LaRouche Calls for Immediate — U.S.-Led Famine Relief for North Korea

LaRouche in Dialogue with Youth

From Volume1, Issue Number 39 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Dec. 2, 2002

LATEST FROM LAROUCHE

LaRouche Calls for Immediate — U.S.-Led Famine Relief for North Korea

Nov. 27—Lyndon LaRouche, Democratic Party Presidential pre-candidate in the 2004 elections, is calling on President Bush and other world leaders to conduct an immediate food relief effort into North Korea, with absolutely no political strings attached. The food aid is urgent to avoid a devastating famine, and, in LaRouche's plan, would serve as a prelude to discussions between the United States, North Korea, and other interested parties, concerning all of the unresolved bilateral and multilateral issues currently on the diplomatic table.

LaRouche declared that the food assistance program should constitute a preemptive action, to avert an otherwise severe famine, and that it must be clear that this is an unconditional humanitarian intervention. Nevertheless, LaRouche emphasized that such an action, on the part of the Bush Administration and others, would serve as a useful foundation for opening productive discussions on other issues.

* * * * *

California Cadre School

LaRouche in Dialogue with Youth

This is a transcript of the final part of a dialogue between Lyndon LaRouche and members of the LaRouche Youth Movement at a cadre school in California, Nov. 16, 2002. The first part appeared in this section of EIW #38, dated Nov. 25.

How Is Christ Unique?

Question: Hi, this is Anna, from Los Angeles. Is there a difference between Christ and Socrates, or Joan of Arc?

LaRouche: Oh sure! Absolutely! More interesting, of course, are the relationship of similarities. For example, the beatification of Jeanne d'Arc by the Papacy, which has been recently reaffirmed, in a certain, special way, by the present Pope, shows precisely that: that there's a similarity. She represented the Sublime, as Schiller defines it. Socrates absolutely defines the Sublime, in the broadest way, as Plato presents Socrates to us.

Christ is very unique in this respect. Because Christ is—what? What does Christ say? The thing that is most celebrated about Christianity in music, for example the Bach St. John Passion and St. Matthew Passion, typifies this: that the audience—just imagine what it's like. You have a great performance (unfortunately, they keep spoiling them these days), but a great performance of the St. John or St. Matthew Passion. In this, you have the entire church, is filled with this—the orchestra, the soloists, the chorus, the congregation, the conductor—they're all participating in one, organic event: reliving of the experience of the Gethsemane and the Crucifixion of Christ—reliving that. This interrelationship is the essence of Christianity, and thus, Bach's Passions—and you have the same kind of thing, done by Mozart, in his Requiem; or Beethoven, in his Missa Solemnis—you get this quality. It's a total experience. And it's fixed on the role of Christ, willfully confronting death, confronting the challenge of the Sublime, even if it means death, to free man from the evil, which was the Roman Empire, and the things that had led into it, of ancient Babylon and so forth. And it's this very specific dedication, to the whole of humanity, which impresses itself upon the audience, as making Christ unique—even though the resemblances are there. That's the essence of Christianity, everything else is bunk. That is Christianity, as John and Paul portray it.

The Individual in History

Question: Lyn, after reading Plato's Republic, I'm looking at Plato's Socrates as an individual: He was famous and beloved by the non-oligarchical Greeks, for this bold, unique method—creativity—not to mention his love, and his passion for truthfulness. And Plato limits the practice of philosophy to those, in a republic, at a certain point, with (as he says, in this translation) "a ready understanding and a good memory, sagacity, quickness, high-spirited, generous temperament, and willingness to live a quiet life of sober constancy."

LaRouche: He associates that, of course, with the old man.

Question: That makes sense.

LaRouche: The "old man": That's me! No, it's true. The idea of the philosopher-king.

Question: Yeah, actually I want to get to another question?

LaRouche: Okay, good.

Question: Thanks. I understand that there's not a simple philosopher-training movement, that is, rather, to help people recognize the importance of accepting the leadership of the old man. And, to create a republic of truth-seeking in general, which will acknowledge the authority of the philosopher-king. But, why is this such a unique time, in this stage of decadence, that a youth movement, working, trying to engage people in dialogue—?

LaRouche: From the evil, which was the Roman Empire, and the things which had led into it, of ancient Babylon and so forth. Because the problem is, is that's the problem with humanity: Humanity should function like this all the time. This is normal humanity. What we experience, is abnormal humanity, or sub-normal humanity.

The normal thing is—I know this from childhood on—what makes for happiness in being alive in this society! What are the things that are beautiful, that you can recall, in terms of experience, as a human being? You know, looking back at what a human being is, looking back at your own childhood—your first recollections and so forth: What was good? What would you want to preserve? What would you want other people to have? What would you wish you had more of? Huh? And that's the point.

See, to think that being cognitive beings, not pleasure-seeking beings, who rely upon the occasional use of cognition to solve a few problems. That's the problem of inadequacy. That's the problem of the true Sublime.

You have to enjoy life so much, that—you have to have a sense of immortality. And that is a functional immortality, that you're making contributions to humanity. Those contributions that are of ideas, or perpetuation of ideas that are essential, live forever. And therefore, your thought lives forever, in that respect. See, you have a sense of immortality, and mortality in immortality. Then you say, "I want to do nothing, which I'd be ashamed of, in thousands of years to come, or in the eyes of my ancestors. They may not agree with me, but they can't be ashamed of me." And you will live that kind of life.

It's not a matter of trying to live in a way, which gets you a certain benefit, a certain feeling, or so forth. It's to live like that: If you feel that you're really a human being, in the sense I've described it, then you're a happy person. You're not only a happy person, you're a useful person, because the way you respond to problems, will be what society needs of you. What it needs of all its people. So, that's the essence of this matter, eh?

Just, when you get older, as I am, and have the experience I've had, you're able to look back at this in a certain way, which is richer, than if you're younger. And, when you have to span the difference between you and me, in age, and experience, you are forced to look at a multi-generational process, as being the natural unit of historical process. And you see this process. You see what I went through, what I came out of. That covers about three generations. You see: You, you're three generations ahead now. You see what faces you. You've got a span of six generations; and, a little study of history, you get some more in there, too. You'll get a sense of yourself as being an historical being. And, you have a different sense of morality. And you feel like an old man, when you're young—in the good sense.

And, the trick of being happy, is to learn how to achieve the beauties of old age, while you're still young enough to really enjoy them.

A Model for Cooperation

Moderator: Lyn, we have a question from Liz, who was just recently with you in Saltillo [Mexico].

LaRouche: Oh yes, yes, yes!

Question: Hi, Lyn.

LaRouche: Hi, what'd you do? What've you done recently?

Question: Well, I've tried to communicate the idea, that Americans really don't understand the painful poverty—

LaRouche: I know.

Question: —that exists around the world. And I just first want to say, this historic return that you had to Mexico, was incredible: to actually have the privilege to witness the respect that you have, Lyn. There are a lot of good Senators, some good professors, a lot of good students, who know your ideas, and thanked us for our presence in Mexico. And actually, the persistence and the dedication that you have had throughout the years, you were not absent from Mexico for 20 years.

LaRouche: I know! They just tried to keep me out of there physically, then.

Question: Only physically.

The one thing I wanted to talk about, was, after you left, I actually went into an economics class, there at the Autonomous University of Coahuila, and the whole class had been at your presentation. This was a postgraduate class, and two of the girls there were writing dissertations on the maquiladoras. And they were defending the debt, the idea of the maquiladora, because this area is very poverty-stricken. What I want you to talk about is, the idea that the war, the battle—that this fight needs to be won from within the United States.

At one point, one of the students brought in a 20 kilo sack of rice, and a 10 kilo sack of beans, and threw it on the floor, and said, "This is what maquiladoras get for us, in a week. You take the maquiladoras out of Mexico, we won't even have this."

After this much time, of being treated like cattle, these people are responding viciously to any kind of change. And, if you could just talk about how necessary this fight, that we are leading—here, in this room—is, to these people; and how this is going to be the only way to outflank this, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, Lyn.

LaRouche: Okay. This is a fun thing, to conclude my part in this, today. I think it's fun: You know, when I was there, and actually I discussed with various people, in Mexico, this question of what's happening on both sides of the border. And, my conception, of course, on the two sides of the border, is a little bit unique; because, most people would agree—intelligent people, who know things—would agree that, what we need in Mexico right now, in northern Mexico, particularly, is: From the Rio Bravo, south to Mexico City, we need a high-speed, efficient trunk line, for freight and passenger rail. This would be a revolution, in terms of the actual efficiency of the economy of Mexico, down to Mexico City. Because our objective is to begin to move some of the population out of Mexico City, into development areas in other parts of Mexico; because Mexico City is overcrowded, and there are no facilities there to make it habitable to the people, at present.

So, what we also need, from the Gulf to the Pacific Ocean, at least to the Bay of Southern California—as to Sonora; we need another cross-Mexico, efficient, passenger/freight line.

We need a similar thing on the northern side of the Rio Bravo, in California, for example. The states of the Great American Desert, because you have this thing about the two Sierra Madre, which fork out at that point, and north is the Great American Desert, which begins, actually, where we were in Mexico.

So, then we have a big water problem. In the whole area, we also have a big energy problem: integrated energy production and distribution, to deliver electric power, at the price needed, to every part of the population.

So, you have water management, which goes from the Arctic all the way down; you have water that comes up, along the coastal lines, on the Pacific Coast; freshwater coming from the water-rich area of Southern Mexico, into water-poor areas in the North, like Sonora; and along the Gulf Coast, the same thing, into places like Monterrey, and then across. So, if you get water going in there, it's so precious, that with a little bit of pumping, if you have the power, it's not going to be a great impediment to development.

So there, you could take the whole area of Mexico, which is neglected, undeveloped, and you can actually begin to increase the productivity of the country, very quickly, once you get these things in motion.

Complementary Needs

On the northern side of the border, we have the same thing: We have a crisis, an energy crisis, in California and elsewhere. Which means you need very rapid installation of a powerful, integrated, and strictly regulated, generation and distribution systems. You have a water crisis, which is hitting California and elsewhere. This has to be addressed. Again: infrastructure. Transportation: We have to save the transportation system of the United States, which is falling apart. Again. We also have needs, like health care and educational needs—both sides.

So therefore, we have complementary needs, on both sides of the border. We have 5 million, approximately, Mexicans, inside the United States, many of whom are losing their jobs. We have a savage cut in the export capabilities, export markets, for the maquiladoras, in high-concentration areas like electronics and automobile parts.

So therefore, it's necessary to get very rapidly developed, the internal economy of Northern Mexico, as well as the United States. The needs are somewhat complementary, because it's a border area. And, at the same time, you have to preserve the integrity of Mexico, because people would like to take the northern part of Mexico, and dump it together with the United States, and throw away the southern part of Mexico. No good. So therefore, the infrastructure system must go to Mexico City, so the capital of Mexico maintains its integrity, in respect to all the regions of Mexico.

So that's what needs to be done. This is our need on our side of the border, and it's complemented by what is needed on the Mexico side of the border—particularly because of the role of the Mexican labor in producing so much of what comes into the United States; and the role of Mexican labor inside the United States, who are Mexican nationals. They're not U.S. citizens; they're Mexican nationals. And this is a very important part of our labor force.

So therefore, these problems are common-area problems, between two different nations—respectively sovereign nation-states—with a longer route for cooperation, in which much of the primary cooperation will come from the border states, on both sides; because that's the shortest route, that's where the immediate cooperation comes.

But, this has to be backed by Federal protection, on the side of the United States, and in Mexico. So, you need Federal assistance, under which the states can do their part of the job in Mexico, and in the United States.

So, we have a complementary problem—different, but complementary: That the policies we require, in California, and the policies we require in Coahuila, are congruent. The same attitude is required, to a different situation, with a different specific solution. But the form, the principle, the approach to the solution, is the same. And therefore, the best way to develop the cross-border social relationship, is by people with a different language, but with a common type of problem, and the need for common types of solutions. And, on that basis, obviously, this can be enhanced by cross-border cooperation, politically and otherwise—particularly, water management projects and things of that sort.

For example, you have, now, this crazy business about the agreement on the Rio Bravo water (which is the Rio Grande, to you in the United States). Texas is claiming that it has the right to get water from Mexico, to pay for the part of the sharing of the water, which is used by Mexican farms—so, this is obviously impossible. So, obviously, we have to deal with problems of this type, and with the right mentality, we'll come up with the right solution.

Moderator: All right, Lyn. I'd like to thank you on behalf of everyone here, and, you've given us a lot to work on, for the rest of today and tomorrow.

LaRouche: Have fun! That's my prescription!

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS