The Lead

Can the World Return The United States to The American System?

by Dennis Speed (EIRNS) — Sep. 17, 2026

To grasp what is actually going on in this fast-changing and dangerous strategic situation, in which clear heads are attempting to not only avoid thermonuclear war, but to do that through advancing fundamental economic development through a new security and development architecture, as discussed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Ten Principles, it is necessary to “think outside of the ideological box.” As Brazilian elder statesman and Special Advisor to President Lula, Celso Amorim, said in a recent interview, “We need to work hard, we must not give up, and sometimes we need to turn a blind eye—or perhaps even hold our noses—to continue the integration process with countries that today think in a way that is totally different from ours.” 

Therefore, let us posit a proposition that will challenge the ideological box. It will probably appear at first glance to be wrong, if not downright preposterous. We contend, however, that unless one grasps this, it is impossible to actually make sense of what is happening, and therefore, what to actually do about it. Leaders in Russia and in China, as well as selective persons in other parts of the world, understand what we propose here, but the vast majority of analysts refuse to grasp it.

We propose that the two choices—the two systems before the world today, are, as they have been for the past 250 years, the “British system” and the “American System.” We do not refer here to geographic or geopolitical entities. We refer to the choice between colonialism and sovereignty; between economic slavery and economic development; between supremacy doctrines, military, financial, ethnic/racial and otherwise, and justice and mutual respect for all people. Too clearly, everything manifested today in United States foreign policy, everything exemplified by its leadership, and everything supported by its instruments of power—including what we see in Gaza—seems to support the former, not the latter. So, does the United States, can the United States, have anything to do with the “American System” to which we refer? If the answer is, “No,” and remains “No,” thermonuclear war is essentially inevitable.

The British System is today represented by the Bank of England’s Mark Carney, who from his latest, lower-rung position as Canadian Prime Minister, is now doing his best imitation of earlier British agents, like the Bank of England’s Montagu Norman, to continue the financial hegemony of the City Of London. Carney, personally at a loss for eloquence, to obscure the banality of his own thinking has sought the aid of authors Vaclav Havel and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in recent speeches at Davos and Strassburg. Though he may initially “sound good,” if one listens more carefully, his actual intent is seen, or at least sensed, to be different than claimed. For example, at Davos in June, Carney said, “I would like to tell you that the other countries, especially intermediate powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order…”

The question is, what kind of order? Carney is still advocating, and implementing, the “financial regime change” he proposed in 2019, in Jackson Hole, Wyoming—a form of regime change that can only be achieved through war against Russia and China. That means the implementation of a 21st century version of the financial policies that Hitler’s campaign manager and co-founder of the Bank for International Settlements, Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, pioneered in the 1930s. Schacht’s work with Montagu Norman’s Bank of England to co-found that Bank is the precursor to Carney’s actual deployment, for which the Canadian Prime Ministry is actually a cover for the credulous. Carney refers to his scheme as the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank. Humans refer to it simply as “the NATO bank” This “financial policy” will lead to thermonuclear war in the short term, though what is called “strategic miscalculation.”

As for the American System, you can find it in America—but you have to look to the fight being waged by the BRICS, SCO and the Global South. Celso Amorim, the Special Advisor to the President of Brazil, after the BRICS Summit (which President Lula was unable to attend due to the upcoming October 4 Presidential elections in Brazil), in subsequent meetings and discussion with India and Brazil, proposed a collaborative diplomacy. Nations that make up the BRICS-Plus group, and particularly its founding members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, would demonstrate, through their collaboration, how an international harmony of interests can overcome the desire to shrink the world back into inter-imperialist “spheres of influence” such as discussed by post-colonial Neanderthals like Britain’s David Starkey, who speak about a “return to the world of (Lord) Palmerston.”

The China Daily reports that “(Amorin) called for closer communication and coordination between the two countries on multilateral platforms, including BRICS, to jointly contribute to world peace and development.” And in New Delhi, Amorin emphasized for the integration of South America, in order to act, especially with respect to policies of economic development, in a unified way, to “maintain strategic autonomy” in a post-unipolar world.  

Brazil’s call for South American integration, and the international diplomacy it and other countries carried out, at the recent conferences of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and the BRICS summit, are the anti-colonial policies that once upon a time the United States represented. China’s call for the Four Global Initiatives—the global governance, development, civilization, and security initiatives, are also congruent with this outlook. As for the United States?

The American System, even today, does exist in the United States as well—but its proponents are not in control of its branches of government. When Congressman Thomas Massie attempted to force a vote on a resolution calling for the impeachment of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth for violating the Constitution of the United States yesterday, September 17, House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson instead dismissed the House for seven weeks—until after the November election.  Former Congressman and Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich had on Wednesday written concerning Massie’s action: “Tomorrow, Thursday, September 17th, is Constitution Day in the United States, when we remember the signing of the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia, in 1787, “to secure the blessings of liberty….” That day America put the official stamp of freedom on the Declaration of Independence. The signing and ratification the following year, finalized America’s extraordinary transition from a dependent colony ruled by the British, to an independent, self-governing Republic.

“It is appropriate on this day, the 239th anniversary of our Constitution, that Members of the House of Representatives can stand and vote to validate their constitutional oath and to impress upon the self-proclaimed Secretary of War that his days of waging preemptive, aggressive war are over. The current Secretary’s practice of extrajudicial killings, of playing policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner will be at an end, if the House votes to Impeach.”

No such vote was allowed. The Congress was dismissed. The American System was dismissed by the Epstein class. And the wars go on, in the name of the American people. The Independent candidacies of LaRouche Presidential candidate Diane Sare, and Congressional candidate Jose Vega, in solidarity with the actions of the Global South and its drive to end colonialism and imperialism, represent the seed-crystal through which the American System can yet be returned to the corridors of power in the United States.

Contents

Strategic War Danger

Collapsing Imperial System

New World Paradigm

Collapsing Imperial System

Harley Schlanger Update

Watch The Daily Update with Harley Schlanger, a short video update available every weekday morning from The LaRouche Organization.

In-Depth