LATEST FROM LAROUCHE
LaRouche Campaign Second in Individual Contributions Of All Democratic Presidential Candidates
LaRouche in 2004, Lyndon LaRouche's campaign committee for the Democratic Presidential nomination, is second in the number of individual contributions, and sixth in total money raised among all Democratic Presidential candidates, according to the Federal Election Commission's website.
LaRouche in 2004 has raised a cumulative total of $4,564,654.66 through June 30, 2003. In the most recent quarter, April 1 through June 30, the campaign raised $839,744.70, approximately $20,000 more than in the previous quarter.
LaRouche's total number of individual contributions for the campaign is 12,464, the second highest of all the candidates, with 4,630 of those individual contributions raised in the most recent quarter. (Individual contributions are transactions by individuals giving $200 or more in total.)
Here are the most recent figures for all Democratic candidates taken from the Federal Election Commission at www.fec.gov.
|
Cumulative number of
Individuals
|
Cumulative Candidate Contributions
(Amount in $)
|
Dean |
14,424
|
10,545,459.56
|
LaRouche |
12,464
|
4,564,654.66
|
Kerry |
11,622
|
16,028,267.92
|
Edwards |
10,001
|
11,936,277.51
|
Lieberman |
7,395
|
8,151,575.99
|
Gephardt |
6,305
|
9,787,981.77
|
Graham |
2,806
|
3,136,325.79
|
Kucinich |
1,528
|
1,720,354.71
|
Sharpton |
269
|
137415.00
|
Braun |
235
|
217,108.85
|
Source: Federal Election Commission
* Individual contributions are transactions by individuals giving $200 or more in total.
LaRouche to Ibero-American Youth: What Is True Leadership?
Lyndon LaRouche addressed a tri-city Ibero-American cadre school July 5, by telephone, where members of the Ibero-American LaRouche Youth Movement were gathered in Mexico City; Buenos Aires, Argentina; and in Leesburg, Virginia. A question-and-answer session follows LaRouche's initial remarks.
You young peopleand, of course, there may be some old goats among you, but don't pay much attention to them, because I'm talking to youare part of an international association of growing international power. The power centers around my figure, presently as a U.S. Presidential pre-candidate, as a candidate for the nomination of the Democratic Party, and I'm the only person of nine others officially running, who has anywhere near the qualifications to actually be nominated or elected to that office next year.
In the meantime, my position is that, because of my credibilitythe fact that I've been correct on the international financial/monetary process for more than three decades, where every other known person on that subject has been wrongis of importance. Not only that, but what I've been right about is a crucially determining factor in the present world situation.
Now, you have the following situation: You have emerging in Eurasiathat is, in Western Europe and in Asia generally, you have a coalition emerging, a coalition for survival. This coalition is not yet committed to what they must be committed to, that is, we need to reform the Bretton Woods system, to go back to the old Bretton Woods system. This means putting the present IMF and World Bank into bankruptcy reorganizationthat is, receivership called bankruptcy, by governments.
Collectively, the IMF and World Bank has to go into receivership by a group of governments exerting international authority over the range of the IMF's and World Bank's initial charter. This will also involve, in a sense, participation by institutions of the United Nations Organization, which have an association with the IMF and World Bank. But otherwise, in each country, each national government must put its central banking system into receivership, that is government-controlled receivership, for bankruptcy reorganization.
This reorganization is indispensable, because any attempt to refinance or roll over existing world debts, within the range of existing institutions, will result in a dark age for all humanity. By dark age, I mean a collapse of the world population from now over 6 billion, down to something less than 1 billionand that in a generation or so. And this is unacceptable. Any failure to put the present IMF system, the present world monetary system, into bankruptcy reorganization of the type I've described, would be the greatest mass murder in all human existence. So therefore, it's not acceptable.
A Shift in Europe
You have in Europe, as with the recent discussion from Berlusconi, the Prime Minister of Italy, who is now in charge of the leadership of the European Union for the next six months, until the end of the year, the announcement, again, of the European Investment Bank policy, which means that these governments who participate, are going outside European Union agreements, on the basis that what they're talking about is long-term investments, not annual budgets. And therefore, long-term investments in basic economic infrastructure and science-driver development programs is the policy. You have a similar complementary policy in Asia, notably China; India is now cooperating; Southeast Asia, and so forth.
So therefore, Europeans and others are talking about large-scale development projects, as in China, in which government investment in basic economic infrastructurewater projects, power projects, transportation projects, and so forththese measures will generate sufficient increase in both employment and productivity, to carry the economies through on a year-to-year basis. There will be enough employment, enough wealth produced, to carry national economies from year to year.
This means that we're going to have to freeze much of the debt, cancel large portions of it as being illegitimate: All of Latin American debt is in net effect illegitimate. It should be cancelled immediately, because all of these nations have more than paid for everything they've incurred as debt prior to the 1971-72 change in the system. And the debt since then is fake debt, based on refinancing on IMF terms, and the IMF terms and so forth, have been fake. They've been thieving.
So that's the situation.
What is lacking, however, is the willingness to go beyond very good, large-scale infrastructure projectsand they're being proposed inside the United States too, at the state level. But to go beyond that, to realize that these programs will not work, unless we also put the present monetary/financial system into bankruptcy reorganization. That, so far, is what no government, in Eurasia, for example, has been willing to entertain. The best we've had has been in Italy, where the Chamber of Deputies, and also Senate groups, have proposed a New Bretton Woods system, that is, a return to the monetary policies of the former Bretton Woods system, as opposed to what has been in place since 1971-72. That's going on. But otherwise nothing.
Therefore, my particular role, my unique role as a candidate for President of the United States, is to push now, as a candidate, even as a so-called pre-candidate, to push now to provide international leadership for those forces who are willing to support, both inside and outside the United States, large-scale infrastructure investments as a method of employment and growth to stave off a depression collapse. My job is to push this one thing, which is indispensable. Otherwise, all these fine plans will not work. That's my role.
My corollary role is in dealing with the alternative; that is, the enemy's alternative. The financier groups which gave us Hitler, the Vichy government, Mussolini, Franco, and so forth, and the PAN Party in Mexico, these groups are the financier groups behind these political influences, and are moving now, as they did in the 1920s and '30s, to set up international systems of fascist dictatorships, as the alternative to accepting the role of government in putting a bankrupt system into bankruptcy reorganization. They're out to prevent something like Franklin Roosevelt from happening today, as they fought against Franklin Roosevelt, and as they fought to put Hitler into power back in the early 1930s. So that's the issue.
I represent the opposition, the leading international political opposition, to international fascism, typified by the formation of the PAN in Mexico itself. This international fascism is now centered in the government, on the position of the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. Now, Dick Cheney is not a very intelligent man. As a matter of fact, he's in a sense like a ventriloquist's dummy. His wife is his controller; she speaks, and his mouth moves, and the words come out of his mouth. But it's the people around her who are actually running Dick Cheney.
Around Dick Cheney are a group of people who are outright fascists. Many have Trotskyist and similar backgrounds, who have gone over to fascism, such as Wolfowitz in the Defense Department, such as Bolton in the State Department, Wurmser in the State Department, Lawrence Libby in the office of the Vice President, and so forth and so on. These fascists are lackeys, who have seized control of the U.S. government, control of the mindwhich is not much of a mindof the current President. They have been controlling and orchestrating policies.
They came to power, not by election but by an operation run from inside the United States at a very high level, which is known to the world today as 9/11, that is, the three aircraft attacking, respectively, the two towers in New York City, and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. This was done for the same reason that the Nazis ran the Reichstag Fire in 1943, in order to create the pretext for establishing Adolf Hitler as a dictator in Germany. The cause of World War II.
Today, Cheney and company were brought into the present position of power as a result of 9/11, and 9/11 was done in order to bring Cheney into that position of, technically, more or less dictatorial power with his circle. These fellows are threatening not only world war; they're threatening the use of nuclear weapons against nations which have no nuclear weapons. They're using this as a method of terror, of Nazi-like Nietzschean terror, to intimidate the world into submitting to a world government under them. They, in turn, are simply the puppets of financier groups, just like the same groups of financiers who were behind Hitler, behind the Vichy government, behind Mussolini, behind Franco, and so forth. And also William Buckley and his friends in Mexico. So this is the problem.
Therefore, my position, the leadership I'm giving, internationallyand it is internationalthe repercussions are international. I'm not just a U.S. candidate. I'm the U.S. candidate who is campaigning effectively for support from leading nations of the world. I'm the one candidate for President of the United States, who can bring the world back together, under these conditions of crisis. Now, that's who I am. And that's who you are. You're a key part of the process.
Eisenhower Saved the U.S. from Fascism
Let's look at another aspect of the process. Go back to the beginning of the 1960s. Eisenhower, who had opposed the fascist takeover of the United Statesremember, Truman was essentially a fascist. He was the one who brought the Right to power in the United States. He was the one who unleashed nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for no military reason, for political terror reasons. He was the one who started the right-wing terror in the United States. He was the one who created what was called McCarthyism, and we saved the United States from an immediate fascist takeover by the election of Dwight Eisenhower, who was opposed to these kinds of fascist military and other methods. So, Eisenhower was President from 1953 into his retirement in 1961; and outgoing, he warned people against what he called the "military-industrial complex," which is nothing but this pack of fascists which is behind Cheney and his co-thinkers, so-called, today.
From that point on, think of what you went through, or your parents went through. You had, first of all, the Bay of Pigs (and they were really pigs) coming into Cuba. They were also the friends of Joe Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut who qualifies as a Bay of Pigs memorial object. You had this process. Then, you had the Missile Crisis. The world was terrified; we were at the brink of a general, full-scale thermonuclear war. Then we had various coups against various governments, in various forms, around the world. We had the assassination of Kennedy, which was covered up by John McCloy, or on orders of John McCloy, and was never really investigated by any official agency. It was a big cover-up. Then we had the plunge into the Vietnam War, the Indo-China War.
These developments of the early 1960s, coming on the heels of the impact of the Truman fascist era in the postwar United States, terrified the population. It especially terrified those who were yet still adolescent at that time, who were about to enter adulthood, who were about to enter universities, for example. So you had the rock-drug-sex counterculture. You had the cultural paradigm-shift in the population. Around the Americas, you had the spread of existentialism, which was already a disease in most of these countries of South America, but it led into this counterculture process. All the elements of the left wing of the fascist movement. It prevailed.
In the United States, we had the so-called '68ers; we had, in Europe, the '68ers. Now, some of these people, who are now between their 50s and 60s, are running most of the governments and business institutions and similar institutions, universities and so forth, in the Americas and in Europe. These guys, the Baby Boomers, and others, who were not essentially as highly privileged as those Baby Boomers are today, are nonetheless affected by the cultural impact of the terror inflicted, during the early 1960s, upon them.
So, you have a whole generation of people who were coming out of adolescence in the 1960s, who were hit hard by the impact of nuclear terror and similar kinds of things then.
So therefore, the world went through a cultural paradigm-shift, from optimism about the postwar recovery and so forth, to pessimism, cultural pessimism. We went from the commitment to scientific and technological process in the production of physical goods and infrastructure, to the anti-technology movement typified by the so-called environmentalists, from the early 1970s on. But even earlier, by the '68ers, who were anti-progress. They were anti-society, anti-economythe leaders were.
So, this ideology was crucial in transforming the United States, in particular, from a producer societythe most productive society on the planetinto becoming a parasitical, increasingly predatory, consumerist society, living on the blood, for example, of Mexicans who grow the food for the United States, but at wages at which Mexicans can barely continue to exist. This is typical around the world. This is what's happened in Central and South America. This is what's happened to Africa, with the genocide being done by the English-speaking and Israeli groups operating there. This is the big problem.
A Partnership To Save Humanity
So, therefore, you, who represent a younger generation, now in the approximate equivalent of a university age, realize that the society your parents' generation has given you, is a catastrophic failure. And that if the present trends continue, you have no future! This is true around the world. Not all parts of the world, but especially in Europe, and in the Americas, throughout the Americas.
Therefore, you recognize that you have to change the way things are going, if you are to have a future. If you are to avoid the terrible penalties which are now looming before you, with this Great Depression which is already ongoing.
Your parents' generation generally lacks the moral ability, on its own, to deal with this crisis. They're so pessimistic, so demoralized, so corrupt, so looking for personal lifestyle gratifications, rather than a role in history, that they will do nothing, generally, to change it, unless you intervene. That is, if you, who are becoming adults, adult children of this generation of Baby Boomers, if you move, your going into political motion, will move the older generation, your parents' generation, as nothing else can do it on this planet.
Therefore, your partnership with me, in moving to change the world from the plunge into a lemming-like abyss, into a hopeful future, your relationship to me is the most important thing on this planet today. Not because of anything else but the fact that we, together, are playing a crucial role in saving humanity from a self-inflicted crisis.
That's who you are, that's what you are.
I propose for youit's your development: Don't depend upon the universities. Don't disregard universities, of course, but you have to recognize that universities are polluted by the culture; the cultural changes which occurred, especially those since the early to middle 1960s, have polluted these universities. They no longer meet the cognitive standard that they used to meet. The courses are largely junk. What is taught and the methods by which they're taught, is garbage. But, they're still important institutions. Therefore, you have to have an approach to university life, which may be in it, but also, simultaneously, independent of it.
To this end, I have raised this question of Gauss's 1799 paper, and I've also writtenwhich is now in the process of publication and circulation, a paper entitled, "Visualizing the Complex Domain,"1 which in a sense explains the deeper implications of Gauss's 1799 paper. My purpose is to give young people a point of reference, from which to launch their own, independent overview of what is going on in the culture, both in terms of physical science, and in terms of art and so forth, in general.
So, that's where we are. You representeven though still few in numbersyou represent what we've demonstrated in the United States, and what we are demonstrating in some degree in France, and probably will demonstrate in Germany. You represent, in the Americas, a fast-growing but small influence, which, in the course of the coming months, will transform politics throughout the hemisphere. That's what you represent. Enjoy it.
Okay, I turn it over to you.
Dialogue with LaRouche
Q: My name is Abraham. My question is somewhat more concrete: What is the role of Mexican youth in the world, and the transformation of the world?
LaRouche: Mexico probably has the most important position of any nation below the U.S. border. The reasons are largely historical. For example, Mexico had to fight against the worst from Europe, more than anyone else. I mean, in more recent times, other things have happened to other countries, but Mexico faced the brunt of it, with the attempt to prevent, initially from Spain, the independence of the emerging nations of the Americas, especially those below the U.S. border. So, this history of Mexico and its proximity to the United States, has put Mexico in a very special position among all the states of the Americas. Mexico has an implicit constitution, in addition to the formal Constitution, which is extremely relevant.
Mexico also has within it, because of the influence from the Nazis, and from Napoleon III's occupation of Mexico, has a history of fight within Mexico against Synarchism, or what is called Synarchism in this century, this past century. So, Mexico is in the forefront: Mexico has faced both the attack by the synarchists from the left, and the attack by the synarchists from the right.
For example, Soustelle. Take the case of Jacques Soustelle, a perfect example. Jacques Soustelle was an agent, specifically, of a group of influences from France, based around the association of Schlumberger, Mallet, de Neuflize. This is typified in the Western Hemisphere by the case of Jean de Menil, based out of Houston, Texas, who was the husband of the Madame Schlumberger, who was very important in this area. And these three people, Paul Rivetthe teacher of Soustelle operating in Peru; de Menil out of Houston; Schlumberger operating in Caracas; and Soustelle operating in Mexico City, actually represented the left, the so-called pro-Marxist left in Peru, in Mexico, and so forth. They became the core of the left wing of the Synarchist network, throughout the Caribbean region and below.
You're being hit now from that. This takes the form of the indigenist movement against the Mexican Republic. That's your "left," and things like that. Then the "right," the pseudo-Catholics of the right, who are the enemies of the present Popewhich is a crazy position for a Catholic to have, but they have thatwho are essentially in the tradition of William Buckley, Sr., who is a key figure in orchestrating both sides in the Cristeros War of the 1920s. So Mexico has facedin the form of Woodrow Wilson's policy in the period of the First World WarMexico has faced the brunt of the troubles in the United States and from the United States, more than any other nation.
Mexico is also a powerful nation, implicitly. It's been much destroyed since 1982, when Mexico was a much more powerful nation, when Lopéz Portillo was still President. And you look back to Lopéz Portillos' address to the United Nations in October of 1982, you see the voice, the spirit, of the actual Mexico and its leading role in the hemisphere, is clearly displayed.
In more recent times, Mexico has come upon poorer times, with poorer influence and much foreign oppression, particularly with the transformation of the Bank of Mexico into an instrument of foreign power, and of the worst kind of foreign power. So therefore, that's crucial.
Look, for example: When Lopéz Portillo was fighting, and I was involved in that, as some of you know, with a discussion with him and with other people throughout the hemisphere, in fighting around the issue of the Malvinas War and the things that went with it; when he initially made his resistance to the raid on Mexico's finances in 1982, he had the initial backing both from the junta of Argentina, and the President of Brazil, both of whom, under U.S. pressure, backed off from supporting Lopéz Portillo.
So, the President of Mexico was isolated, politically, in the hemisphere, but nonetheless, he went to New York, to the United Nations, and delivered this historic address, which every patriotic Mexican should read again today. This historic address shows the true Mexico, the essence of Mexico, the essence of Mexico's brave leadership within the hemisphere. And it shows also the importance of Mexico, relative to the efforts of Brazil and Argentina today. Mexico is still number one in the hemisphere in this particular fight.
Therefore, being youth in Mexico, in particular, you actually carry a legacy, even from people you do not personally know, that the intellectual youth of Mexico, when organized in a patriotic venture, not only on behalf of Mexico itself but on behalf of the hemisphere, on behalf of justice on the planet, represent a powerful force, albeit only an intellectual forcebut it's that kind of intellectual force that makes the greatest revolutions in human history.
Leadership, Not Sancho Panza
Q: I would like to ask what would be the sublime state which a young person should have as a concept to face the challenge in front of us, and not to be like Sancho Panza in Don Quixote, as you say? And I would like to hear your opinions about this.
LaRouche: Very good. I like the question, because it goes to the essence of the matter. It's something which I address in part in this paper on the "Visualization of the Complex Domain."
The essence of leadership of civilization, depends upon a long legacy, which in European civilization, runs notably from Plato, Plato's Dialogues. It became a social-political movement, in effect, through the influence of Christianity, such as the Apostles John and Paul, most notably. So, this conception of Plato's, of Platonic politics and science, and so forth, became integral to the role of Christianity, with the immediate apostles of Christ, such as John and Paul. Since that time, the struggle throughout European civilization, as it became globally extended, in particular, was for this conception of man, the special nature of man which is typified first by Christ, and a conception of man which spilled back into Judaism, through people like Philo of Alexandria, whose attacks on Aristotle are typical of this. And spilled, in a very significant way, also into Islam.
For example, in the case of the history of Spain, the Andalusian movement among Christians, Moors, and Jews in Spain, was one of the great positive cultural forces in the emergence of Europe, especially from the time of, say, Frederick II Hohenstaufen in Italy, in the 13th Century on. So, this was a great movement, but it's an expression of the role of Christianity, within an extended Hellenistic civilization, in creating what became the motion of a globally extended European civilization, both in respect to Christians, as well as Jews, and also Muslims. The Andalusian case is an example of this great fusion, which was a keystone for the development in the 15th Century, of the great Renaissance in modern civilization.
Now, the crucial thing here is this. Do we conceive man as an animal, as Thomas Huxley or Frederick Engels does? Engels says man is nothing but a beast, and the beastly behavior of some Marxists corresponds to Engels' stupid opinion on this subject. Or do we consider man as having a quality which is absent in the animals? A quality which is sublime, a quality which is divine.
The evidence for the latter, is that mankind is capable of making discoveries of universal physical principles, that is, discovering principles which are not visible to the senses, but which we can not only prove to exist as controlling the universe, but we can also willfully act on this knowledge of these principles, to change the universe. No other living creature can do that. Therefore, man, the individual, is both a creature of the flesh, as an animal is, but he's also a creature of something else, which is called spiritual: the power of discovery, of universal physical principles, typified by science, and typified by great examples of Classical artistic composition. This is it.
Now, therefore, how would you view your role in life? What makes a leader as opposed to somebody who is less than a leader, or less than a qualified leader? The qualified leader, like Jeanne d'Arc, is able to see their individual life as a talent, as a period of mortality which is given to them. Their concern is not what they get out of directly, in a sensory sense, out of that lifewhat they eat, what they wear, what they feel, their sexual experiences, and so forthbut what's important, is what their life means for humanity.
Mortal life is a brief gift, a talent. How do you spend a talent, for the future of all humanity, and the past as well? People who, like Jeanne d'Arc, are able to consider their life an expendable talent, to be spent for some great cause which makes their existence necessary in the scheme of eternity, these people are the source of leadership. They're the source of leadership in science, in creative art, and in politics.
There are other people who will see that, and say, "Yes, I guess you're right, I guess I should be like that, but gee, I don't feel like that. I have to worry about my community, my neighborhood, my family," this or that. They can't come up to the standard of Christianity, as Christ posed it to his people, who said, "What do I do? What do I do?" You have to give up everything, that is, your attachment to all kinds of mortal gratifications. Make them purely secondary, incidental, in order to focus on that thing which gives your life eternal meaning. What you are contributing to mankind, how you are honoring the contributions, and preserving the contributions of the past, and passing these on, improved, to the future. Such people, with such conceptions, are leaders. Those who can see this, can be influenced by it but can not actually commit themselves to that kind of position, personally, are lesser leaders. They are useful, but lesser leaders.
Unfortunately, in the history of mankind, there are very few people, so far, who can make that kind of decision, as typified by the case of Jeanne d'Arc. Because remember, it was her sacrifice, her willing, conscious sacrifice, which made possible the emergence of the first modern nation-state, that of Louis XI in France. The first state in which the general welfare of the population as a whole, was the primary obligation and raison d'être for the existence of the state.
This idea, of course, is already in Plato. It's in the mouth of Socrates in the Republic, the concept of agape', the general welfarethe posterity of mankind and its general welfare. It's a law of society. But Jeanne d'Arc made possible that kind of state by her sacrifice. She was crucial in it. She also inspired the great reform of a shattered papacy, and helped its reorganization and restoration during the course of the 15th Century.
So, what we need, primarily, are people who can become such leaders. Not that I'm recommending immolation, or torture by the Inquisition, which many had to do, as she did, but the point is, we need those kind of people who can make that kind of personal decision, to commit themselves to the cause of humanity, to the cause of their nation within humanity, above all else. We also need people who have, shall we say, less character, less strongly-developed character, weaklings who compromise between the sense of being an animal and being a true human being.
Thus, the role of the Youth Movement is to produce from itself as large a ration as possible of true leaders. That's why I focus on this Gauss 1799 paper, because it posesand I detail this in my paper on "Visualizing the Complex Domain"it poses the question, the question inside you, of what is a true leader. How can I know that I'm a true leader? How do I know that I have within me, the capacity to provide the kind of leadership that society requires of me? And that does it, and that's the way I approach this.
So, therefore, we need everybody, either to support the idea of the distinction between the man and the beast, or to go to a higher step, of embodying that quality, that sense of immortality, which is the mark of a true leader.
Knowledge vs. Sense-Perception
Q: Good morning, Mr. LaRouche. I'm going to quote a paragraph from one of your books, "How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man,"2 which says, "You have to recognize that the postulates and axioms of the so-called Euclidean geometry are wrong. You have to adopt circular action instead of such Euclidian axiomatic assumptions of the point and the line. You have to understand the idea of limitless phase-space, and we have to accept the ideas of Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler, and da Vinci, of a boundary that is defined." My question is, what do you mean by boundary, a finite boundary? Thank you.
LaRouche: This is the question of sense-perception versus knowledge. Take two discoveries. I refer to this, and the answer which I'll give you is a summary of an answer included in this paper on "Visualizing the Complex Domain."
There are two great modern principles of modern science which separate all earlier science from modern science, that is, true modern science. This work is based on the influence centered around Nicholas of Cusa, in the 15th Century, and by the influence of two of his followers, Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci. Then you have the work of Kepler, at the close of the 16th Century and beginning of the 17th Century. So, Kepler discovered a principle of universal gravitation, a concept which did not exist in human knowledge prior to that time.
Subsequently, a follower of the work of Kepler, Fermat in France, a famous physician and mathematician, conducted an experiment which demonstrated that the universe does not function physically on the basis of a pathway of shortest distance, but rather functions on the basis of a pathway of quickest time, the so-called principle of refraction.
These two principles exemplify modern science as opposed to empiricism, the empiricism of Aristotle, or the reductionism of Aristotle, the empiricism of Paolo Sarpi, Galileo Galilei, and so forth. That's the great modern fight.
Now, the point is, a universal principle, such as gravitation, or a principle of universal least action, which is the implication of Fermat's discovery, does not exist as an object of sense-perception. You can not see it, you can not smell it, you can not touch it. Yet, we're able to demonstrate that these principles actually control the behavior of the visible universe.
So, therefore, there's something which the mind can encompass, called a universal principle, which controls the universe, as if from outside the objects of sense-perception. This ability of mankind to discover such principlesand this same ability was demonstrated by the Pythagoreans, by Plato and so forth, earlier, in their dialectical method for geometrythis method distinguishes man fundamentally from all forms of animal life. This is the so-called noetic principle, as described by Vernadsky. The ability of mankind, the mind of man, is superior to life and non-living processes in the universe, in its power and authority.
So, that's the notion of immortality.
Now this leads to the question of, not only what is man? If you say that man is only a beast of the senses, then you are degrading man to a beast. When you degrade man to a beast, as Russell does, you are committing a Satanic act of evil. All fanatical materialists, including empiricists, are evil, because they degrade man to a mere beast, by denying the existence of that which separates man from the beasts: the ability to discover and control the universal physical principles of the universe.
Now the concept of the universe, which is ancient, comes from astronomy. It comes from what the Pythagoreans called "spherics," in which they saw the starlit night as a kind of great extended sphere, the interior surface of a great sphere, and looked at the motions of stars and planets on this sphere. And this was the idea of universe, that which encompasses the Earth, which encompasses the existence of man.
What we know by universe, we equate in modern science with those principles which are universal. Now, we know that there probably are an indefinite number of universal physical principles of the universe, of which we know only some. Hopefully, we are discovering and mastering more as it goes along. But we know that the universe is composed of nothing but these physical principles, which correspond to the universal principles, in the sense that we use "universe" to describe the stellar system, the visual stellar system. We're saying that nothing exists outside the universe, as defined by universal physical principles. In other words, you can not make a sense-perceptual determination of what a universe is. You must deal with the universe as only man can know the existence of a universe, in terms of universal physical principles.
Now, what we say is, nothing exists outside the universe, as defined by man's actual and potential knowledge of universal physical principles. That is, that there is nothing outside the universe. Secondly, there is nothing that occurred before the existence of that universe. Third, nothing will exist after the existence of that universe. This is what Einstein means mathematically, by saying that the universe is finite, but without bounds: It's boundless. There is no external casing of the universe. The universe is finite. That is, it is limited by the domain of universal physical principles, of which we know only some. We are looking for more, but that universe, so implicitly defined, is what exists, and no other universe exists.
Thus, only manwith a sense of immortality, associated with the discovery of universal physical principles and their applicationonly man is capable of conceiving the universe. That is why Christianity argues, in epistemology, that man is made in the image of the Creator, because man is the only created existent being which has the same qualities which are necessarily attributes of the Creator.
National vs. Central Banking
Q: (from Argentina) My question is perhaps a little bit technical, respecting the first part of your talk. When you talk about reorganizing the IMF, and later you talk about a process of receivershiphow can we implement that, this year?
LaRouche: The problem here, the difficulty arises from European sources into South America: the idea of the existence of a government coexisting with an independent central banking system. There's where the problem lies.
Now, what is an independent central banking system? Go back to about 12 centuries ago. Go back to the time that Otto III was becoming the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, in which Otto III sort of turned Venice loose from the previous war of the Ottonian Emperors. And Venice then went on to subvert, and ultimately conquer and destroy Byzantium, as in the Fourth Crusade, which was a purely criminal, swindling act organized by Venice. Venice then dominated Europe, increasingly from about 800 AD into about the late part of the 17th Century. It was an imperial-maritime-financier power. The power resided in an oligarchy, a financier oligarchy, which were the leading families of Venice, who were, in their financial aspect, called fondi, or funds.
Europe was dominated under the power of the Normans. The Norman conquest of England was actually a consolidation of a certain power which became known later as Plantagenet, or Anjou influences, and this close association of this military order, associated with the Normans in Europe, became the predatory factor which became the characteristic of a so-called feudalism, into modern times. This was pure evil,
Now, there was an effort, several efforts, including the 15th-Century Renaissance, to establish a true nation-state, based on the concept of the general welfare and so forth. We had the first such states: Louis XI's France and Henry VII's England. We know that both of them later degenerated significantly, in the course of the 16th Century, under the influence of the religious wars and similar things, orchestrated by Venice, from about 1511 to 1648. And this is what destroyed Spain. Spain was destroyed by this Venetian takeover of Spanish policy, from 1492, essentially, on. And that's what happened to Spain in the middle of the 17th Century.
So, in this process, there was an effort to create a true republic, going beyond what had been accomplished by Louis XI and by Henry VII of England, into establishing a true republic. And they selected as the target of this, in the 17th Century, selected English-speaking North America, but they selected particularly English-speaking North America around a young man with a youth movement: Benjamin Franklin. The leading minds of Europe contributed their efforts, and influence and ideas, to the development of this youth movement around Benjamin Franklin. That's a whole history in itself.
So therefore, we established in the United States, as of 1789, prior to the storming of the Bastille, we established the United States as the first true republic in modern history. The viability of the U.S. Constitutional system is based on the fact that the Constitution as a whole is based on the principles set forth in the Preamble. That is, every other part of the Constitution is subject to revision, except the Preamble. And every part of the Constitution, every law passed, every amendment, is subject to interpretation and revision according to the principles of the Preamble. Only the Preamble is, in a sense, sacred. Everything else is subject to interpretation. Every other institution. A careful interpretation, but nonetheless so.
Because of this characteristic of the U.S. Constitution, the Preamble, the United States has so far survived. The first time it was threatened seriously, was with the Confederate insurrection organized from London. The second time was actually the attack, now, from the so-called Synarchist effort to take over the United States. That's the situation.
The American Model Republic
Now, at that point, at precisely the time that the American model of a republic, was threatening to "infect" Europe with reformsfor example, the Bailly-Lafayette reform of the [French] Constitution, the constitutional reform under Louis XVI, the one that was aborted, and aborted chiefly by the storming of the Bastillethat this reform was aborted. So therefore, except for an effort around Charles de Gaulle and the Fifth Republic, there has never been a significant effort toward actually establishing a true republic in Europe. Instead, what has happened, is we have had so-called more or less democratic reforms of pre-existing feudal institutions, in the form of a monarchy or a Presidency modeled upon a monarchy, and a parliamentary system modeled upon a democratization of the feudal parliament.
But all through this period, these governments, reform governments, in modern history of the 18th Century, the 19th Century, and 20th Century, have been based on a veto control over government, and control of the money system, by Venetian-modelled private banking institutions of the type of the fondi. A central banking system, a so-called independent central banking system, is a parasite, a Venetian-style parasite, representing specific family interests who are looting and sucking the blood of the country which they occupy. That's the problem.
Now, what is required, therefore, is, as the U.S. Constitution prescribesdespite the Federal Reserve System, and despite the criminal thing that President Jackson did under the influence of his owner, Martin Van Burendespite these corruptions of the U.S., the U.S. system is based on the Constitutional provision that there is no authority to issue or to regulate money on behalf of the United States, except for the U.S. government, specifically, the authority of the Executive branch of the government, with the consent of the Legislative branch, the Congress.
This is not true in any other nation, generally, in the world today. There's a special case in China, but generally it's not true in any other nation. Therefore, when people talk about reforms of international institutions, they accept the silly idea that money has a value, independent of the determination of government. Now, the only institution in the world today, in modern civilization, which assumes that role, is the central banking system, as a consortium, or part of a consortium of independent central banking systems, which are controlled, in turn, by private financier interests, like the Federal Reserve System.
So therefore, the problem we have today is this parasite, the financier system, typified by the central banking system, now, as with the case of Hitler, moves to establish a dictatorship, to prevent the state, that is, government, from using the lawful authority of government to put a corrupt and decadent financial system back under government control. That's what the issue is. We've come to the point that the amount of debt in the world, financial debt, far exceeds any possible payment, without genocide against the human race. Therefore, this system is hopelessly bankrupt.
Therefore, the only agency which can decide is either these bankerslike Robert Mundell's friends now meeting in Siena, Italy, these bunch of fascistsor governments. The government must therefore act to save humanity, by putting the central banking systems into receivership. That is, the government takes them over. It doesn't privatize every bank. It takes over the central banking system and takes over the ordering, the organization, and regulation of the money system and the banking systems.
Each government does it on the basis of its own sovereignty. However, since we need an international financial-monetary system, we go back to the lesson we should have learned from the immediate postwar period, with the initial form of the IMF. We need a concert of agreements, among sovereign governments, to regulate international financial and monetary relations among states, of the type that was successful, in, say, the 1950s, at least in many parts of the world. We go back to that example, and say, now we go to what is called national banking. That does not mean that the banks in a country are all nationalized, in the sense of being public property. On the contrary: It means that a central bank, a government central bank, as an auxiliary extension of control of the Treasury of that country, the Executive branch, with the consent of the Legislature, sets up rules for banking under which the financial system and the banking system in general, particularly, will operate from that point on. And that's what we have to do.
If we don't do that, good-bye, humanity. Good-bye, civilization. We've come to a point of irony and paradox in history. We must eliminate, now, the feudal power, the feudal tradition of central banking systems, of independent central banking systems, and restore a system of national banking, under which private banks within a nation, will function according to rules set by national banking, under the direction of the authority of the Executive branch, and under the provisions of law provided by Legislatures. We must, at the same time, establish a reasonable, good order, in agreements among sovereign nation-states, to create a world monetary system which can sustain long-term loanswe're talking 25 to 50 year loansat 1-2% simple interest rate, chiefly for the purpose, immediately, of great infrastructure projects, in water management, in transportation, in power generation and distribution, in public health, in education, and so forththat is, the public sector, these kinds of things, and use this as the driver for world economic recovery.
We're talking about a world in which 50%, approximately, of the total capital formation of nations will be in the public sector, by governments, and the public sector will be the driver on which the private sector depends for the stimulation of employment and progress. Additionally, of course, government must take responsibility for sponsoring, initiating, promoting scientific and technological progress for the benefit of the economy as a whole.
1. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Visualizing the Complex Domain," EIR, July 11, 2003; or go the website: www.larouchein2004.com.
2. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man," Fidelio, Fall 1994.
|