From the timeline “ Venetian Fondi initiate two projects: translation of Aristotle's works into Latin and revival/republication of Roman Civil Law (Corpus Juris Civilis)”.
Unfortunately again there is no evidence for this (no references given). What is true is that the Bologna school of jurisprudence was created 1084, after the discovery of old documents and that the school was instrumental in developing both Roman and Canon law and became the place to study such matters. There is no evidence of it being other than self funding.
The reason I’m bringing it up is by coincidence I was reading a chapter on the Christian church and slavery in David Bentley Hart’ Atheist Delusions book in which he references from John T Noonan Jr in “A church that can and cannot change “ (2005) that in 1256 the city of Bologna decided to place all bonded servants within the city under ecclesiastical jurisdiction and then to grant them liberty; and the municipal government reached this decision explicitly on Christian grounds “.
So the school that developed the “evil” Roman Law actually led the abolition of slavery!
While there is much in the discussion of "The Modern Anglo-Dutch Empire" that I found useful, I am at a loss as to why LaRoucheies seem to add FDR as a defender of the American System. I think the essence of the American system is no wars of conquest and FDR was a warmonger of the first order. And the first victim of war is the American system.
FDR was talking about going to war with Germany as early as 1937 and 1938. Maybe to get out of his failed New Deal policies? By 1940, unemployment and capacity utilization were looking pretty bad in America, like some of the worst of the Depression.
Long before effectively forcing (90% oil embargo) a war on Japan theoretically over China, (which virtually nobody in America gave a damn about when 80+% wanted to stay out of a European war), FDR was illegally running war goods to the UK. He even took over Iceland under some UnConstitutional power grab to protect UK shipping. Well before Pearl Harbor.
To say FDR was pro-American system, which included no entangling alliances, mystifies me. Even without getting into FDR seizing everybody's gold, dramatically increasing the power of the Federal Government, and Anthony Sutton's work on FDR selling out to Wall Street. Other LaRoucheies, like Matt Ehret, who I generally have a lot of time for, also lumps FDR in the pro-American system camp. They also love the Bretton Woods convention, which was set up by the Communist agent Harry Dexter White, which created the modern global financial system we are in.
There is something I just don't understand about LaRoucheies and FDR as a paradigm of the American System. Empire's fight wars, not American System countries. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
I hear you, and tend in your direction. However, Anton Chaitkin makes a compelling defense of FDR. The idea that anyone "good" could become President after William McKinley was conveniently assassinated is beyond me. Take what you like and leave the rest.
I have continued to wonder why would anyone think of FDR as a proponent of the American System when he was such a WW2 warmonger? While being pro-war in general should be disqualifying enough, someone that was so instrumental in causing WW2, given it was a war planned and executed over a very long time period, should be castigated as an Empire creature. Why would anyone considered an American System person want a war with Hitler, of all wars?
Hitler was a creature of the London and Wall Street bankers, supported by Stalin to both get into power and to help develop Germany’s war making capability, and negotiated into a war with the West he, based on his 1940 peace proposals, he had absolutely no interest in fighting. Surely FDR knew all of that. Yet, FDR illegally (another disqualifier) raced America into a planned war that was of no strategic interest to us that virtually every American opposed. That is the definition of an Empire system.
Oddly, I found this quote on Cynthia Chug site: “Two systems are before the world…. 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.”
– Henry C. Carey, Harmony of Interests, 1851
The only thing WW2 "elevated" was the body count and the Military Industrial Complex's profits. Again, there must be some other reason for supporting FDR as an American systems guy. How any factor can overcome the fact that FDR was a warmonger of the first order is also a mystery to me.
You continue to make good points. I don't believe there is an example of a "good president," at least not in the past 125 years. What Cynthia points to is essentially the distinction between debt-based and credit-based economies. Discussing or attempting to implement credit-based economies often shortens one's life. One idea you might consider is this: I was having a conversation with an IC asset last week, and they said to me, "Normies out in the world look at powerful people and assume they have more agency than they actually do; most of them just do what they're told." When I look at someone like Elon Musk, that's what I think... he does what he's told. You don't get to be the Doge if you don't do what you're told. If you think you can buck the system (FDR seemed to be trying to eliminate British Colonialism), you might unexpedly die, like Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy, etc. https://substack.com/@antonchaitkin/p-152187616
Sorry for taking up so much of your time, but since you asked, here is my reply to Sasha L. when she asked if I thought we elected our own government - It may depend on your definitions of “elect” and “government”. I think we may have some input into electing politicians but they don’t run the country. If the “government” is the show actors claiming to wield power, I would say yes we have some ability to “elect” them as much we “elect” to watch a comedy, or more appropriately a tragedy, on TV. Are they the “government” under your definition?
If your definition of “government” is the people who actually govern the country (and the world), we absolutely don’t elect them. Since we, or at least I, don’t know the exact form of the organization that rules us, I don’t know if it would fit the definition of a “government”. I believe it is probably more like a Mafia or criminal cartel. Since I also believe there is absolutely no difference between the people who govern us and criminal cartels, I could use the terms interchangeably. And nobody “elects” cartels. Hope that helps. -
As I look at your last comment, which I obviously agree with completely, that only reinforces the idea that FDR was in no way a supporter of the American System. Unless you redefine the American System as a global warmonger police state empire. Then you are spot on.
Generally the article/audio offers valuable insight into how systems of financial oligarchy and control have moved and changed over time from Babylon to the present. There are some great nuggets of information. However…
It starts with universal qualifier “all modern academic historians are incompetent”. Duke Report Red flag straight off the bat! So I thought it might be interesting to look at the structure rather than the content which leads me to be cautious about blindly endorsing the content. I may indeed purchase the book in future to check out the historical references on which the narrative is based.
The author appeals to his authority and exceptionalism that transcends that of academia. It seems that they do not understand the distinction of the US constitution and sets up the dialectic of commonwealth v Empire that only he can elucidate.
Next we have the appeal to logic/rhetoric tracing the threads of history from Babylon to today with the familiar Larouche dialectics including Plato v Aristotle, Schiller v Galileo, Renaissance v Reformation , Empire v sovereign nation state etc… This is a journey we wish to take because obviously we are anti Oligarchy and pro freedom. The appeal to emotion is in the dialectic between Empirical/Darwinian/enslaved man v rational free man created in the image of God.
So the question I have as I read/listen is what is the balance here between narrative building and historicity. A paradox arises when we realise that his historicity must be referenced on many academic historical works. But aren’t these scholars incompetent?!
Another paradox is the gap between the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the realpolitik of the articles of constitution. Beneath its soaring preamble and liberal rhetoric lies a system that:
Prioritized order over liberty, strong leadership with veto powers (Hobbes),
Rationalized freedom through institutional constraint (Enlightenment rationalism),
Preserved ancient hierarchies of who deserves freedom (Aristotle).
Roman republic structure and symbolism.
Common law and habeus corpus (English).
At its core, the Constitution created a rational architecture of selective liberty, where freedom was disciplined, structured—and denied to those deemed outside the political and philosophical bounds of full personhood.
At the end of the day the author is looking at history with a political idealist lens. “Maybe “ is my take.
Agreed. I'm happy that anyone applies their critical thinking skills to the work. That said, it is a trademark of most of the LaRouche set that they fail a linguistic sensibility that would enhance their arguments. Larouche was both an academic and a politician, and I think it difficult to navigate both arenas without spillover. Thank you for the thoughtful commentary (as usual).
Unfortunately I also fear for the historical accuracy. I downloaded a sample from Kindle of the first chapter. Here’s a quote regarding Venice
“In 1096 Venice organized the first Crusade, to be followed by four more over the next 126 years.
Out of these crusades the Venetian empire was born. The infamous fourth Crusade, wherein Venice organized the sack and military occupation of Constantinople in 1204, gave Venice the island of Crete and almost all of the Byzantine colonies along the Adriatic Sea. By the middle of the 13th century, Venetian galleys dominated the Mediterranean and were actively trading in Flanders and London. The Venetian Empire was the leading imperial maritime power in all of Europe.”
Venice did not organise the first crusade. There were more than 4 ( 9 in total-the others are rarely mentioned). It was a maritime republic with colonial holdings prior to the crusades. It is true that Venice profited from the crusades mostly from supplying transport and logistics. The first crusade caused mistrust between the crusaders and Constantinople which culminated in the sacking organised by the Venetians in the fourth. Venice acquired Crete from Genoa via negotiations and over time acquired other colonies in the Adriatic. Venice was always in competition with Genoa, Pisa and Aragonese fleets for trade dominance.
The language used gives the impression that Venice was the only game in town for dramatic purposes.
Most of us have forever been slaves. The same usury has indebted us cycle after cycle since our origin. We all want that apple and will sacrifice our sovereignty for that illusion. All of us knowing there is a system in place, but too focused on getting our own share for ourselves we don’t have cooperation or respect for our fellows to do what is right, rather that what makes us rich. Greed makes slaves of us all.
From the timeline “ Venetian Fondi initiate two projects: translation of Aristotle's works into Latin and revival/republication of Roman Civil Law (Corpus Juris Civilis)”.
Unfortunately again there is no evidence for this (no references given). What is true is that the Bologna school of jurisprudence was created 1084, after the discovery of old documents and that the school was instrumental in developing both Roman and Canon law and became the place to study such matters. There is no evidence of it being other than self funding.
The reason I’m bringing it up is by coincidence I was reading a chapter on the Christian church and slavery in David Bentley Hart’ Atheist Delusions book in which he references from John T Noonan Jr in “A church that can and cannot change “ (2005) that in 1256 the city of Bologna decided to place all bonded servants within the city under ecclesiastical jurisdiction and then to grant them liberty; and the municipal government reached this decision explicitly on Christian grounds “.
So the school that developed the “evil” Roman Law actually led the abolition of slavery!
While there is much in the discussion of "The Modern Anglo-Dutch Empire" that I found useful, I am at a loss as to why LaRoucheies seem to add FDR as a defender of the American System. I think the essence of the American system is no wars of conquest and FDR was a warmonger of the first order. And the first victim of war is the American system.
FDR was talking about going to war with Germany as early as 1937 and 1938. Maybe to get out of his failed New Deal policies? By 1940, unemployment and capacity utilization were looking pretty bad in America, like some of the worst of the Depression.
Long before effectively forcing (90% oil embargo) a war on Japan theoretically over China, (which virtually nobody in America gave a damn about when 80+% wanted to stay out of a European war), FDR was illegally running war goods to the UK. He even took over Iceland under some UnConstitutional power grab to protect UK shipping. Well before Pearl Harbor.
To say FDR was pro-American system, which included no entangling alliances, mystifies me. Even without getting into FDR seizing everybody's gold, dramatically increasing the power of the Federal Government, and Anthony Sutton's work on FDR selling out to Wall Street. Other LaRoucheies, like Matt Ehret, who I generally have a lot of time for, also lumps FDR in the pro-American system camp. They also love the Bretton Woods convention, which was set up by the Communist agent Harry Dexter White, which created the modern global financial system we are in.
There is something I just don't understand about LaRoucheies and FDR as a paradigm of the American System. Empire's fight wars, not American System countries. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
I hear you, and tend in your direction. However, Anton Chaitkin makes a compelling defense of FDR. The idea that anyone "good" could become President after William McKinley was conveniently assassinated is beyond me. Take what you like and leave the rest.
I have continued to wonder why would anyone think of FDR as a proponent of the American System when he was such a WW2 warmonger? While being pro-war in general should be disqualifying enough, someone that was so instrumental in causing WW2, given it was a war planned and executed over a very long time period, should be castigated as an Empire creature. Why would anyone considered an American System person want a war with Hitler, of all wars?
Hitler was a creature of the London and Wall Street bankers, supported by Stalin to both get into power and to help develop Germany’s war making capability, and negotiated into a war with the West he, based on his 1940 peace proposals, he had absolutely no interest in fighting. Surely FDR knew all of that. Yet, FDR illegally (another disqualifier) raced America into a planned war that was of no strategic interest to us that virtually every American opposed. That is the definition of an Empire system.
Oddly, I found this quote on Cynthia Chug site: “Two systems are before the world…. 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.”
– Henry C. Carey, Harmony of Interests, 1851
The only thing WW2 "elevated" was the body count and the Military Industrial Complex's profits. Again, there must be some other reason for supporting FDR as an American systems guy. How any factor can overcome the fact that FDR was a warmonger of the first order is also a mystery to me.
You continue to make good points. I don't believe there is an example of a "good president," at least not in the past 125 years. What Cynthia points to is essentially the distinction between debt-based and credit-based economies. Discussing or attempting to implement credit-based economies often shortens one's life. One idea you might consider is this: I was having a conversation with an IC asset last week, and they said to me, "Normies out in the world look at powerful people and assume they have more agency than they actually do; most of them just do what they're told." When I look at someone like Elon Musk, that's what I think... he does what he's told. You don't get to be the Doge if you don't do what you're told. If you think you can buck the system (FDR seemed to be trying to eliminate British Colonialism), you might unexpedly die, like Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy, etc. https://substack.com/@antonchaitkin/p-152187616
Sorry for taking up so much of your time, but since you asked, here is my reply to Sasha L. when she asked if I thought we elected our own government - It may depend on your definitions of “elect” and “government”. I think we may have some input into electing politicians but they don’t run the country. If the “government” is the show actors claiming to wield power, I would say yes we have some ability to “elect” them as much we “elect” to watch a comedy, or more appropriately a tragedy, on TV. Are they the “government” under your definition?
If your definition of “government” is the people who actually govern the country (and the world), we absolutely don’t elect them. Since we, or at least I, don’t know the exact form of the organization that rules us, I don’t know if it would fit the definition of a “government”. I believe it is probably more like a Mafia or criminal cartel. Since I also believe there is absolutely no difference between the people who govern us and criminal cartels, I could use the terms interchangeably. And nobody “elects” cartels. Hope that helps. -
As I look at your last comment, which I obviously agree with completely, that only reinforces the idea that FDR was in no way a supporter of the American System. Unless you redefine the American System as a global warmonger police state empire. Then you are spot on.
Generally the article/audio offers valuable insight into how systems of financial oligarchy and control have moved and changed over time from Babylon to the present. There are some great nuggets of information. However…
It starts with universal qualifier “all modern academic historians are incompetent”. Duke Report Red flag straight off the bat! So I thought it might be interesting to look at the structure rather than the content which leads me to be cautious about blindly endorsing the content. I may indeed purchase the book in future to check out the historical references on which the narrative is based.
The author appeals to his authority and exceptionalism that transcends that of academia. It seems that they do not understand the distinction of the US constitution and sets up the dialectic of commonwealth v Empire that only he can elucidate.
Next we have the appeal to logic/rhetoric tracing the threads of history from Babylon to today with the familiar Larouche dialectics including Plato v Aristotle, Schiller v Galileo, Renaissance v Reformation , Empire v sovereign nation state etc… This is a journey we wish to take because obviously we are anti Oligarchy and pro freedom. The appeal to emotion is in the dialectic between Empirical/Darwinian/enslaved man v rational free man created in the image of God.
So the question I have as I read/listen is what is the balance here between narrative building and historicity. A paradox arises when we realise that his historicity must be referenced on many academic historical works. But aren’t these scholars incompetent?!
Another paradox is the gap between the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the realpolitik of the articles of constitution. Beneath its soaring preamble and liberal rhetoric lies a system that:
Prioritized order over liberty, strong leadership with veto powers (Hobbes),
Rationalized freedom through institutional constraint (Enlightenment rationalism),
Preserved ancient hierarchies of who deserves freedom (Aristotle).
Roman republic structure and symbolism.
Common law and habeus corpus (English).
At its core, the Constitution created a rational architecture of selective liberty, where freedom was disciplined, structured—and denied to those deemed outside the political and philosophical bounds of full personhood.
At the end of the day the author is looking at history with a political idealist lens. “Maybe “ is my take.
Agreed. I'm happy that anyone applies their critical thinking skills to the work. That said, it is a trademark of most of the LaRouche set that they fail a linguistic sensibility that would enhance their arguments. Larouche was both an academic and a politician, and I think it difficult to navigate both arenas without spillover. Thank you for the thoughtful commentary (as usual).
Unfortunately I also fear for the historical accuracy. I downloaded a sample from Kindle of the first chapter. Here’s a quote regarding Venice
“In 1096 Venice organized the first Crusade, to be followed by four more over the next 126 years.
Out of these crusades the Venetian empire was born. The infamous fourth Crusade, wherein Venice organized the sack and military occupation of Constantinople in 1204, gave Venice the island of Crete and almost all of the Byzantine colonies along the Adriatic Sea. By the middle of the 13th century, Venetian galleys dominated the Mediterranean and were actively trading in Flanders and London. The Venetian Empire was the leading imperial maritime power in all of Europe.”
Venice did not organise the first crusade. There were more than 4 ( 9 in total-the others are rarely mentioned). It was a maritime republic with colonial holdings prior to the crusades. It is true that Venice profited from the crusades mostly from supplying transport and logistics. The first crusade caused mistrust between the crusaders and Constantinople which culminated in the sacking organised by the Venetians in the fourth. Venice acquired Crete from Genoa via negotiations and over time acquired other colonies in the Adriatic. Venice was always in competition with Genoa, Pisa and Aragonese fleets for trade dominance.
The language used gives the impression that Venice was the only game in town for dramatic purposes.
See, hear & touch-how we enslaved ourselves from this.
Most of us have forever been slaves. The same usury has indebted us cycle after cycle since our origin. We all want that apple and will sacrifice our sovereignty for that illusion. All of us knowing there is a system in place, but too focused on getting our own share for ourselves we don’t have cooperation or respect for our fellows to do what is right, rather that what makes us rich. Greed makes slaves of us all.