maximum size of the human population which could be self-sustained by its own labor, per average square kilometre of land area, while also raising the average physical standard of living. No animal species can accomplish this.”
The scientific formulation of a system usually taught as a mere social theory is not only a crucial breakthrough in human history, but has given leading world citizens around the world the necessary tools, the “objective” metrics of value, for them to successfully develop their national economies which serving the inalienable Rights of Man. Even though this new science has richly proven itself within the body of LaRouche’s nine major public forecasts since 1956, the current mental block to an open recognition of the validity of this new thought in practice, especially among leading Western governments, has been mankind’s inability to break free from the imperial conditioning called “the second law of thermodynamics” or simply “entropy”.
The cultish religious belief that the universe as a whole is not only a closed (bounded) system, but also a system which is moving constantly towards increasing states of disorder and towards a reduced potential for change, can only be adhered to via a total disregard for the evidence found in the directed change in evolution since the Cambrian epoch, Kepler’s proof of the harmonic ordering of Solar Systems, as well as mankind’s powers of creative reason that have permitted him, over millennium, to constantly leap beyond his supposedly fixed spiritual and material limits. All evidence that creative thought has intrinsic active existence within the universe must be totally ignored for any such belief as Entropy, Darwinian biology, or even monetarism to hold any influence in society.
Manifest Destiny as Anti-Entropy
In contrast to the entropic view of the British System stands the American System mandate of constant anti-entropic development which has been expressed both theologically in the form of Genesis 1: 28, politically in the form of Cusa’s New World Project taken up by Columbus in 1480, and economically as John Quincy Adams’ policy of Manifest Destiny.
It is vital for citizens everywhere, but Canadians especially, to comprehend that with the ironic possession of greater land potential and one tenth the population of the USA, whatever progress achieved throughout Canada’s history has occurred in spite of and never because of our adherence to Britain’s system of Party Politics and Free Trade. Inversely the only reason why America has not progressed MORE than it has, is because of the British Policy of Party of Politics and Free Trade subverting its own constitutional traditions introduced under such populist anglophiles such as Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
Were we as a nation, and humanity as a whole, to continue to hold onto the foolish doctrines endorsed by the British Empire, and not overcome our corrupt habits of “lazy reason” which have permitted us to tolerate the self- destructive British System for so long, our self- extermination by war, disease, and starvation are all but assured. Were we not to recognize the solid foundation of reason that the American System of Republic has provided humanity in 1776, then the double edged sword of democracy and tyranny outlined in Plato’s Republic would perpetually take turns draining the blood of our children until no more blood could be drawn from the body of humankind.
But as the Founding Fathers recognized that the time had been made ripe to pluck the seeds planted by Plato in his challenge to future generations in the Republic 2000 years earlier, so too must we now ensure that the ripeness of this time of great peril is not missed by a sleeping, cowardly society. The policies of Russia and China are echoing a future time that today exists naught but as a potential for something better. Connecting the old and new worlds via rail through the Bering Strait, greening those wounds known as deserts via great water projects such as the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) and Africa’s Transaqua exist as pillars on earth around which a new financial system may be created. Pillars beyond the earth include Russia’s bold program for Asteroid Defence, China’s lunar mining initiative and international Mars colonization projects echoed by the successful landing of the Curiosity Rover in August 2012. All of these endeavours shall accelerate and be accelerated by the advent of man’s long overdue harnessing of fusion energy for civilian use, followed soon thereafter by controlled Matter-Antimatter processes. All will have the effect of increasing those key parameters laid out by Henry C. Carey and Lyndon LaRouche. All will demonstrate the anti-entropic nature of mind.
With this potential and necessary future looking upon us and demanding that the American Revolution finally be completed the world over, may we not safely ask; Is it not time we become a republic?
 “Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed–not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.”
-Prince Philip, founder of the World Wildlife Fund
 The Quebec Act was designed to bribe French Canada with superficial rights… mostly religious as long as loyalty to the Crown were maintained, and thereby subverting Quebec`s near entry into the revolution as a 14th colony and blocking the western expansion policy of America by bringing the Quebec possessions down into Ohio. See Pierre Beaudry`s The Tragic Consequences of the Quebec Act of 1774, Canada: Republic or Colony, 2007
 Ezra Champion Seaman, Essays on the Progress of Nations (1853)
 For a full expose of the the political agenda behind the creation of the Isaac Newton myth and an introduction to Kepler, Leibniz and Huygens’ real discoveries of gravitation, the infinitesimal calculus and optics (attributed wrongly to Newton), see the 2008 LPAC video Harvard Yard http://www.larouchepac.com/harvard-yard
 The most extensive treatment of LaRouche’s discovery can be found in his 1984 textbook “So you wish to Learn about Economics” http://archive.org/details/SoYouWishToLearnAllAboutEconomics_66
 “And God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
 Adams insisted that the westward expansion of the United States not result in the expansion of slavery, or conquests of other lands, but rather the extension of republicanism as expressed in the Declaration of Independence… And Adams was clear he did not see expansion by conquest, even of Canada (Nancy Spannaus, John Quincy Adams and teh Community of Principle, Executive Intelligence Review, January 28 2000)
 The majority of American presidents have been treasonous puppets who were deployed to destroy the American system. These three men stand out for their treachery as men who were united by common tendencies of democratic populism, and as such ushered in waves of speculation, free trade, and imperialism at times when the influence of the American System based on Sovereign republics were on the verge of overtaking the British Empire and their colonies.