LaRouche to West Coast Cadre School

From Volume 3, Issue Number 31 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Aug. 3, 2004

Latest From LaRouche

From the Democratic Convention:

LaRouche Holds Dialogue with His Youth Movement

Lyndon LaRouche's opening remarks to his historic webcast from the Boston Democratic Convention site July 25 (see EIW #30), were followed more than two hours of discussion with the audience present at the John Hancock Center, as well as with those listening over the Internet, who submitted questions by e-mail. Here is the major portion of that dialogue.

Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, my name is Cody Jones, from Los Angeles. I'm an elected official of the Democratic Central Committee in Los Angeles County. My question is, you often talk about setting up a crucial experiment, to prove any discovered idea, to validate that discovery. So, for a population, the young population, also the Baby-Boomer population, who neither has lived, nor experienced the situation of a government acting for the general welfare, or exist in a system where that principle was active; and, also, have been robbed of any sense of history, of that principle being active: How do we generate a kind of crucial experiment to demonstrate to people who lack that idea, so they can discover that that is really an efficient principle in the universe?

LaRouche: All right. It's the missionary principle. When you go to the country which is broken down, with no ideas, no culture to speak of, how do you build up the country as a whole? You educate the children.

You've got two phases, as you should know from your experience, and some other people know. It's that you go through a process; when you're young, you have a lot of energy. Have you ever seen how energetic people get when they're very young, before they come adults? Tremendous energy. Then they become adolescents, and they still have a lot of energy. They can move fast, things like that; but they don't think of themselves as adults. They think of themselves still as playing. Or they're uncertain as to whether they're playing or whether they're really seriously thinking.

Then you get to a phase which is called young adulthood, which hits people in the United States, if they're lucky, when they're about 18 years of age—that's why we have this division between the secondary school education, and higher education. It's also biological. It's cultural-biological. It's that you reach a certain point, where your way of thinking—you're past the suicide, what used to be the suicide potential, the uncertainty potential of being an adolescent. Where you had doubts, existential doubts, and that was a problem. You get to a point where you now say, "Hey, wait a minute! I am now a young adult. I've got to do something about this society. But I'm not sure that I know enough."

Well, the advantage is, that up until about 25, when you begin to enter, senility begins to set in, in many cases, especially among college professors—when they get their college degree, their doctoral degree, or go on to get their first position, they say, "I'm now perfected, and I'm not going to do anything. I'm going to practice for the rest of my life what I have learned, now." And they don't do much more since then, after that time.

But you have in this period, of young people, and this is a historical phenomenon—young people, usually of the 18 to 25 age group, where they are adults, but they still have a lot of energy; they can stay up and work until 3 o'clock in the morning, and get up at 7 o'clock and do things still. Which older people find out they can't do that any more. Unless they're crazy like me, and they do it anyway!

So, they think a lot, and they have the power of concentration, partly as a contribution of energy, and biological reality. And that is a period in which many of the greatest changes in society have occurred, or changes for good. It is that generation which is willing to take adult responsibility, which the adolescent is not emotionally equipped to deal with. Adult responsibility, but knowing they're not yet perfected, and knowing, "I must master this. I must understand this. I must get control of this. I must get control of myself. I must enter society as a qualified member of society, a perfected member of society in the sense of being able to act."

Providing Leadership

Now what happens is, that when young people in that age group do that, and when they begin to activate something like themselves, in the generation of adolescents, the younger generation—because the people when they're adolescents, look at their older brothers and sisters who have become adults, and look at them as models of reference. If you of the 18 to 25 group, are a poor model of reference, that is going to have a bad effect upon your younger siblings who are still adolescents. Therefore, you have to provide a certain kind of leadership, of making adulthood, young adulthood, a good idea, a good thing to happen to them. They begin to prepare for it. They're not yet secured, in the sense of having adult identities, but they have a sense that, "Well, my brother does. He's doing pretty well. I think I'll look at what he's doing, what his friends are doing."

So, you inspire that. You also take, even Baby Boomers, even these aging, prematurely aging, flatulent, fantasy-ridden people called Baby Boomers, and even they will come back to life, out of their fantasy life.

I mean, look at the adult population! Look at this society! How much energy and time, which used to be spent in doing things, is spent on so-called entertainment? And how degenerate is the entertainment? When people are not having entertainment, they're having fantasies about entertainment. This is the Baby-Boomer generation. The Baby-Boomer generation doesn't think of mortality. They don't believe in immortality. They think about, "Well, don't let it happen to me." Or, if it comes, "I don't want to know about it. I don't go there." Right?

So, they live in a fantasy life, trying to find excitement in a meaningless existence, which is called an entertainment, or pleasure society. A bread-and-circuses society.

So, what you do when you're younger, is, your job is to inspire your parents' generation to come back out of the woods. "Come on, come out of the swamp, Daddy, come on! Don't live in the swamp! Tonight, come home for a change."

And that's what you do. What you do is you concentrate on yourselves, and your generation, to define the adult process of knowledge.

Now, that's what I've done with this question of this Gauss question, exactly that. Gauss defines the principle of immortality, the nature of the mind, human mind, the relationship of man to the universe. Once you understand that, once you have a grip on a sense of immortality, because you realize that ideas, as Gauss enables you to understand this if you master this challenge, is, once you understand ideas, and you understand that you are the heir of ideas which have been transmitted to you, from previous generations, which is the difference between man and beast, the difference between wasteland and decadence and good—it's the principle for which people die. They die in hopes that what they have done, will be fruitful in coming generations. And they're able to face death, because they know that what they're leaving behind, in dying, is going to be something good, and they helped to make it so. And their life means something. They have not to be ashamed of having lived, and they can die with a smile on their face.

And that's what you must give. You must understand that that kind of education, as opposed to this blab school type that you get here now, that kind of education, practiced by, not learned by, but practiced by, a young generation which has the energy, the adult commitment at the same time, to do that, would inspire the younger generation coming up in adolescence, and will inspire their parents' generation to come out of the graveyard, and come back and enjoy life for a change.

That's the way to do it.

Behind the Torture Scandals

Q: Gerry Halloran, from Boston. I was wondering about the prisoner abuse in the Iraqi prisons, and also Afghanistan, and so forth. Also, in relation to the prisoner abuse in Ireland, in the British prisons, the Irish prisoners, who are tortured and murdered. And the connection between Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne Cheney, and Baroness Symons, who works for Maggie Thatcher, or still works for Tony Blair today.

And how the cultural degeneration, even before the '50s, in the '60s, with MK-ULTRA, how they helped sponsor the acceptance or the willingness of the people to accept this kind of, I wouldn't call it leadership, but problems that we have in our leadership today.

LaRouche: The point is very simple—but it's not. The point is that we had a phenomenon in the postwar period, at the end of the war, that one section of the United States and British Establishment, which had joined with Roosevelt in opposing Hitler, during the war, even though many of them had put Hitler into power in Germany in the first place! It was the British and American bankers who put Hitler into power in Germany.

But then they didn't like the idea, of being part of a Nazi world empire. They wanted an English-speaking world empire, not a Hitler empire! So, reluctantly, some of the Brits, and reluctantly, some of these bankers in New York—Morgan, Mellon, and so forth, Harriman—they joined the American cause, or the American-British cause, against Hitler. But, by the time Roosevelt died, something else had happened: That for those bankers, in Britain and the United States, who took the hard core of the Nazi system, into their bosom—the Nazis never died. They were incorporated into the Anglo-American system, and were an integral part of the NATO security apparatus, or second or third generation. It's all known.

Now, the point is, what is the philosophy that unites a Mellon, a Morgan, a du Pont, a Harriman, with a Nazi? Or, with the same kind in England, like Lord Beaverbrook, who was ambassador of Britain to the United States during World War II, but he'd been a supporter of Hitler! Lord Halifax, who was in charge of the press operations of the British during World War II, had been a sympathizer of Adolf Hitler! Dulles, the Dulles brothers, John Foster Dulles—for whom [John Foster] "Chip" Berlet is named, appropriately—was a fascist, a part of this. Harriman. Harriman, the House of Harriman, actually moved from the United States, moved the funds to save the Nazi Party in time to bring Hitler to power, when the Nazi Party was bankrupt.

So, Harriman was there when Roosevelt died. Roosevelt kept him in check, but Harriman was there, and he was with Truman, and Truman was with Harriman. (Truman, who had no middle name, only an initial. No period, just "S"; his mother had not been able to figure out what the name would be, so she put the "S" in there, intending to fill it out later, and never got around to it. So, he's an "S" man.)

But they brought the Nazi system in.

What we thought of as the right wing, in the United States in the 1940s, whom we got rid of temporarily by getting Truman out of there, and getting Joe McCarthy out of there, it continued. It continued in the form of Allen Dulles, and John Foster Dulles and others, who harbored these Nazis. Now, some of these Nazis got old, but they had children, they had a continuation of the process. It goes on today.

What you're dealing with, now, in the creation of the Baby-Boomer generation, is Nazism! What's the point?

The point is, there are two conceptions of mankind here. This is what the question involved; there are two conceptions. Is mankind, is the human being made in the image of the Creator or not? The age-old issue is: Can a few people turn the rest of the human beings into either herded, or hunted varieties of human cattle?

Now, how do you control cattle? You kill them, or you dumb them down. You turn them into what Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver's Travels , described as Yahoos, rutting sex in the ditch, nothing much else on their minds, eating and this. And sex with what? They don't care, they'll find out later, they want to do it first. That's the nature of the beast.

So, what all these things are, is here we had this great development—it wasn't perfect, but it was great. The United States had emerged as a great power in the world, Roosevelt wanted to eliminate colonialism; the British didn't agree. Things like that. So, the right wing moved in, inch by inch, to try to eliminate, to accomplish what Hitler was aiming to accomplish. To turn the human race into a collection of herded and hunted cattle. And so there's a program of dumbing down the Americans. To take away the characteristic of our culture, which enabled us to resist Nazism. It was called such things as the Congress for Sexual, pardon me, Congress for Cultural Freedom. It became the mass Congress for Sexual Freedom during the 1960s.

The purpose of this was to dumb people down. The transformation in education, to dumb people down. You no longer come to know anything, you learn to "repeat after me." You do as you're told. You adapt to fads. "This is the newest fad." "Oh, I've got to join it!" Whether it's corrupt or not. And this is the process.

What has ruined us today—the Baby Boomers don't recognize what they are. They are not a generation—they are a degeneration. They're a disease. They're diseased people who've been affected by the brainwashing which was done to them when they were children, when they were living in suburbia, and being told, "Be careful what you say." "Never tell the truth. The FBI might find out, and your father might lose his job. Learn to lie. Learn to hold back what you really think and believe. And don't even think it! Don't even believe it!"

A Nation of Sophists

We became a nation of sophists. We raised our children, in the postwar period, to be sophists, and the children became the Baby-Boomer generation, when they were hit with the terror of nuclear-threat war in 1962, with the Missile Crisis. With other things. The assassination, the unsolved murder of President Kennedy. And the plunge into the Indo-China War. The training showed. They had now become young adults. They were going to university, and they took their clothes off. They took LSD, and they soaked marijuana with wine. And they spent all night doing it, whatever it was. And that's what you had: a pleasure society. And the effect of sophistry in producing a degenerate society of that type.

Now, these people, who were victims of that process, the victims of the fears caused by the introduction of Nazism in the form of the right wing, into the postwar United States, the victim of the fears caused by the Missile Crisis, while they were still adolescents, the impact of the killing of Kennedy, the other assassinations, the Indo-China war, and the horrors of that type—which are extended today by what has happened in Guantanamo, what's happening in Iraq, what's happening in Afghanistan. The beastliness, fostered as a weapon, as the Nazis did it.

For example, the Nazis: Germany had no reason to kill Jews. No reason. The German Jewish population, the population of the Yiddish Renaissance in Eastern Europe, was one of the greatest assets of European civilization, of German civilization in particular. Look at the accomplishments! Remember, from the time that Moses Mendelssohn had entered Berlin, and through a process of freedom, the Jew, who was living largely as a peddler, with no right to be married, to have children, and so forth around Europe, suddenly had the right to have citizenship. They had to buy their names, of course, but they could have families. They could get married. And the inspiration among the Jews who were liberated from this condition, which had existed throughout Europe previously, became the greatest contributors, per capita, to the culture of Europe, and to Germany in particular.

Also, in Eastern Europe, the same thing. The greatest culture of Eastern Europe, actually was the Jews, who had been persecuted, but who were inspired by the Yiddish Renaissance, which was a spillover of the German Renaissance led by Moses Mendelssohn. And they killed them.

Why would a country kill off its most useful people, per capita? In order to create a beastly act, which would terrorize the world, and say, "Here is a true monster, you dare not challenge."

That's what you're seeing. Cheney. What's Cheney? Cheney is a nothing. He's only a beast. Don't think of him as human. He's been trying to outlive that, and rather successfully, for a long period of time. I think he got to be beast, when he married Sister Cheney. Because she picked him out of the football playing field, where he was out there, chewing on goalposts or something, got him an education, when he'd been thrown out of one college; got him all his jobs, and his positions; and suddenly, he becomes the monster, who's running Halliburton. And he's, of course, part of the Nixon Administration whiz kids, that sort of thing.

But, what you're dealing with, is, you're dealing with: Hitlers. Cheney is part of the same thing, that we had with Hitler. Who were also nothings. You had this chicken-raiser, Heinrich Himmler! He was a chicken farmer! This is not the highest level of intellectual achievement. And, this chicken farmer, look at what he did. Look at the other Nazis. Some of them had educations, but most of them were nothing but dumb thugs—like Cheney. But, they rose, to what ranks did they rise? What were the ranks? They commanded society!

What's Cheney? He's a nothing! You wouldn't hire him. You wouldn't want him in your backyard! He might eat the dog. He's a nothing!

But, these kind of worthless people, who have an intrinsic sense of their own worthlessness, in their desire for power and prestige, would do anything! to anybody! for the sake of their power.

And, that's what you're dealing with. And the problem is, that the Baby-Boomer generation, because of the ideology it has, because it is a creature of reaction to fear: You go to the Baby-Boomer generation, what is the characteristic statement of the Baby-Boomer, in dealing with issues they don't want to face? "I don't go there." The Baby-Boomer generation is a generation of cowards. Not just draft-dodgers: cowards. "They don't go there." They let it come to them.

We Will Not Be 'Good Germans'

Q: [An e-mail from Mahl magazine in Korea] Mr. LaRouche, we in Korea have been the victim of the dangerous policies of the neo-cons in the Bush Administration, who first created a crisis with the North over the nuclear issue, and then made it worse. We had hoped that the Democrats and Mr. Kerry would be different, only to find that they are just as, if not even more, provocative. We want to resolve this crisis with the North, without the Americans forcing a confrontation, or war.

Mr. LaRouche, if you could set the policy of the Democrats and of Mr. Kerry on this matter, what would you tell them now, to end this so-called nuclear stalemate with the North?

LaRouche: See, Kerry's a Baby Boomer! I mean, personally, he's not that bad. But, he's been told, if he wants to be President, if he wants the prestige of being the Presidential nominee, he's got to follow the party line. Who controls him? He's not his own man! He isn't acting as his own man. He's not talking as his own man. He's accepting what his advisors, including Mr. Shrum-bag, are suggesting to him. Hmm?

He's not his own man. He's not making up his own mind. He's trying to adapt himself to play a role, like an actor playing a part onstage. He, himself, would be different. How much better? I don't know. But, he's not as bad a person, certainly—he's more truthful as a person—whereas as a candidate, I find him intrinsically untruthful. He's in a sense lying: He is living a lie. He is not himself. He is not letting his conscience speak through him. He's running for office under the control of advisors, his controllers.

Edwards has got his own agenda.

So, what you have is, you have guys running for President, who are not morally qualified to run for President. They're less unqualified, shall we say, than poor, mentally challenged President Bush, who probably could not find the White House without a guide. Certainly could not know whether the map is upside-down, and so forth. He'd try to go from Washington to California, and he'd end up in Moscow.

But, the problem here, is, us: Why do we allow men, such as Kerry, who are not un-useful, not without merit in our society, to be reduced to the status of clowns, by their advisers? To say silly things? As if this attempting to—this game, of playing this game with Iraq: What was done in Iraq—and Kerry knows it: We went to war in Iraq, because a cowardly Congress, voted for what it knew to be a lie! A cowardly Congress, of people like—. His profession was law. Under our law, what the Congress did, was a violation of the Constitution!

The Constitution, in its formation, was very specific on the law of war, the war powers of the Presidency. And, he did not have a Constitutional authority to go to war. Nor, did he have a right to go to military action, on the basis of rules of engagement, because there was not conflict which would require a President's response under rules of engagement.

We went to war out of the cowardice, of the Congress! The cowardice of the Senate! As Senator Byrd has documented this, quite accurately.

We went to war, for a lie! A lie cooked up, largely by the circles of Cheney, and Blair, in London. We have people dying, and he says, "Well, we've got to defend our troops." Very simple to defend your troops: Take 'em out! [applause]

So, this is the problem.

On the case of Korea: Kerry knows, as a Senator, he knows much of what I know, about the issue of Korea. He knows what the policies were, under Clinton. He knows what was set into motion, to avoid a war. Cheney wants a war! And, Kerry is implicitly, going along, to accept that, if Bush pushes it. And Cheney does want the war.

The fact is, if Cheney is not eliminated from office, and Bush were President in November, I can guarantee you, the United States—with Israel, or independently—would be bombing Syria; nuclear bombing Iran; involved in a coming war between various parts of Asia and China; nuclear bombing North Korea sites with mini-nukes; and spreading war throughout the world. That would happen.

Any American who votes for either of these clowns, that is, Cheney and Bush, is going to war stovepiped into their interior. They're going to get it. And they will ask for it! The American who votes for Cheney or Bush, is just as guilty as the German who allowed Hitler! [applause]

We are not going to be "good Germans." We are not going to accept that. We are not going to let a President of the United States, who is going to play the role of Hitler—or, worse than Hitler, in the world, because he's playing it with nuclear weapons: We're not going to let that happen to us. We're going to stop it.

So, Kerry does not speak for the United States. He does not speak honorably for the President of the United States, when he's soft on that issue. He knows what Cheney represents. He knows that any moral person, with what he knows—let alone what I know—that, either you get rid of Cheney, as quickly as possible, or you are not truthfully patriotic. You are not a true defender of the United States.

The 'Higher Hypothesis'

Q: I've been thinking a lot lately, about Plato's "hypothesis of the higher hypothesis," and, how to actually get the population self-conscious of this higher form of reason. And, I've got a couple of questions about it: First, I want to know how you can provoke people into thinking about this, through music. Or how it actually happens, that music would bring it to this level.

And also, what would happen, to the future of humanity, if we were successful in getting the majority of humanity to understand, self-consciously, Plato's hypothesis of the higher hypothesis? And what would that type of future actually hold for humanity?

And, the other question I had was just tactical: What do you think about the prospect of the LYM running for Congress in two years?

LaRouche: On the latter question, I think we'd better, very seriously—you ought to talk to Cynthia McKinney's father. [laughing] He might have some suggestions on this line.

No, what we're doing, we're going to do, actually, and what I think the youth should do, is we have to be—. Look, we're out, marching around, as we're going to be from Friday on, in a new way. We're going to be campaigning, to make sure that the Democratic nominee is going to be stuck in the White House, in November. And we're going to do it, in a way, so we will have some say about what he does in the White House. And be rid of some of these creatures, these swamp creatures that he's got around him, now.

All right, therefore we—not necessarily by saying "we're going to go out and run for Congress"—do what we're already doing: We have young people who are politically active, who've got some stripes in the process, as in the California battles against Schwarzenegger; and who are in the Democratic Party, as political officials in the Democratic Party. We're going to go for those positions, where it's the appropriate thing to do. Where we can win those positions.

We're going to find Congressional candidates, who are running, who we think we can work with, who want to work with us. We're going to work with them!

So, we're simply going to slide into a position of that type, and wherever there's a situation which justifies a consensus among us, "Hey! Why don't you run for Congress here?" We're going to do it! Or, for anything. State office, whatever! We're going for it!

But, we're not going for it as an ego operation, as a personal prestige operation. We are out to make sure, that this army wins this war. We're going to take the position that's offered to us, to be able to do the job, for this army, in this war. And this does mean, some members of Congress, those who are eligible, by age, for Congress; it does mean other political positions. It also means playing a key part, directly, or officially, or formally, or informally, in pushing certain campaigns.

For example, we have about 22 states, I understand, in the coming election, the general election: There are about 22 states that are on the edge, that can go either way. We are going to think about that. We're going to think about various candidacies, as in Texas and so forth. We're going to think about where we can make the difference, in bringing a victory in those particular situations. And we're going to get into whatever position we should get into.

The basic thing we should do, however, as a youth movement, is function as a team. And you know why, those who've been in it. Functioning as an individual is not the way to play it. The way the cognitive process occurs, as you know this, it occurs through the cooperation, a dialogue process. So, living the dialogue, living in the dialogue process, which is what the youth movement does when it's functioning properly—which is why I don't want it tampered with by the adulterated generation, hmm? I want it to have the freedom, to live in the mode of dialogue. Rather than being told what to do, as #2 or #3 in a pecking order, as an individual. I don't want competition, ego competition, among youth. I don't want to promote it. I don't want to have a situation that promotes it. I want this as, "We're working together, as individuals, to develop ourselves, and to develop ourselves in practice, in a way which is going to help the process we're aimed at."

So therefore, the higher hypothesis is very simple: It's a social concept. In music it's a social concept. Which—it's a long story, but you know, it's not so easily explained. But, it's true. It's there. It's the difference, you know, Furtwaengler's conception of "playing between the notes," actually involves the principle of the higher hypothesis. Where the whole work, in its own development, integrated development, it's one composition, it's one idea.

The performer, who's going to perform a musical composition of that type, competently, is going to think, not of the first note; he's going to think of the whole composition: The idea of the composition, as a unified process of development, as a single idea, what is called in German by Herbart and by Riemann, as Geistesmasse : the thought-object. Is an indivisible thought-object as the composition. Not a collection of parts. The thought-object is based on a process of development. Based on a process of irony and contradiction, which is called "counterpoint." And, you want to make the thing move, in such a way—. You're going through, not major-minor modalities; you're through a whole range of modalities. Up to ten or a dozen, when you get the Hungarian manner in there, you get a little more complication. Going through all this progression of modalities, which is a process of development. Progress through modalities.

And, this process of development, is now, then, conceptualized by the performer, as a single idea. Play the composition—it's there! In the simultaneity of an instant, it's there! As an eye-object.

And that's what every professional, good musician does. Is to work to develop the ability, through the mastery of counterpoint, to conceive a complex process of development as a single, instantaneous idea, an object: a thought-object. And, then, when calling the thought-object to mind, all the things that are necessary to guide that performance, from beginning to end, will flow from that person's mind, under the guidance of that thought-object. Hmm?

Now, therefore, it's this kind of activity, in exchange of ideas generally, among young people who are young adults, who are in this dialogue process: This is the way to develop these powers. And, when you do that job, and you display these powers, because you're developing them, people will look at you and say, "Hey, what is that stuff, you're doing there? Hey?" And they will begin to say, "Hey, I'd like to find out about this. I'd like to experience this."

So, rather than giving a name, a word, to it, create the experience, in which this has to be recognized.

The Power of an Idea

Q: Yeah, my name's Limari Navarette, and I'm also an elected official in Los Angeles, on the Central Committee. And I really liked that you brought up Friday [LaRouche's announcement of his new PAC to ensure a Democratic victory in November], because I see that a lot of people are thinking about this, at this point, in the youth movement. And, in L.A., Phil Rubinstein made a joke, that it's almost like the Convention's an Apocalypse, and the world's going to explode. So, I'm really glad you brought that up.

I think it's a lack of understanding of what an idea does. It's not always there, and we get stuck in the immediate. And, I always see this as our weapon, our most powerful weapon. And then, understanding, when people ask the question, "What's our effect?" How do you measure that? How do you know that? How do you know that what we saw with Leo Strauss really came from us? You know, you hear these things.

So, I wanted you to actually right now, to communicate to the entire youth movement, how might we use our greatest weapon, the power of an idea, to its fullest potential throughout this week, as we're in Boston; and see our identity in that, so that we could have the most powerful effect we can, while we're here in Boston.

LaRouche: Well, that's the real reason that I wrote the Platform, as I did.

That immortality, the sense of immortality, is made concrete by a sense of history. And history has to be understood as two things: The question of what is the difference between man and an animal. Is there a difference? And, the related question: What is immortality? In other words, do you have the guts to die, if necessary, for what you're fighting for. And, what is the process, the historical process, by which we came out of the murky, unknown past of pre-history, into being ourselves, here, today? And what are we doing, today, as a result of what happened in the immediate preceding generations, and that experience? And what are we going to do, for tomorrow?

And that's how the power of ideas is communicated.

When you think about things that made the difference—for example, the question of Roosevelt. Roosevelt came in, he was a true patriot. That is, his great-great-grandfather, Isaac Roosevelt, was a banker in New York, who was allied with Alexander Hamilton. And Franklin Roosevelt—at Harvard, of all places, you know, these days—wrote a paper at graduation time, which developed, treated that legacy, his personal family legacy, of the American System of political economy.

And, he struggled through his experience with poliomyelitis, and in that process renewed his roots, through extensive studies. Became the governor of New York, and went on to campaign for the Presidency, against the leadership of the Democratic Party—John Raskob, the Terry McAuliffe of that period.

So, he became the President. But, he went into the Presidency, in the Great Depression, knowing what he was doing, knowing the history that he represented, in a great degree, and trying to foresee the continuity of history as he knew it, to the future. He was future-oriented, in the present.

For example, let's take the Bretton Woods system. What did he do? He put, first of all—immediately—he put the national banking system, the Federal Reserve System, effectively into bankruptcy reorganization, with the power of the Federal government. He used the Constitutional powers, of the Presidency under the Constitution, to get the Congress to give him the credit, the utterance power, for credit to save the U.S. economy, to stop the slide down into the Depression. He launched programs, with understanding, to rebuild the economy.

Knowing that a war was inevitable, he prepared the United States for war, at a time when the United States had no preparation for war. The U.S. Army was largely a few top generals, and similar people, like Major Eisenhower, who was working for MacArthur, and a bunch of kids, who were called "Useless Sons Accommodated"—USA, U.S. Army. Useless Sons Accommodated. If you couldn't get a job, join the Army. And they were treated very much like that.

With a few hundred thousand-odd people, to prepare for a war, against major powers in Europe. We didn't have the best fighting troops. Not true. We had the logistics, that nobody else had. In sheer tonnage of logistics, per capita, per soldier, we had overwhelming power! That's how we won the war. Yeah, people died. They sacrificed, they risked, and so forth. But, the reason we won, was not that we were the best killers. We weren't. We weren't the best fighters. We weren't the best tacticians. Yes, we had some senior officers, who really knew something, like MacArthur, who was brilliant. Eisenhower was not stupid, by any means.

But, we won the war, because Roosevelt ensured, knowing what was going to happen from the time he became President, ensured that we would get the strength and the capability, to deal with the looming war, which was building up in Europe. And, when we went to war, we were building a logistical capability, unequalled in human history! The American soldier outgunned every other soldier in the world, in sheer tonnage of technology. He did it.

And therefore, you have a sense of that. Then, at the end, 1944, he shoved down the throat of the British, and the Dutch, and the rest of the them—he shoved down their throats, the Bretton Woods system, which kept the world going until the middle of the 1960s. Until those who inherited power, by scaring Johnson half to death, got us started in the Indo-China War, and gave us the Ku Klux Klan government of Richard Nixon. And broke the system, and set up the system, the economic system, world system, which has bankrupted us, today.

That's the idea. You have to think in terms of the unity of an idea. The history of mankind is a single idea, as we know it. For me, it's a single idea. I know it personally, as you will see reflected here, and in other writings. I know it personally, as the history of European civilization, particularly from ancient Greece to the present. That lives within me, as, not a collection of ideas, but a single idea: A single struggle against evil, to liberate mankind from a condition in which people herd people, or kill them, as herded or hunted animals. That's a unified idea. A single idea.

Then, you look back; you find other parts of humanity, outside European civilization. You find the connection of ancient Egypt, which takes you back another 2,000 or more years, to the Pyramids at Giza. You trace civilization from there—again, a unified idea, of humanity.

And, the key thing, is to get a unified conception through study of history from this standpoint. A unified conception of humanity. To see yourself lodged, as the theologians sometimes say, "in the simultaneity of eternity": That you are living a short life, a short, normal life, in a small place, in time and space in the world. But, you're part of eternity, which you know largely through the history of mankind as a whole, through its development, its struggles. What are you here for? To do a job! You're an angel! You're here to do a job! You're here to do something that needs to be done. And, when you pass on, what you have done, will live!

The Trap of Reductionism

Q: Hello. I have a question regarding, I guess, it's something you said early on, in your own work, about the process of remembering, or regeneration of a thought, being analogous somehow to the development of an organism from an embryo, or whatever stage you want to start at. Now, I mean, I don't want to get too much involved in it, but you can bring in the thought-object into this; but, I was more interested in connection of an idea like this, which is somehow holographic in nature, where you have the whole being something that is represented in each part of the parts, in relation to work you've done with DNA, and driving this some sort of life principle being centered around DNA, where you have the whole organism represented inside a part of the organism. Which even physically, qualitatively, it's something that's different.

You know, in terms of the mind, if you look at it inside the cell, the one thing that seems to be protected, is DNA. And everything seems to be running around, whether protecting or doing the things that DNA wants to happen.

On a bigger, metric level, even, you have all sort of cells in the body, but you have a certain neuron, which is characteristic, you know, if you look at it under a microscope, it looks different; it has different properties. And, it seems that—I don't want to reduce it to this—but your whole apparatus is there, designed to make sure that you have the ATPs to maintain this gradient, and manipulate how you need it.

So, I was wondering if you could take it, from wherever you want to, to wherever else, but just kind of get that in there.

LaRouche: Well, I'll give you an example, there are two ways, as an example. First of all, take the general concept you raised, and secondly, the more particular, where you get more involved in a trap. The trap of reductionism.

First of all, if you see, look at this document, for example, which will now be in another form. How do I write this? I don't write crap. I mean, these guys, who write these papers for the Democratic Party or other parties, or these speeches—they're disgusting! They're junk! There's no intellectual significance, to them—! They're garbage! It's pure sophistry! It's babbling!

But, if one guy babbles, the other guy now starts to babble, he understands. The next guy babbles, too. He understands. Why do they understand each other? Because none of them know anything! Therefore it's easy to come to an agreement. It's an emotional attitude. "I gotta go along, to get along."

What I'm trying to do, always, and I did here, what shocked me about this pretense of a platform—this piece of, this junk. It's even bad junk, it's not even nothing! It's better if this platform they issued were nothing, than what it is. Because it also tries to be something, when it's really nothing! It's like trying to marry a department store dummy. It's all right for it to be a dummy, but don't marry it! And that's what these guys did, with this so-called platform. And they tried to give it life, and figured out how to keep the thing alive, you know. It didn't die—how're you going to keep it alive?

All right. The point is, there's a process in history. There's a process in all events. What you have to do, is what I did here. You're going to talk about what we're going to do. Okay, how did we get here? Where are we? What country are we in? Where'd it come from? What's the problem we're dealing with? Where'd it come from? How're we going to get out of the problem?

And you have to have a comprehension of a process, just like a scientific process, of what's the situation; define the situation; how did it develop? What's its history? Now, what're we going to do about it? And, when you have an answer, as to what you're going to do about it, now, you have a concept. But, you can't have the concept without putting all these considerations together. You have to have a sense of a process.

Now, the problem here, and I refer to a typical case in here, as I do elsewhere: When we developed electrification, rural electrification, in the United States, under Franklin Roosevelt, there was an immediate increase, an accelerating increase in the productivity of farms, per capita and per square kilometer. Even in the case that the farmer did nothing else, to change the way he produced, his productivity was increased, as a result of rural electrification.

When we develop water-management systems, which take areas of the world which are barren, and less productive, we build an area into a rich area—a rich area of, you know, adequate water; you promote the growth of green life and things of that sort; you now have a much higher standard of living, without doing anything else! Simply because the same things you were doing before, can be done better, because you now have an improved environment.

Now, the universe is like that: The universe is a universe! The universe is not a collection of things, rattling against each other. The universe is not empty space, filled with things rummaging around. Therefore, the behavior of the thing, the individual thing, is not located entirely within the thing. It's located within the process which has created it, and makes use of it. And, that's the case, in this case of this genetic thing. There is no genetic determination. What there is, I use the term "appropriateness." There is, in the development of the species, of the human species, at a certain level; obviously, there's a point where you have monkeys—running for Congress, for example. And, getting elected! That's the worst part!

So, but, what's the difference between man and a monkey? Or, man and a lower species? Here, you have human beings: They're capable of creating. They're capable of changing, willfully changing, their population density, of their standard of living. A species, which by monkey standards is capable of, say, 3 to 5 million population on this planet, any time in the past 2 million years—in the ecology of the past 2 million years. It's now got a population of over 6 billion people. How'd that happen? No other species can do that. Every other species, and variety of species, has a fixed relative population potential. Mankind has a willful ability to change his population potential, through discovery of principles of the universe, which we make use of, to change our power, in the universe.

So, man has developed, as an appropriate being, appropriate to the purpose of being made in the image of the Creator. That is, being able to do things that nobody else, except the Creator of the universe can do.

So, the answer to what we are, lies not in the parts that compose us, because, those parts die. The person dies. The body disintegrates. But, the ideas, which are shaping the history of mankind in the future, live on. It is those ideas, which determine man's nature. Not the physical composition of it.

But, what we see in the physical composition, is the organization of the physical composition by something, which causes this effect, which causes the progress of humanity. What is that? It's ideas.

What is an idea? Well, theologically, God is an idea. The universe is run by an idea. And, we are in the image of the Creator, because we have ideas.

Always Look for a Paradox

Q: Hello, Lyn. My name's Michael. I'm from Seattle. In your last three major works, that I've been following, it seems that you've launched a project, in that, you've explicitly laid out what, in the near term now that we're going to be looking at; and what you've been saying, looking down at the economy from the last 50 years, in intervals of 2-3 years, and increasing the pedagogical standpoint of how we're going to get the Baby Boomers to understand what happened to the economy, in these sort of time-lapse images that you've been looking at. And, we've seen a preview of some of the work that's already been done, in the last webcast.

My question is, for those of us that want to help collaborate on this project, of what you've been saying in the last few papers, what you want to do, that you could say a few remarks for those of us, across the country, who do want to help you.

And also, you've said, recently, in one of your papers, that when you made your crucial discovery, that that discovery changed your life from thereafter. And you look at everything from the standpoint of that intention of that principle. So, for those of us, who do want to help you collaborate on this project, we're going to have to look at it from the way that you look at physical economy. So, if you can make sure that we are very clear on potential relative population-density, so we help you with the project, that'd be great.

LaRouche: All right, the first thing to do, is you always start with negatives. You start with paradoxes. A great scientist always looks for a paradox, something that can not be explained in terms of generally accepted interpretations of experience. That's what science is. You start with a paradox, just like, for example, the case I've often cited: The example of Kepler, and his discovery of universal gravitation, which was a unique discovery by him. And, there were several things involved.

First of all, he made a more precise calculation of the existing measurements, including his own, and those of Tycho Brahe. In which he saw that the orbit of Mars was generally elliptical, in the first instance. And secondly, that the rate of progression of the planet in the orbit, was not uniform, but was governed by the apparent principle of equal area/equal times. This also showed up in respect to Earth, because we're observing Mars from Earth, and Earth is in motion. It's rotating, and it's also in motion around the Sun. And therefore, if you have an observatory on Earth, your observatory is moving. So now, the relationship between the changes in orbital characteristics, by trying to normalize this, so you can compensate for motion, comes up with some very interesting phenomena, which you can observe. One you can observe, on the right occasion: That it appears, at a certain point, that Mars loops back on its orbit, and goes backwards and then comes back and resumes the orbit it was going in before.

So, these anomalies, that he observed, provoked him into saying that he now had a crucial proof, that Aristotle was an idiot. He already suspected that, because he was a follower of both Nicholas of Cusa, who was one of the great founders of the Renaissance, and also an immediate follower of Leonardo da Vinci, and Luca Pacioli, who were also followers of Cusa. And so, he knew this.

So therefore, it was the anomaly.

Now, from this, he developed two things. For example, he, developed out of this work on astronomy, and developing gravitation, he proposed to future generations that they must understand elliptical functions, which on the surface seem fairly simple. But, we are still working on them. The essential discovery was made successively, in a sense, in this area, by Gauss and by Riemann, with the help of an intervening fellow called Abel. A young Norwegian, who worked on this question of Abelian functions. And, by Leibniz himself, who discovered both the infinitesimal calculus, which some people deny, even to the present day, to exist. (You have people teaching mathematics, who deny to the existence of the fundamental principle of the calculus.) And, as a related physical principle, which is the physical principle of the catenary-cued principle of universal least physical action. And all of this came out of this succession of paradoxes, in which sense-perception and a simplistic interpretation of sense-perception, did not allow you to understand why these things happened the way they did.

So, that's the way we approach this problem today, is we look at these questions, and we look at the paradoxes.

Real Economics

Now, I'll give you a concrete one, which is also referenced in the platform, issued now: Is, first of all, we have to stop—as I referred to in that broadcast—we have to cease playing around with trying to adduce economy from financial statistics. Financial statistics is a fraud. Now, most of you here know it's a fraud, that is, particularly most of you who've lived, at least partly, as long as I have. Because, you know what they tell you about prosperity, is a damned lie! We have not become more prosperous. Things are not better. We did not have an improvement in the economy in the past ten years. It never occurred (Figure 1). Those in the lower 80% of family-income brackets know it: It hurts! They not only see it, they smell it, they feel it!

All right. So, therefore, what we have been told about the economy is one big lie. And all the economists, the academic economists, are liars.

Now, you want people to understand how an economy actually works. The first thing you have to do, is prove these guys are liars. Now, how do you do it? You say, "Dear Professor Idiot. We came to teach you a class. 'Why You're an Idiot.' And we're going to prove it, right now." All you have to do, is what I did, in part, in that presentation, the webcast on July 15. In which I've outlawed all financial reporting in our organization—it's a crime. It's not a source of information, it's a crime. Because all of these things are lies.

Take a map of the United States. Take it county by county. In each county, divide it by 100 square miles. In each of these counties, count it by 100 families. Now, look at the physical conditions of life, and production, in every part of the United States, on the basis of this map: What area lost the farm? What area lost the power generation? What area lost water? What area lost farmers? What area lost industrial jobs? So forth and so on. What area lost health care? And you see a picture of the United States, over the past period of 40 years; especially the past period of 35 years; especially the past period since about 1981, since the Volcker measures—and look at what happened to the economy. This nation of ours is being physical destroyed and economically and physically destroyed in the conditions of life.

But, people say, "Well, in Boston, we have this. We have that."

Well, how much did it cost you? Who could afford it?

New York City: "Oh, big buildings!" Ha-ha, if you could get by the toll booths. How much did it cost you? Who can afford to live in that city?

Why are people moving the way they are? People find areas of the country, in which they can live and raise families, they can no longer live in; they can't afford to live there. The physical facilities that they used to have, don't exist! The factories don't exist! We don't produce our own food! We don't produce what we wear! We don't produce what we use! We import it, from slave labor overseas!

Wal-Mart is typical: Wal-Mart moves into an area, it takes over marketing. By its power, it gobbles up the competing firms of the areas it's moved into, in a county, or multi-county area. These firms go out of business. Wal-Mart demands that the producer firms, from which these firms in this area—foodstuffs and so forth—are supplying, the markets, these firms can no longer compete with Wal-Mart. They go out of business. The producing firms go out of business. Because they say, we can get cheaper production from China and so forth, overseas.

Globalization. NAFTA, and so forth, with the aid of Wal-Mart, are destroying the United States. How do we eat? We go into national debt. We steal. The current account deficit: We no longer pay for what we consume. We have a currency whose value is totally artificial. On the world market, our currency is not worth what it's pegged today.

Then, you look at the physical figures: Where are the jobs? Where are the plants? Where are the industries? Where can we produce what we need?

We can't do it any more.

We've become like Rome, ancient Imperial Rome, which lived on slaves it had conquered from overseas. Looted countries it had conquered. And when the countries it had looted, were looted down, then Rome no longer had any supplier. And you had the great collapse, the so-called first Dark Age, of European civilization, which came in the collapse of Rome, which was a vast and deep depopulation of Western Europe, as a result of Rome.

Get Your Hands Dirty

We are now, in the United States, and in Europe: We are now at the verge, where a financial collapse would not mean a cyclical depression. It would mean a process, unless we change the system, of a deep collapse.

All you have to do, is do this simple, first step, in response to your question. We just simply do, what I've ordered people to do: Forget these financial correlations. Forget what this idiot, Alan Greenspan, says. The man's a monster! He's a beast! He's an animal. Put him back in his bathtub and hope he comes clean. Don't pay any attention to this stuff! Yeah, we pay attention to it, in a certain way. But, don't try to say, "This tells you how things are going." It doesn't tell you how things are going.

Looking at physical things tells you how things are going. The conditions of life: health care; hospitals; hospital beds (Figure 2). What's happening to senior citizens? What's happening around the country—county by county? Look at areas, once prosperous and productive, which are now dead. And look at the concentration of some people in a few areas, which are not dead—like you see in the Boston area here, which is gentrified, but not particularly productive. This used to be a very productive part of the United States: The Route 128, in the post-war period, was one of the most productive areas of the United States. It was partly shut down, by '66-'67, with the change in the U.S. policy, when we began to shut down the NASA operations. Then, we moved on later, to 495, around greater Boston. That went down, because labor in New Hampshire was cheaper than it was around Boston, so therefore, they moved out, toward New Hampshire, southern New Hampshire.

And here, you have this thing is sitting here, as Boston is a financial center. Money comes in, into a financial center.

But, look at what we used to have. I mean, it was horrible! I mean, don't kid me about the Boston area. I know—I lived here! You can't sell me on this stuff. It was rough. But, we were a productive part of the world. GE used to have in this area, used to have, oh, about 30,000 employees. Find out how many employees GE has in this area, now. Find out what they used to produce; what they produce, now. Go through the Census.

We are losing the industries. We're losing essential industries. We no longer have not only a shortage of employment in these industries, we are losing whole categories of industries which are part of the food-chain of industrial society. We're shipping them overseas. We're losing technologies. We are not progressing. And, that's the point, is, to think like a scientist: Get your hands dirty. Look at the physical reality you're dealing with, and study the physical reality, to show you what is really happening. Now, try to find out, how it is happening, why it is happening, and what policy changes have to be made to stop that, and to reverse that process. I mean, for me, it's simple. I know the answer, already. But, for you young people, you've got to go through the experience of discovering what I know. And, a lot of American people have to, too: By going through the process of looking at the physical facts. Looking at what the problem is. Looking at what used to exist; what we've lost; what we have to put back.

And, having a program, as I do—what the Platform's about—a program for rebuilding this nation, and starting immediately. What do you do, tomorrow morning, if you're President, and the nation is in a depression? What do you do, and how do you know it'll work? I can answer the question. Can you?

You should be able to answer the question. If you're not able, become able.

* * * * *

LaRouche to West Coast Cadre School

Beyond the Convention: Mobilizing the Resistance to Fascism

Lyndon LaRouche spoke to a cadre school in Los Angeles via teleconference, on July 17, 2004.

Well, this is a very interesting time of your life, and mine. For example, we have a pattern of things, which is indicative: A case in Germany, in Bavaria, where we made a comparison to [Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar] Schacht for some of the present policies, and somebody tried to officially get nasty, about the fact that we mentioned Schacht, as a precedent for what is actually going on today.

In France, we have a case with Eric [Sauzé], also implicating our dear friend, Jacques [Cheminade]. And there, also, something is done, the same thing. In the United States, a similar thing.

Now, we actually have live Nazis, running around all over the place, in government, in the Democratic Party, and elsewhere. They don't always call themselves Nazis, but their pedigree is that. You know, I've gone through this, again, and again, and again, and tried to make it absolutely clear, that this long history from the 18th Century, when the British East India Company, under Shelburne, set into operation in France, an operation called the Martinists, out of which came the French Revolution, came Napoleon Bonaparte, then came the Synarchists, between 1918 and 1945, who produced all of the international Nazi operations, including the Spanish [Francisco] Franco, was a Nazi, that is, he was a junior, Spanish-speaking edition of the Nazi Party.

And in Mexico, the Nazis directly created a party of Hispanidad, under various names, including the PAN; which this guy Fernando Quijano joined, under the direction of a Nazi, but, in concert with an American, Nestor Sanchez, who was tied to the section of the CIA, which was running death squads in Central America. So, actually, in spirit he is a Nazi. Fernando is, by adoption, a Nazi.

So, they're all over the place.

We're in a period, in which, like the period 1918 to 1945, in which the Nazi system was dominating all of western and central Europe, under the Nazis really—but it was under the Synarchist International, which created the Nazis. And, when Hitler died, the Synarchist International continued—and they kept many of their assets from the Nazi SS and SD system in it, including General Wolff of the SS in Italy, from whom the Italian terrorist organization, still existing today, came.

So, this thing continued. Now, we've come to a time, at which the present world system is disintegrating. Actually, we're in the last phase: When the official financial collapse occurs, we don't know, but it will be soon. But, now we're in the doom of the existing world monetary-financial system. Much worse than in the period 1918 to 1933.

But, it's the same general idea: Is, that what happened over the post-war period—you had Truman, who was effectively a protector of that section of the Nazi system, which was brought inside the Allied system again, through these banker networks. His policies were that: Truman had, essentially, the policies which are followed by Cheney today. So, the Democratic Party had its Nazis, too. As a matter of fact, the head of the Democratic National Committee, in 1932, John Raskob, was a guy who was involved in a plot against the President of the United States, and was Roosevelt's opponent for the nomination, just as McAuliffe is my opponent. And these guys are all either fools, who work for Nazis, or Nazis, at least in principle.

So, that's the problem. That's why people are so sensitive, when you make a comparison with a policy now, with the same policy which was pushed under different auspices by the Nazis then. We've come full cycle. The Nazi threat is back. It is sitting in the Vice President's chair. And, of course, the Attorney General's chair.

So, we have this problem. And people are very sensitive about it.

A Declaration of War

Now, as you probably have noticed, I have declared open warfare, in various degrees, on these Nazis. We've done it with the series of the Beast-Man reports, which are documentation of this....

Is there a security risk to the United States? Yes! Where does it come from? It comes from the same people who were behind Hitler, that is, the same banking network, which is supporting the Governor of California, Schwarzenegger, who represents a part of the same thing: This is George Shultz. Remember that Schwarzenegger was part of the Enron operation. He was a participant in it, through his financial operations. And, if you want to say, "Who robbed California?" Well, Schwarzenegger's still there, working for George Shultz, still.

So, this problem is here. It's a real problem, and we're out to defeat it.

Now, where do we stand? We have several things going on. The first, as I've emphasized: You're not going to stop this thing outside the United States. We can find help, from outside the United States, to stop this problem, as Roosevelt did, in his time, against the Nazis. But, we're not going to sit back and find that somebody from abroad, from Europe or elsewhere, is going to intervene and save our bacon, by getting this Nazi threat away from us. We're going to have to do it ourselves.

If we do it, effectively, if we show leadership, of the type that Franklin Roosevelt typified, we will get support from many parts of the world, for a U.S. effort in this direction, and we can defeat this problem. We can also overcome and deal with this threatened, general collapse of the monetary-financial system and economic system, we can deal with that. But, it must come from us.

Now, coming from us, means what? Well, as I've explained, the way the United States works, which is what most people in universities, teaching and so on, lie about or just don't know about: The United States has a constitutional system which is different than the constitutional system of any other part of the world today. There was a tendency in that direction, with Charles de Gaulle, with the creation of the Fifth Republic in France, as a true Presidential system. And he had some of the impulses in him, at that point, particularly, as he'd gone through a whole series of changes in his own life. He had the impulses to do it, to save France, and to save civilization.

But, our system is unique. It's a Presidential system. And it's based on a principle. Now, other constitutions in the world do not have a principle. Not in the sense of a scientific principle. They have a list of do's and dont's. It's a patchwork collection: a statement of purpose; then, something like a patchwork quilt—you stitch something in here, you stitch something in there, and this patchwork quilt is called a "Basic Law," or "National Basic Law," or some people dignify it with the term "Constitution."

So, we're the only country in the world, which has a real constitution. And we've had the Constitution, in principle, since it was adopted between 1787 and 1789. The same principle was expressed in the notion of the "pursuit of happiness" by the 1776 Declaration of Independence. This Constitution came from Europe: That is, it was created in United States, but the ideas behind it, included things like the 15th-Century Renaissance; the legacy of Athens, Plato's Athens, or Solon's Athens. This was a conscious idea, in the framers of our republic: Solon's conception of Athens; Solon's letter, in his advancing years, to his fellow citizens about how they had, shall we say, "screwed up." That was a model. Plato, Plato's dialogues, were a model, for what we did in forming a republic. But it was also a Christian model: It was based on the conception of the general welfare, of what's agapé , the same concept which was adopted by the Apostle Paul, but which is already in there in the Republic of Plato, and in other parts of the dialogues.

So, we start with a principle, which is in the Preamble of our Constitution, the principle of sovereignty against empire. We are sovereign. The principle of the general welfare, which is agapé for all of our people. The principle of agapé as extended to the responsibility to our posterity. So that, a youth movement is actually the future of a nation. Because what an adult generation, or the older adult generation, is doing—the incumbent adult generation—is doing with its youth, is the future of that nation. That's our Constitution.

Our system of government is based on a Presidential system, not a parliamentary system. European systems do not have a true republic. None exists in Europe. European systems are based on the existence of an "independent"—so-called—central banking system, which actually represents a Venetian-style, international financier oligarchy. This oligarchy has veto powers over the financial and related affairs of the nation. And, in a time of crisis, those interests move in, as they did in 1918 through 1933, to impose what we call "fascist" states, or similar kinds of states, on their nations.

We have a principle, which Roosevelt expressed, as did Lincoln before him, that, in a crisis, a financial crisis, the U.S. Executive branch must take the lead, under its Constitutional powers, to protect the people against the buzzards, the vultures, the bankers, which is what Roosevelt did. He saved the financial system; he saved the banks in general. But it was done by the Federal government, under the authority of the Federal government, through, chiefly, the Executive branch, and the support for what the Executive branch was doing rallied from the Congress. Over a reluctant, mostly pro-fascist, Supreme Court, under Hughes and so forth.

So, this is the system.

Mobilizing the Resistance

Now, what we've done: We now have—or, we are integral to, is the best way to put it, and we are a spark-plug within that—a group in the Congress, around certain committees, around certain figures, which is mobilizing resistance, against the fascist regime of Dick Cheney, and his stooge, the current President. We have, also, significantly, from among the ranks of the retired and other representatives of the professional parts of the Executive branch of the government—military, intelligence, diplomatic, and so forth. We also have support, not only from people who have served in government, as officials, but those who, in universities and other ways—as me, for example—have advised government, have been a part of the Presidency, in its function, at various times, in our past careers. Many of us are now grouping together, more and more of us are coming together, resolved to do our part, to save this nation, from what threatens it. We have, as I said, we have people from the Congress, that background—no longer in the Congress, but formerly; people in the Executive branch.

That's the core. That's the core, under our system, of mobilizing our Constitutional institutions, to defend our nation, and to rally our people to the defense of the nation, in that way. That's what we're doing.

So, at this point, our enemy is, essentially, anyone who is soft on Nazism. Which is the same thing as being soft on those kinds of bankers, who are like the Synarchist International bankers, who gave us the Nazi and similar systems throughout Europe, from between 1922 and 1945. That's what we're doing.

Now, there's a very special feature of this, which I addressed, also, at the recent webcast, this past week, Thursday [July 15]: the idea of immortality. To have the guts to put your life on the line, when that may be necessary, for the sake of humanity. If you do not have a sense of immortality, you will find you don't have the guts to do it. This is the Hamlet problem. Hamlet—Shakespeare's Hamlet—plunged to his death, in order to free himself of this nagging fear of immortality, as he sums that up in his Third Act soliloquy. This is a typical problem. I go through the list of people, who are candidates for President, or have been Presidents, or similar kinds of positions—and I find a whole bunch of them are cowards, in the sense that Hamlet was a coward. Who went in flight forward, to death, rather than face his anxiety about what lies beyond death. "Get it over with! Go to death: Get it over with!" Like the guy who charges the machine-gun nest, and gets shot to pieces, because he can't stand the tension of waiting. That sort of thing. Flight forward. That's typical of the situation.

So therefore, we don't have—this is called a "Christian nation"; it's not Christian. Don't kid yourself. It's very hard to find a Christian, especially in the churches! They're Hamlets, at best. They believe in an immortality, a Heaven which lies outside the universe someplace. They don't believe in immortality of the individual, within the universe. Or like Jeanne d'Arc, or like I made the comparison to Martin Luther King.

Those of us who fight for something, even at the expenditure of our lives, in order to bring something into being, which must be brought into being—our immortality is expressed by doing that. Just like the immortality of any great discoverer of universal physical principle: They live in what they've contributed to humanity, what is transmitted through their work. They've put their lives on the line, for humanity. And they live, still, because they are still acting, in consequence of the discovery, or the similar act, that they've made, which is still there, vibrating, still giving life, to civilization. People lack that.

Now, to have an effective youth movement, you have two factors. First of all, you have the fact that, well, nobody's getting out of this life alive, you know. But, you have also a sense among youth, that there is no future, under a continuation of the present trends, the Baby-Boomer trends. And there has been, for the past four or five years, a very sharp cleavage, a new kind of cleavage, not only within the United States, but also within Europe: a cleavage of the young adult generation—that is, typified by the 18 to 25 group—and their parents' generation. This is not a difference within the family. It's almost as if it were a different species: Because the old fellows (they're not so old, really, but they pretend to be), the old fellows are wandering around in dream-land, in fantasy-land; acting out a fantasy; not facing reality; looking at their comfort; living in a world of entertainment, not reality; fleeing from reality, into entertainment, like the ancient Romans in Imperial Rome. Bread and circuses. The bread is shrinking, but the entertainment is increasing.

So, the problem is, if you're going to take the job of changing society, it's like fighting a war. You're putting your life on the line—if not physically, at least in principle. Do you have the stamina, to stand up to that? Or will you fall by the wayside, when the pressure gets too tough? The fears become too great? Like Hamlet's fears. The only way you conquer that, is to have a sense that you are, in a sense, have access to immortality. And, that's of course, the reason why I emphasize this Gauss 1799 paper [The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra], and what's related to that: Is, to get a sense inside our people, as I've described, like a lightning bolt, where suddenly you see the point, in this case made by Gauss, against Euler and Lagrange. When you see that, now you know what a universal physical principle really is! And you understand, that this is a power in and over the universe. And, that by grasping that, and building upon that, you can change the world for the better, for coming generations: It gives you a personal sense of the authority of immortality.

And that's what we're trying to do. That's why the youth movement is crucial.

The Convention Is Undecided

We're now going into Boston—nobody knows what's going to happen up there. On the one side, it's a clown show. But, on the other side, some of the people who are participating in the clown show—even people like Kerry and so forth—have a sense, that there's something very, very wrong, in the present process in the Democratic Party in particular, and in the nation.

So, it's not decided. Some things seem to be decided. Some people are pushing, to say, "No, it's closed. The question is settled. It's all over. It's concluded." It's not!

But, we don't know what's going to happen. Because, what is going to happen, is probably something that nobody thinks is going to happen, including us. So, it's like going into war: You're going into a situation, there is going to be a decision, there is going to be a battle somewhere, and things are going to happen. What's going to happen? You don't know! But, you know that you're going to do what you can, to determine the outcome, whatever turn the situation takes.

Now, what we're going to do, is, as I said, I'm going to get out, soon, a platform, which will be an independent platform, for Democrats. I will have that platform circulated in the context of the convention, and also more widely circulated. It will be an overlap of what is going on with the campaign, now. So, the campaign will actually continue. It will go beyond the pre-Presidential nomination campaign, to the post-nomination campaign, and we'll do it without skipping a step. We'll still be in there. We'll be doing it; we'll just be doing it, under slightly different auspices: Mobilizing the nation, mobilizing around the idea of the Presidency, and also concern for the composition of the Congress; and various other issues we take up.

What we're going to do, is, we're going to cause the youth movement to emerge as a spearhead of the politics of the Democratic Party—whether they think so, or not! That's what we're going to do. And, you guys have to have a sense of your immortality; you have to have a sense of history, not from the underside, but from the topside, looking at it from the long term.

And we're going to go in there. We're going to hold our own events, in Boston. Whatever happens in the convention—we will do, what people used to call "our thing." We'll be there. We will be in interaction, with the convention process. Maybe not in the halls in the convention, but in the process around it. We will come out of that, as much remembered, or more so, than the convention itself, because, people may walk away from this convention in disgust—who knows? Who knows what's going to happen? Whatever the selections are, of the Presidential candidates, we are going to shape the environment, which will determine what those candidacies mean, going into the November elections.

That's what we're going to do.

And so, therefore, we are now in a time, where decisions are made, the great decisions are made, which determine the outcome of history, for a long time to come. If you look back, you realize that, since 1763, there has been a certain continuity, in modern European history as extended to larger parts of the planet. It's a continuous process. We've now come, to what might be called a "millennial crisis-point," where hundreds of years—or, actually, implicitly thousands of years, since the fall of Athens, and since the rise of Rome—we've come to a point, where there's going to be a change in the course of history: We're either going into a liberation from the kinds of problems, which the past events of the previous century have meant, or we're going into a dark age. We are at the crucial point of making that decision. Why? Because we're powerful? No. Because we have this or that? No. Because nobody else is willing to do it. Nobody else is willing to take on the challenge which I opposed: We have to do it.

And, as I saw, in the discussions we had this Thursday evening, after the webcast event, among people who were largely elected representatives—our discussion, which took a very interesting turn in the process, they understand, or they have an understanding of what we have to do. They understand that a Democratic Party without a real youth movement, like our youth movement, not like some bunch of boys carrying tea and coffee, or something, as flunkies; but our type of youth movement, is the future of the nation, if the nation has a future.

So, you got a big job! I'm there as long as I'm alive! But, you got a big job before you—even from a little movement, to a big job.

That's it. Okay. Back to you.

All rights reserved © 2004 EIRNS