LATEST FROM LAROUCHE
LaRouche To Speak on 'The Post Cheney Era'
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., the eleventh Democratic Presidential candidate for the 2004 elections, will outline the prospects for the post-Cheney era in an internationally broadcast webcast, scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2003. The webcast will be aired from Washington, D.C. beginning at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight time.
The recent Goebbels-like campaign of lies by Vice President Dick Cheney about the war against Iraq, in the midst of the increasingly worst debacle in that nation, has again put a focus on the Vice President's central role in steering the nation into this illegal war. It's about time. LaRouche first issued a call for Cheney to resign in September of 2002, and has issued millions of pieces of campaign literature exposing the evil role of the Vice President, and the need to remove him from office, by impeachment if necessary.
The attacks on Cheney, and the increasingly prominent role of the LaRouche candidacy, through the deployment of his LaRouche Youth Movement in California, and around the nation, have heightened the potential for Cheney's removal. At the same time, that decisive action has become all the more urgent, since the Vice President and his neo-conservative cronies are providing the crucial support for the crimes of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which threaten to blow up the Middle East even more disastrously in the days and weeks ahead.
LaRouche is seen internationally as the leader of those forces in the United States, who are willing to take on the Satanic neo-cons, and are seeking to implement a new program of cooperation between the United States and other nations, based on the historic mission of the U.S. in fostering economic development and progress. His Oct. 22 address, which will be followed by an extensive question and answer session, will thus be a matter of global attention, and potentially decisive in giving leadership to an effective post-Cheney era.
Further information is provided by the candidate's website at www.larouchein2004.com.
LaRouche in California: Dialogue with Youth and Activists
On Sept. 11, 2003, Lyndon LaRouche answered questions at an extraordinary town meeting of more than 450 people in Burbank, California, following his keynote address. That dialogue appears here.
Q: My question has to do with the problem in communicating ideas, which is obviously important for organizers. This is something that came into my head the other day when I was talking to this kid out on a campus. He had some of our literature before, and he was sort of going off as a lot of people do, saying, well, a lot of this talk about fascism is just hyperbole and bla bla bla.
So, I started thinking that, perhaps the problem is that people don't really have a real idea behind the words in the language. That they have some sort of emotional attachment to words like fascism or commie, or any of these things, but no idea has ever been developed for them that these words are representative of. And they also have no sense of history behind these words. So, I was wondering if you could address how we can deal with that problem with people, and just also, if you could discuss in general the communication of ideas.
LAROUCHE: The problem is largely that people have been trained not to understand what they're saying when they use words. What they actually are saying, not what they think they're saying. People are manipulating words, like symbols. We call them symbol-minded people. The point is, ideas have passion, especially human ideas, because passion is like the Greek concept of power.
There are people who connect the dotsyou know, connect this dot to that dot, and say that's how you get from Dot A to Dot B. But you don't get from Dot A to Dot B by a line. You get from Dot A to Dot B by an action. And human action is a willful action. It's a choice of principle, or application of principle, to acting. What moves the planets is, in a sense, gravitation. That's Kepler's conception. And that is not a line. The line doesn't move. There's something about that line which is not a line. It's a pathway of change, of constant change, which reveals the hidden principle which is controlling that motion.
When we understand a universal physical principle, and we apply it, we are actually invoking a principle with our mind, and using whatever facilities we have to express that principle, to move something. Now, movement is the definition of emotion. When you see people talking with just their mouth movingtik, tak, talkyou know what you're dealing with. You're dealing with a zombie, something left over from a discarded robot factory. And the problem is, when people speak, when they articulate, they don't communicate ideas, they communicate words, phrases, formulas. There's no passion! No passion.
The other day I was talking about passion, in a different context. Shakespeare. And about Hecuba. The Second Act soliloquy of Hamlet. Passion! Hecuba! Passion! Passion! And the problem is, people circulate ideas which you're supposed to respond to on a code-and-key basis, but there's no passion, there's no meaning behind them. And they think of themselves as animals, as objects of sense-perception. Merely the shadow of the reality. What we call ideaslike the idea of gravitationis a principle which lies behind the shadows, beyond the shadows of sense-perception.
When we change the universe by discovering and applying a principle, we're applying something unseen, something which is not symbolizable, cannot be reduced to a symbol. A universal principle. We apply that to the universe, and man thereby increases his power over the universe. By applying a principle. When you see people speaking, when they don't have passion, real passion, not emotion in the sense of "I'm going to put my fist in your face," or something like that, but passion in the sense of involvement with ideas.
For example, when people recite poetry, and there's no passion in it, they don't understand the poetry, if it's Classical poetry. And you find that when people speak these days, the way they're educated to speak, and they listen to these crazy television sets with the rat-a-tat-tat going on there, there's no idea. You know, when you hear a person speaking a language that you're not familiar with, or only partly familiar with, and they're a Classical speaker, it's very easy to understand their intention, because the way they speak expresses emotion. And therefore you get it. When someone is a rat-a-tat-tat speaker, it's very difficult to follow their language. There are no clues, there's no passion.
So, to the extent to which you have an empathy in communication, and the empathy is focused on the equivalence of ideas, whether it's Classical ideas of culture, or Classical physical principles, you have to communicate that. And people don't communicate it. They're uncritical. They say, well, this proves this. They say, I've got a statistical mathematical proof for this or that. That's no proof. They don't know that statistics doesn't prove anything, but they believe in statistics. Well, "statistics teaches us." That's why you're an idiot! You went to the wrong teacher.
So, the point is the importance of a Classical culture, a Classical artistic culture as well as a scientific culture. Without a Classical culture, you cannot develop in a people the ability to communicate what Shelley famously described as, in times of great enlightenment, there's an increase in the capacity of imparting and receiving profound conceptions respecting man and nature, and poetry. Poetry typifies that. Poetical drama, in the case of Shakespeare and Schiller, typifies that.
The function of the great Classical literature, the great Classical drama, is to enable us to understand history, to understand mankind, by being able to communicate ideas across centuries. To understand Plato, to understand the figure of Socrates in Plato's drama. To understand ancient works. How do you understand the ancient Greek classics? How do we understand Shakespeare? How do we understand Schiller today? Without that classical basis, as a classical culture in the schools, in social practice, it's impossible to have a sane society, because you cannot communicate ideas.
Now, the case you've given an example of, that type of case. How would you approach the problem successfully? You have to engage the person, and say, come on, let's cut out the crap. What are you really talking about, you're just mouthing (tape break)... It doesn't mean anything. This is standard sophistry. Sophistry Minus 101. So, let's discuss what the meaning of these terms is. What do they mean in practice? If you can engage a person, and get them to engage in a Socratic dialogue about these things, then you've conquered it. Then you realize, from conquering the problem in that way, in particular instances, that you wish you had a practice culture which is classical, in which all people would tend to be critical about ideas in the way that Classical cultural requires.
That's a big subject, but that's as short as I can make it right now.
Q: From an official in the Democratic Party, who phoned in, and wanted to know what you can say about the assassination of the Swedish Foreign Minister, and the implications of that, given your forecast of chaos.
LAROUCHE: You have to look very carefully at this. Now, in late 2002I've reported on this on other occasionsthere was an international rally in Spain of international fascist organizations of a very specific type, called the Synarchist International. The organization was assembled around a figure who had been an official of the Franco regime, and who is sort of the leading fascist figure of Spain today, Blas Pinar. The groups that were brought together included groups like the New Right This, the New Order This, and so forth....
Now, these groups are not just your basicyou know, we discussed yesterday this question of the "Freddie" principle from Friday the Thirteenth, and you have a lot of people who look at the Hitler image and all the horrible stories around the Hitler image, and they react like fans of Freddie or of Jason in Friday the 13. They're so impressed and so awed by this figure that they want to emulate it. So, these are just fools. They're dangerous fools, they're useful commodities. But that's not the real problem. You've got some real ones, and they come from ancient times.
For example, let's take one case, the case of Aldo Moro, the former Prime Minister of Italy who was subjected to kidnapping and assassination, at least on the political orders, personally, of Henry Kissinger, who delivered the threatpersonallyto Aldo Moro, in a meeting of CSIS in Washington, D.C. And the execution was carried out by a Synarchist network in Italy of this type. The Italian group came out of World War II, these were part of the Fascist secret police organization. They were brought into the Gladio organizationthis special Gladio operation in the postwar periodby the British and American authorities, and they are assets of NATO. Now, these people are the key to most of the serious assassination waves in Europe, say, in the 1970s. The Bologna train station bombing.
Now, people of this type, groups that are associated with that kind of activity, are being regrouped around the world today. They're being regrouped in South America, where there's a very strong right-wing and left-wing Synarchist alliance. I know the history of this thing pretty much like the back of my hand.
Now, the danger here: We're in a period, where this woman, with all of her pluses and minuses, this Anna Lindh, the Foreign Minister of Sweden, was targetted by Synarchist circles. She was killedI don't know who killed her, I don't know who the assassin isbut what I do know is, that looking at this from the standpoint of government, as a person who is seeking to assume responsibilities for our government, how do we react to something like this? Do we react by saying, we're going to get the perpetrator, and that's everything? We do, and we don't. In a case like that, you try to find the perpetrator, you try to solve the mystery. You must. But your policy does not depend on finding the perpetrator. Your policy says, what is the situation in society which lets something like this loose? And you have to intervene, and I say intervene now, to recognize that the greatest danger in every part of the planet, to the social order, including things like this, is Synarchism.
The Synarchist International is alive and unwell, in the world today. It's reactivated. It's reactivated for the same reason that what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 happened. The time has come, when certain financial interests of the same type that were behind the Jacobin Terror, behind Napoleon Bonaparte, behind Napoleon III, behind all kinds of thingsthat this thing is still there, these interests are still there. These are the people who were behind Hitler back in the 1930s, they're still around, or their interests are. Maybe their children or something, but they're still there, they're still a force, and they're very active today. And what controls Cheney, and the neo-cons around him, are precisely that group. These groups are killers. These are people who use terrorism as a method.
It's a big subject, because you have to understand what the root of this thing is. Most people talk about terrorism, but they don't know what they're talking about. If you're terrified, fine, that's all right. But what is the terrorism of this form? I understand it. Unfortunately, there are a limited number of people in the world who do, because they haven't studied the question. I know it very closely, like the back of my hand.
And my reaction is, all right, this happened, this woman should not have been running around without security, in this department store where she was assaulted. It should not have happened to the foreign minister of a country at this time, no! Every public official of any significance is subject to assassination, and you don't know which it will be. Therefore, my response as a public official would be, we must protect all the people who are in the category of these targets. Take reasonable precautions. There are no such things as perfect precautions, but there are reasonable precautions, and there's unreasonable risk. Every significant public figure, whose death might be a threat to the stability of nations, or part of the process, must be protected, must have adequate security. And that means personal security. They're watched, they don't go around alone, they're not exposed. The woman's problem was that she was walking around free, without protection, which means she was a free target. Some man comes up behind her with a knife and an axe, he's a capable killer: She's finished! She hasn't got a chance! If there's security around, then she has a chance.
So, the first thing is to recognize that, that security must be upgraded, not the way Ashcroft says, but this way. Simple, government taking responsibility for trying to increase the protection, with aid of normal law enforcement means, no Patriot Act, no funny business, just normal law enforcement business.
Find out who the drug dealers are in the neighborhood. That's part of your security problem. Most crime will be committed by criminals. Find out what the criminal community is. If law enforcement is in a routine competent job of paying attention to crime, especially violent-prone crime, then you've taken care of a lot of the problem.
So that's my answer. First of all, more security. But also, recognize that the likely suspect in any given number of such cases, is the Synarchist International. Our job now is to expose that thing: what it is, why it is, and get rid of it. It gave us Hitler before. Why don't we get rid of it?
Q: I've been meditating on this idea of communication, and was provoked by one of your articles in the 1979 Campaigner, called "The Principles of Composition." I discovered that there is an integral ingredient that I can definitely add to my hotpot of ways of communicating, and that is, humor and this idea of the element of surprise that you mention. I have a sense of musical humor through playing Beethoven and Mozart, but I also know how powerful humor can be through a deliberate cognitive process. We get that every day from Phil and Harley. So, I was wondering how we actually develop this ability, this deliberate ability of elements of surprise, and how we can actually go about uplifting the morale of our society through cognitive humor. And I have a request. I was wondering if you could recite the Third Act soliloquy from Hamlet.
LAROUCHE: I do that only impromptu, when not prompted. When it comes out of me automatically, but don't worry about that, it does at times. Otherwise, it doesn't work. I'm not a professional actor, but it just comes out of me right sometimes.
The thing is, take a simple song, as an example. Take Mozart. We had a discussion about this recently, so it's fresh in mind from seeing some people who had problems with this. Take An Chloe, by Mozart. Now, it's a very silly little song, essentially, but the whole point of it hangs on one thing. You have this amorous fellow, who is adoring this object of his, Amar. And he gets to a point and says, I will love you until death. Death! Death? Oh, change the subject, and back to "ich liebe dich". That's an example of it. It comes in irony, that words have
Look, language cannot be understood from a dictionary. The social use of language involves all the deeper meanings, which are ironical meanings buried in the use of the language. Every idea is an irony. No ideas are literal. If they're literal, they're not ideas. It's an irony. Like this thing about death in An Chloe. Death. The guy is a silly guy making a silly song. Why would Mozart set this thing? Because Mozart has a very peculiar sense of humor. A very good one. An excellent, very active one. He's extremely humorous. This idea that someone says, "I will love you until death," and then is appalled by the fact that they've used the word "death" in connection with love. And then, he makes this musical setting of this.
These kinds of things are rich in language, where language has a double connotation. I will love you till death, as long as I live, but I will love you until death! It's a different meaning. So it's on the basis of irony that words have double meanings, or phrases have double meanings, or triple meanings. Let me give you just one example. I'm afraid of going too long with these things, but at the same time, I'm also afraid of not giving an adequate answer, of giving a fast one where an adequate one were required.
Take this simple thing, which is the basis of most of our educational work in the Youth Movement, which is why I introduced this question of the Gauss 1799 fundamental theorem of algebra, which is the first time he addresses that, in which he attacks specifically, the empiricists Euler and Lagrange, most notably. The problem in science, physical science, and the problem in mathematics, is idiots today think you can explain everything statistically. The way every principle we know, every universal physical principle, is proven, is something we cannot detect with our senses. It's something which exists, which is official, like gravity. You cannot find gravity with your senses. You can feel the effects of gravity, but gravity itselfthe gentleman does not choose to expose himself. He acts upon you, but he does not expose his identity to you. You have to discover him.
And so, all important ideas, human ideas, and only human beings can do this, are like these principles of physical science we discover, by hypothesis, by experiment. None of these things refer to a nameable object of the senses. In language, the idiot will sayand that's why the grammarian's funeral is such a sad case. When a grammarian dies, no ideas die with him, because all ideas lie outside the explicit [ ]. Like gravitation, they lie outside the explicit of sense-perception.
The same thing is true of all Classical art, a sense of irony, a presence, an eeriness, something there. I can't quite grasp it. I can sense something there. All important communication is of that nature. And it all involves passion, all the qualities of passion, of surprise, of the sense of something eerie, something there, as if I were taking a whole work, and finding in a whole work, a whole long exposition, that if you take the entire exposition from beginning to end, and pause and start to think about it at the beginning, and then pause at the end to reflect upon it, you may find that there's one idea which is not found explicitly in any part of the whole exposition, but which is the meaning of the whole exposition.
For example, I've often cited the example of the Beethoven Opus 131 or 132, as a case. Opus 131 does state something, approximately an idea, in the center, but the 131 is a continuous process of development. You pause at the beginning, you pause at the end, but there's one idea there. You cannot locate it, as a meaning, symbolically, in any part of the composition, but it's one of the greatest compositions every written, with one idea. And therefore, it's developing a sense of this, of looking at the fact that reality for human beings lies outside the senses. We use the senses with our minds, to discover, by tricks, to discover what that hiding object is out there. We smoke it out, we find it, we lay our hands on it, we make it dance for us. Now we know it. We still don't see it, we don't touch it with our senses, but we touch it with the mind. And that quality of sensibility, which many people deny. Many people do not know what an idea is. They may have ideas, but they don't know what an idea is.
I could go on like this. Do you want a lecture for about five hours on this subject?
Q: (from Michael Steger). I've been thinking about this question for a while, about how music orders the mind. I'll try to be as direct as possible. Did Beethoven's later compositions influence your development of the shock-front principle, and how does this principle apply to the human mind in creative discovery, as well as free will?
LAROUCHE: It's another aspect of the same question I've just presented. There's this fellow Herbart, who's a famous educator and philosopher, who was a protege of Wilhelm von Humboldt in the educational system, who was tucked away for a good part of his career in the remote area of Koenigsburg, which had been polluted for some time by the famous, or infamous, Immanuel Kant. And he was famous for his attacks on Kant, and Kantian philosophy and its degradation and all the other pollution that goes with it. And he gave a series of lectures in the 1840s in Goettingen, at the termination of his career, which were attended by a young student of mathematics at the university, Bernhard Riemann, and Riemann made some notations on this, at a later point, which I encountered as part of the Riemann collected works, which were included in the famous Riemann Collected Works edition later on, in connection with my work.
And so, this aspect, Riemann's appreciation of this importance of Herbart's groping with the idea of the definite idea, the Geistesmasse, lying outside the domain of the visual, or the sensible, this idea was very important to me. In a sense, this coincided with things I was doing at the same time. And the idea that ideas which exist outside the sensible are not statistical phantoms. If they're real, they're definite ideas, as definite as any other idea.
The act of discovery, for example. The act of discovery of a universal physical principle, gives us the identity of a principle. It's a universal physical principle. It has an identity. It's a mental object, with a specific identity. Your discovery of that, if you actually discovered it, rather than just repeating it from a textbook or some experimental demonstration, your discovery of gravitation the way Kepler discovered it, is now a definite object in your mind. As definite in your mind as any object of the senses, but it's of a different nature. And this is what is treated by use of the term Geistesmasse by Herbart in these lectures, which Riemann commented upon.
And this, to me, was extremely important. It crystallized a lot of things about music, and a lot of other things of the same time, and gave me an insight as to why Beethovenand this coincided with my reflections on the work of conducting and Wilhelm Furtwaengler, which is absolutely remarkable. Furtwaengler would say, in describing his method of conducting, that he was conducting as playing between the notes, conducting between the notes. In other words, the person who plays the score as written, is an idiot. The person who plays the notes, is an idiot. You don't play different notes, but playing the notes is being an idiot, because you have to play what is between the notes. The reality of any Classical composition, like a Greek sculpture, a Classical Greek sculpture, lies in something in between. It's definite, it communicates, it's as definite as the idea of a discovery of a physical universal principle, but it does not lie within the expression. The great conductor recognizes this.
For example, how does the conductor function? Any great Classical performer, musical performer, will do the same thing. The first thing he does is what? Nothing! He does absolutely nothing. He pauses, until the audience accepts the pause. Then he introduces a change of state, and he establishes his performance in the imagination. Furtwaengler, for example, used to do this kind of thing. He'd rehearse, where there was an attack required, by a passage. He'd rehearse this thoroughly with the orchestra, and they would thoroughly rehearse. At that time, this was the best orchestra in the world, the most capable. And then when he'd come out to conduct, he'd sit there with his baton, pausing, they're waiting, and waiting for the signal. Then he'd surprise them, and he gets the effect he wants.
So the trick in all art is to transfer the concentration of the mind from the bare stage of sense-perception, to the stage of imagination, like the Classical Greek stage, where the characters of Classical Greek tragedy come alive in the mind of the audience. I mean, a typical Greek audience, sitting in this hemispherical kind of seating arrangement, out there watching two guys playing with masks, and suddenly, under these conditions, the characters depicted by the masks come alive in the mind of the spectators. They're enraptured in the drama. Eh? So they're now living in the imagination. The thing ends, and they pause. They do nothing. Because, now you're in the transition from the sensible to the ideal, back to the sensible. The object is to encircle that one conception, that one process of development, as a definite idea in the mind of the audience.
This can be demonstrated very easily, for example, with Schiller's dramas. How this works, how this is accomplished. In Shakespeare, you can adduce the same thing, in a different way. The concept of the sublime in Schiller, is unique in drama, in this respect. It's always the same thing. It's always this principle of trying to communicate to people the ideaslike ideas of scientific physical principles.
Or the idea of humanity.
For example, what's the difference between man and an ape? Are you going to give me a description, or do you know man as distinct from an ape? What's your concept of man as different from an ape? Identify the idea, so that you're never confused about the difference between a beast and a man. That's lacking, and the function of great art is to enable us to communicate those kinds of ideas, by giving us the rehearsal exercises which are often related to something to do with the history of a culture, but at the same time, to teach us, to educate our capabilities to communicate with one another, in the same way we have been taught by these great composers of art of the past.
Q: My question is about something that always makes me wonder, what does Mr. Dick Cheney stand to gain from this impulse of inflicting a war against Islam? Much of that is under way right now. More than 1 billion Muslims in this worldwherever they live, they're already living in misery. What will he gain from inflicting more gloom on these people?
LAROUCHE: Cheney is not a man who despises gain, obviously, but his character is not located in gain. It's not greed. Don't try to find greed. The point is, there is the existence of evil in the world, and that's different than greed. Corruption, it's beyond corruption. Take the case of Adolf Hitler. Or take the case of Freddy or Jason, from Friday the Thirteenth. There is a type of personality, which is well known to art, it's a type of personality which is associated with the image of the Dionysus of the Phrygian cult, which is referred to by Nietzsche. You read the writings of the Synarchists, the group of Cagliostro and Mesmer and Joseph de Maistre, who is the most voluble on this. The conception which permeates Synarchism, from its emergence as Martinism, as a cult, is the idea of being a beast-man.
The perfect man is a beast-man, who commits such crimes as no one else would dream of doing, or think possible. It would astonish mankind by his criminality, his cruelty, his beastliness, his Satanic quality. That people admire him. Oh Satan, we admire you, we love you. What do you want of us? We will try to be your disciples, and follow you. That is the principle of this kind of thing, which we call sometimes fascism. (tape break) ... who is also of the same disposition. The idea of evil for the pleasure of doing what you regard as evil. And that's what the problem is. It is not the desire for gain.
Cheney is an intrinsically evil person. If he were less unintelligent, he would be absolutely Satanic. But he's only a thug for Satan. This is the character. What you understand, some things in history, to understand some events like what happened to the Jews in Poland and Germany, how is such a monstrous thing possible?
Just think for a moment about gain. The liberation of the Jew in Europe was essentially accomplished through the influence of Moses Mendelssohn. Here's this poor Jew from Dessau, who goes to Berlin. He's a hunchback, he's a genius. He learns languages. He studies music under one of the sons of Bach, and so forth and so on. He's a genius. He designed the school at which Scharnhorst was trained as a military officer, the military school. The man's a genius. Through the influence of a group of people around him, the struggle for political identity of the Jew in Europe occurred. It occurred in Austria under Joseph II, when he was freed of his terrible mother. Under great impulse, he did that. And it spread throughout Europe.
Now think of the effect of this, and look at Germany from the time of Moses Mendelssohn. Look backward from Hitler's time, to then, and say, now what's going on here? What was the role of the Jew in Germany? Once liberated, suddenly a class of people who had been itinerant beggars, virtually without the right to live, going from place to place, with marginal existence, suddenly produce generations of artists, scientists, doctors, and whatnot; writers. They proliferated under the influence of the education, which spread through the influence of Moses Mendelssohn, both in the Jewish community and also in the Classical humanist community which developed around this guy Kaestner, Lessing, Mendelssohn, and so forth, in the latter part of the 18th Century in Germany, and spread all over the world.
This is what gave us the United States. It was the influence of this circle upon Benjamin Franklin. These people were dedicated to creating a nation in North America, to be a tool for creating republics around the world. Now look at Germany as the result of that. What happened to Germany, as a result of the political liberation of the Jew? Think of the contributions! Now, why would any German with good sense, want to do a thing about the German Jews like that? Why? There's no gain in it. There's no motive for it. Except an evil one! What Hitler was aiming to do, and he and others are explicit on thisif you read Heidegger, read others, read between the lines, you'll know what these guys are. Read Wagner on the subject of The Jew, and you'll understand this thing perfectly. Their plan was to obliterate entire sections of the human population, in the name of what was called eugenics. Their aim was to astonish mankind with acts of such monstrous evil, that human beings would fall on their knees and embrace the feet of the monster, and try to imitate it.
This is what you have in the U.S. today. You have this kind of impulse. This is what Cheney represents. Look, preventive nuclear warfare! Bertrand Russell. Preventive nuclear warfare. Remember, Bertrand Russell was the author of preventive nuclear warfare. He, together with H.G. Wells, concocted this phantom, that through terrible weapons which would so affright the people, that they would submit to tyranny and love it! And imitate the tyrant in their seeking to do crimes which please him, for the sake of world government under an "ideal" society. And for this, Bertrand Russell caused the development of nuclear weapons, personally. Not Einstein. Roosevelt never received the Einstein letter. It's in his library, but he never received it. We checked.
Bertrand Russell said, and laid down the doctrine: the use of nuclear weapons as a weapon so terrible that mankind will submit to the kind of utopia that Wells and Russell demanded, rather than face these terrible weapons. What Cheney has done is simply revive this. This is called a revolution in military affairs, which was adopted during the 1940s, not during the last decade. And this is the policy, to use nuclear weapons to terrify people, to kill, to exterminate entire sections of the population by various means. To terrify the human race into submission. You're not dealing with un-nice people, you're not dealing with a neighborhood thug, though he may have some of this in him. You're dealing with a truly Satanic quality. When I said "The Children of Satan," I meant Satan. I meant Satan in precisely this sense. I was not using some symbolism, some euphemism. This is what it is.
And if the human race cannot defend itself against Satanism, it will pay the price of not dealing with Hitler when he could have been dealt with, only something worse today, with nuclear weapons. Therefore, we have to have a clear conception. It is not gain. Yes, he's a thief, among his other qualities. But he shouldn't be in government! He should be out, now! And we have the evidence sufficient for an impeachment charge against Cheney which would get him out immediately. He would be out already, if the leadership of the Democratic National Committee was not corrupt.
Q: (from Cheung Deng-Ren, president of the North American Chen Zen Youth Association) Good evening, I am from China, an international student here. I hope Mr. LaRouche can understand the question I'm asking. First of all, I want to say that the recall destroyed the good image of the democratic system of America, in my mind. Second, I want to say, as far as I know, the Bush Administration wants to recover the economy by depending on tax reduction copied from the Reagan Administration. So, my question is, do you think it will work today, and tax reduction will bring an economic recovery?
LAROUCHE: [...] You've got inequity in taxation. For example, Kemp-Roth. Compare the Kemp-Roth Bill on so-called tax reform, and compare that with the Kennedy tax investment credit program. Under the Kennedy philosophy, which is a good onehe has some good advisors, among other things thereis that, if a private entrepreneur, who earns a profit or has capital, rather than disbursing that capital for consumption or investing it in the stock market or some other foolish thing like that, invests it in buying machinery and so forth for his firm, in order to make the firm better, to produce a better product and so forth, then what this fellow, this entrepreneur has done, is create a benefit for the entire nation, by contributing his money, as credit, into his enterprise, in ways which make it unnecessary for the government to come in and do the same thing. So therefore, since this fellow is doing something for society, which is useful economically, why shouldn't he have a lower tax? We'd like more of his type around. Besides, he's making a contribution which justifies it, whereas if the fellow is a spendthrift who just wants to go out and get a lot of money quick, and spend it on foolish things like trying to find a third sex or something like that, to alleviate his boredom, then this fellow should probably be taxed at a very high rate. Because his money is only dangerous to him in his own hands. He'll probably spend it on drugs, or some other foolish kind of thing.
On the other side, the inequities. Think of the inequities. First of all, the tax exemption on the lower end of the income scale. This is where the cruelty occurs. So we should shift the tax burden. Those entrepreneurs who are doing a useful job for society, should have the benefit of the investment tax credit protection, because they're doing something for society, and that should be acknowledged. And the more of them and the better they do their job, the better for all of us. It's our function to try to promote investment in the private sector, in that way to that purpose. If someone is simply spending money all over the place, in some undesireable or unpleasant way, like Kemp-Roth proposes, then no.
What's happened now is that, as a result of Kemp-Roth and similar kinds of changes and deregulation, we've created a vast financial bubble, with the amount of debt, especially in the area of financial derivatives, which could never be paid. The debts of the world today will never be paid. They can never be paid, because the rate at which we are generating income which might be taxable, or are sizeable otherwise, is far less than the rate at which these financial derivatives and other things are increasing. So, the payment of debt could never catch up with the growth of debt. This is largely, to some degree, the benefit of Alan Greenspan, who has poured more money in, with the aid of electronic printing pressesmonetary emissionthan has ever been known in the past of the human race. You don't print money any more, you emit it, electronically. And that's what the monetary aggregate it, which is going into the vast real estate bubbles, and so forth.
So, what we're done is, by encouraging a lower tax rate as Kemp-Roth specified, on things which are parasitical, we have encouraged the development of a parasite. Our financial economy is a big parasite, sucking the blood out of the physical economy. The desirable thing is that the economy be so managed, and money so managed, that those things which are useful to society should be encouraged, especially in economy. We should recognize those things which are useful, and we should also recognize our obligation to the general welfare, and to posterity. This is our law.
We can do it. This is not impossible. We can do it. If we educate people properly, if we invest in infrastructure properly, if we give people the opportunities, we can increase the rate of physical growth to meet economic needs and progress far above any tax burden problem. We have to rearrange the furniture, and burn some of it. We're going to have to do it. When the time comesand the crash will come soonsomeone, if this nation is to survive, someone in the government must say, we're going to apply the Constitution. We're going to meet the obligations of the general welfare, for the continued function of society and its growth.
And if people come in with large financial claims, they go to the end of the line, and if they're questionable, we'll simply have to cancel them, because we cannot pay all these debts. The world cannot pay all these debts, ever. So, if we're going to have a financial system, we're going to have to cancel a lot of them, and meet essential needs in the short term, and restructure the thing, so that our tax structure, our way of running things, is equitable in terms of the general welfare principle. And also wise. Not only equitable, but wise. It must be prudent. We must encourage those things which are beneficial to society. We must hope that individuals will solve problems, so that government will not have to solve these problems. Like the firm that invests in improving a product, is taking the problem away from government, by solving a problem in society for general use. So prudence means, foster those things which are useful, and there will be things that are not fostered.
On the second part of the question, look, what happens with a recall. On recall, what have they said their intention is. And if you know what Brother Bustamante's connections are, to Joe Lieberman among other things, under those conditions, what these guys are going to do, is exactly what has been threatened. You think you have deregulation now in California? How would you like another round, under Warren Buffett, George Shultz, Cheney and Company? Would you like another round of that? You want everything deregulated, more radical, more extreme deregulation, like the idiot (tape break...) ... George Bush told the Governor of California, the problem here is not deregulation, you haven't done enough of it! We've given you all the poison, and you haven't died yet!
|