Latest From LaRouche
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
The following are excerpts from the discussion period at a LaRouche Youth Movement cadre school in Toledo, Ohio on Oct. 9, addressed by telephone by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. For LaRouche's opening remarks, see "InDepth."
Q: This is Diba from Iran.
My question is, who is God? And, if we are, because of all the events happening in the universe, and all the changes in the society and all this different stuff, then, what is God doing? I mean, is it that he just created the world once, and then he doesn't have any part in our life?
LAROUCHE: Good, good, good, good, good. That's an old question, there was a gentleman, a Jewish gentleman, Philo Judaeus, a long time agohe's a contemporary of the Christian Apostles, and was closely associated with the Apostle Peter, for examplewho wrote a famous attack on that faker Aristotle, on precisely the question you asked. Who is God? And, if He created the universe, does He, or anybody else, have the power to change the predetermined course of the universe?
Now, what Philo said is, of course, Aristotle is a fakerwhich is pretty much what the followers of Plato had said earlier, and what I've said frequently, so Philo and I are in the same category, in that sensethat Aristotle is a faker. Aristotle's mistake, was to assume that God created a universe like a clockNewton's clock, for example, Isaac Newton's clock, another fakersuch that, once the clock is set into motion, no one can change it. Aristotle's argument, and the argument against which Philo argued, was the assumption that the universe was made up only of a fixed set of rules, and that even God himself couldn't change the rules. So, from this kind of theory, came the quasi-Aristotelean argument of people like Nietzsche, who said, "God is dead." In other words, they're saying: God, having created the universe as a fixed clockwork system of rules, was therefore prohibited himself, from intervening in the universe, to change the universe, from the trajectory defined by this set of rules. That's the "God is dead" theory. And that's the "End of History" theory of Francis Fukuyama, the same kind of thing: the existentialist view, in general.
Well, first of all, Aristotle was totally anti-scientific. And, this is an old issue, and what you struck upon, is like striking upon a gold mine, when you were looking for sand, with that kind of question. It goes to the deepest question: How do we know the universe? And, know is a very interesting verb. How do we know, what no animal knows? And, how do we demonstrate that we have that knowledge, and what conclusion do we draw about God, and similar things, from that knowledge?
The typification of the problem, is given by the Greek tragedian Aeschylus, in his Prometheus trilogy, of which only the second part, the so-called Prometheus Bound, survives, to our knowledge, today. But, in that, Aeschylus presents a crucial problem, which is the key to understanding all of human history as we know it, or inferable pre-history, today. Now, Zeus, who is, shall we say, the equivalent of Satanhe is a pseudonym, or other name, for SatanZeus takes Prometheus and chains him to a rock, and condemns him to eternal torture, for doing what? For giving knowledge of universal physical principles, in this case fire, to mankind.
The history of mankindas Aristotle represents the evil legacy of Zeus, of Aeschylus' Zeusis that man is a creature, which is capable of discovering universal principles, and applying them to increase man's power to exist in the universe. For example: If man were a higher ape, of the type of the gorilla or the chimpanzee, for example, then, in the past 2 million years, as we know the past 2 million years archaeologically, of the conditions of life on the planet during that periodthe period of many, many ice age cyclesthe maximum potential for the existence of a species such as a higher ape, would have been several million living individualsand rather miserably living individuals for the greater part. Whereas, man today has a population of over 6 billion people. How did that occur? Because mankind, unlike any animal species, was able to discover universal physical principles in the universe, like fire, like Promethean principles of fire, and to apply these discovered principles, as controllable principles to increase man's power to exist, and to change the character of the planet Earth, in such a way as to create the conditions necessary for increased population and a higher standard of living.
So, this is the issue.
Aristotle represents those in the tradition of the Olympian Zeus, who say that mankind, most mankind, must be kept as human cattle, either to be hunted down, the way we hunt down wild cattle, because we consider them pests, or we eat them for food. Or, they are kept as tame cattle, as herded cattle, who should not be allowed to change anything, except go into their stall at night, eat in the stall, and, when they become too old, slaughter them for food, or just slaughter them, because there are too many of them. And that is the issue. So, Aristotle is the representation of evil, the denial of that quality of man, the human mind. Whereas the human mind is capable of understanding the laws of the universe, and therefore understanding the universe; and once understanding the universe, has a conception of God, as the Creator of the universe; has a conception of man, as a reflection of the personality of God. That's what God is.
And that's what was attacked by Philo: That the Creator did not create a fixed clockwork universe, but a system of creation, a system of ongoing creation, in which man, made in the image of the Creator, is a participant and, in a sense, an apprentice. An apprentice in the business of creation, who's discovering creation. And that the universe is not a fixed thing, it's a developing thing.
For example, let's take the case of the planet Earth. Where's the planet Earth come from? Well, according to our best knowledge of astronomyastrophysicsthere was no Solar System initially. That is, not in terms of objects. There was a fast-spinning Sun, when it was younger and more vigorous, more frisky, more like a young adolescent, or something, out there having sex with everything, huh? And this fast-spinning Sun spun off material, from itself. It formed a kind of corona around itself, a disk. And it irradiated this disk, with radiation from the Sun, such that the fusion reactions, thermonuclear reactions, in the disk, achieved a higher temperature, than existed inside the Sun otherwise itself. This disk, then, spun off, like a fractional distillation process, along predetermined orbital pathways, which are the planetary pathways as defined by Kepler, in principle. The material spun off was a kind of plasma; according to Gauss, was distributed rather uniformly along the planetary orbit. But then, because the orbits are elliptical, and have this eccentricity, they didn't stay as material distributed uniformly along the orbit, but they were condensed, through a shock-like effect of the elliptic orbit, into planets and moons; and these orbits were placed against each other in a certain predetermined way, according to principles. And we have the Solar System.
We look at the stellar system. What we're looking at in the stellar system, is a process of ongoing creation. We're getting new states of matter, which were apparently not known before, which are being created. So the universe is a process of ongoing creation. Mankind is distinct from the animals, which can not change their species characteristics, because we, without changing our species characteristics, can change our behavior qualitatively, to such effect, that we have over 6 billion people on this planet today, where only several million were possible, had we been merely an ape, as our greenies today would think we are. Our so-called, you know, Naders. If there were Ralph Naders on this planet, there would never have been more than 3 million such creatures. Fortunately, Ralph Nader is an exception to humanity. He lies outside normal, healthy humanity. And, therefore, we have, in large degree, managed to progress by leaps, in changes in culture, over a period of time.
And the fight within mankind has been, to elevate all persons, to the status of Promethean individuals. That is, individuals who participate in the creative process, and who are actually allowed to function, as creatures made in the image of the Creator. And the Creator is not the Big Clockmaker. The Creator is the personality of an ongoing process of creation, of self-creation and development of the universe as a whole. We are participants in that process of universal creation. We ourselves, as human beings, are properly, efficient agents, in assisting that process of creation.
Q: Good morning sir, this is Jimmy Sharp from Columbus.
You've been put to a lot of slander, and in turn, so has the Youth Movement, such as being called "anti-Semitic," "cult-like," and my favorite, my personal favorite, "fascist."
So, my question, I've been thinking about this question for a while now, has to do with what I call the "omnipotent factor." And, it's a contradiction, yes, but what I mean by that is, it blocks Youth members, making them preachers more than organizers. And, I was wondering, could you please tell me, without deflecting like Bush and Kerry did last night, when have you been wrong? And what is fascism?
LAROUCHE: Well, I don't think I've been particularly wrong, because, the fight I've been engaged in, for all my life, has kept me rather busy, doing the right thing, or fighting against the wrong thing so much, that I don't think I've done much wrong. Mistakes, yes, lots of them; but that's not important.
The question is, whether the controlling considerations, in determining choice of policy, were correct, not whether the policies were always correct. As you know yourself, that it's from making discovery of errors in your opinion, that you discover truth. So, the fact that you make errors, or encounter errors, or adopt them, or simply accept them from what you're taught, is not really a mistakeit's a part of a necessary process.
The question again, as in the previous question, on this question of God: Do you try to look at the universe as a fixed universe, in which there is a very simple right and wrong, as Aristotle prescribes, and that's sort of Satanic? Or, do you see the universe as one in which you are obliged to progress? And, if you are progressing, you are not wrong. You will make mistakes, but it's precisely those mistakes in which you learn.
For example: How do we set up a process of education, a competent process of education? We do it by a Socratic dialogue. In other words, you take a bunch of people; you want to teach them something. They come into a classroom, their opinions are ignorant, they're wrong. Are they stupid? Are they mistaken? No, they're not mistaken. They're right in being there! But, they come in with ideas about nature, or lack of ideas about nature and about circumstances, which are wrong.
Now, how do you overcome this? You have to activate something in the human being which is called the cognitive process. How do you do that? Well, I say, let's take a classroom of 15 to 25 people. Not less than 15, optimally, not more than 25. If you have less than 15, you're less likely to have the kind of activation of a dialogue that you need. If you have more than 25, you're going to tend to exclude some people outside the dialogue; they won't participate. But, you want everybody to participate, so therefore you try to create a unit of discussion which enhances participation.
Now, what do you consider? What you do is, you pose to these young fellas, or to older people, you pose to them a question. The question is in the form of a paradox. It's a contradiction. Now, by aid of their discussion, they are able to come to a point where they recognize a principle, which overcomes their mistaken opinion. Was having the opinion a mistake? Not necessarily. Sometimes yes, but it wasn't their mistake, generally; it was a mistake they acquired by the circumstances which they had gone through, before coming to that particular event, that dialogue. So, therefore, as long as they are proceeding along that line of dialogue, and working through the apparent contradictions, which are presented to them by a rigorous examination of themselves and of society, they're not mistaken. They made no mistake. They followed the right path.
A mistake, is to take the wrong path. A mistake, is to vote for George Bush.
Q: Hello, Lyn! This is Lewis!
I really like what you said, about looking at economic processes in terms of them being like an orbit, and we kind of have to set that orbit into the right intention, so that time will develop it. You know, develop the economy and everything else. Also, these animations: It's interesting how they represent the idea of a locus of action, rather than some fixed, Cartesian insanity; where you are looking a whole process. But, what these animations show you, is an orbit that's going off its course.
I've got two questions for you. One is, can an actually planetary orbit go off its course? And, number two, why is it, that within human processes, human economic processes, orbits lose their truthful intention, and go towards the direction of destruction?
LAROUCHE: Why, sure, a planet can go off its course; but it's not going off its course. Unfortunately, it's on a course of destruction. That's the problem there.
Human beings are different. When human beings act as animals, first of all, they don't act as human, when they're acting as animals. And, secondly, the failure to act as human, in a human context, produces the development of ideologies, as we call them sometimes, which are destructive.
For example, let's take now, fascism. Or let's get nastyhow do you like that, Lewis, something really nasty? Let's take so-called Christian fundamentalists. Who are neither Christian, nor fundamentally sound. For example, Bush. Bush, the President of the United States, is not a Christian. Now, that's not a difference of opinion; that's a fact. Because Christianity is a known fact, New Testament Christianity is fairly clear on this point. For example, the case of the Gospel of John, or the I Corinthians: 13 of Paul, are very clear as to what Christianity is. And Christianity is, above all, a conception of man, as made in the image of the Creator.
As opposed to those who see man as, like an animal, those who, for example, Scalia. Antonin Scalia, the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, is morally, intellectually, an animal, and not human. He's nominally a Christian, but that doesn't mean anything, because he's not a Christian. He's a beast. He believes, essentially, in the tradition of Locke, of slavery; or he's a degenerate version of Locke, more degenerate than Locke. His "shareholder value" is a conception of man which is consistent with the idea of chattel slavery as property.
Let's go through this thing as evil, since in this context, Christianity came up, and so forth, earlier. What is evil? Well, evil is typified by the case of the Grand Inquisitor, Tomás de Torquemada. And he is in a sense, the antecedent, in more ways than one, of this evil fellow, who is the Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Now, Torquemada was the real model for Adolf Hitler. In other words, what Adolf Hitler did to Jews, is modelled upon what Torquemada did to Jews in Spain, and threatened to do to Moors, in some degree or other. Torquemada was a racist.
He was also part of that function in the Hispanic peninsula, which introduced modern chattel slavery, modern society's chattel slavery, to practice. It was the Spanish and Portuguese, of that persuasion, that racist persuasion, who said that, in the history of the Americas: Number one, that Africans, that is, black Africans, so-called, are not human; therefore they are animals. And therefore, as we capture wild animals, and tame them, and cull the herds to produce tame animals, or herded animals, so we must do with the black African. That was done by the Portuguese, at a certain point, one faction of Portuguese; it was done by the Spanish. It was done under the same ideological structure as Torquemada then, Hitler later, and Antonin Scalia with his conception of property rights, today.
What happened, then? It was introduced into the United States, and into the Americas generally: systemic slavery, African slavery. That the Portuguese, and Spanish, and others, would organize slave wars in Africa. They would go out and kill most Africans, but they would take a small group of children and young women, whom they preferred, and they would ship them across the water, to South, Central, and North America, as slaves. These who arrived there were called "property." They were treated as property, in the same sense that a cow is treated as property. And, it was said that, if you tried to free a slave from the condition of slavery, you were stealing another man's "property." So, therefore, the denial of humanity of man, led to the conception of man as property, which led to an evil, whose legacy curses the United States today!
For example: In the United States, you have, not only in the Southern states, but also in people like George Bush's friends, you have a conception of man which is evil. And this conception of man that's evil, is located in the notion of property. You can go through the back woods of Mississippi, Alabama, and so forth, and you will find lots of people who are unimproved followers of the Ku Klux Klan. This ideology, which is a depraved ideology, is a criminal state of mind, is considered a constituency. This constituency, this state of mind, is a key part, a key element in the structure of so-called Christian fundamentalism, today. You find it in the Catholic Christian fundamentalism of the Pope-haters: Those who hated Pope John XXIII, those who hated Pope Paul VI, those who hate John Paul II. So, you have Pope-hating Christians, so-called, who are really part of this. You have so-called fundamentalist Christians of the Nashville Agrarian type, who are close allies of George Bush and the Pope-hating pseudo-Christians, Catholic pseudo-Christians, and it becomes evil. Thus, the denial of truth, the rejection of truth, when you try to institutionalize it, creates evil.
The process of education today, in the United States, is evil. As in the case of Aristotle, as I responded on the first question, on this question of Philo Judaeus: That, when you deny, as the Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound denied, the divinity of humanity, you deny the existence of the creative powers in the human individual, which are comparable to those of the Creator, which make man in the image of the Creator. When you deny that, you have started down the road toward evil, evil in practice. Now, remember, in the United States today, the legacy of those who have not freed themselves from the implications of the toleration and apology for the Confederacy and slavery, is the greatest source of corruption in the United States today. You see it, for example, in the ideology of people who, in the United States, are the descendants of slaves.
You see it in those who are of Hispanic origin, from Mexicoparticularly Mexicowho are victims of the pseudo-Catholic, pseudo-Christian doctrine, that you'll find proliferating in Guadalajara, among the so-called Cristeros, who are racists, in the tradition of Torquemada. And who in fact trace themselves from the legacy of Torquemada, who had a second policy for Indians, in the Americas. They said the Indians are not animals, but they are an inferior quality of human, quasi-animalistic humans. They must be controlled. They must be made peons. So, you have in Mexico, you have racism of a form, which is not usually of the anti-African form, but of another form, the anti-peon form. You have the right-wing Catholics, who hate the Pope, who are part of the Cristero traditions, who are part of the Nazi Party's organization in Mexico during the period from 1938 on, to the present time!
So, therefore, the denial of the quality of humanity, a denial which afflicts the conditions of life, of the largest so-called minority groups in the United States todaythose of African descent, and those of Mexican descent, in particularthey are victimized, culturally and otherwise, by the legacy, the uncured legacy passed on from generation to generation, down to the present time, of the legacy of Tomás de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor, who is the progenitor of Adolf Hitler, and his crimes.
And this is the kind of problem we face. We have to recognize that: That when you turn against good, you manufacture evil in yourself. And the problem is not that people don't accept what I teach them. The problem is that, in rejecting it, on this issue, they become wicked, even evil.
Q: Hello, this is Patrick Frost.
The world has been globalizing for thousands of years, like people travelling the Earth, talking to one another, sharing knowledge, and also what they've learned. But, just within the last century, the pace has really picked up, and it's really been speeding up very drastically, and I feel like we're heading towards a major transition within our world, where territorial boundaries are being broken down, and we're heading towards full globalization.
And I guess, I was just wondering, what your thoughts on corporate globalization were, and whether it was a good thing, or a bad thing, for this world. And I don't necessarily mean, at the very beginning of corporate globalization, because there will be some hostility, and people taking advantage of other people. But I mean, further down the line, once there is more equality on the planet, do you think that corporate globalization would be more beneficial than the system that we have now?
LAROUCHE: Globalization is inherently evil. It is not new. It is the characteristic of society, the repressive aspects of human society, for as far back, as we know. The struggle for the emergence of the modern, sovereign form of nation-state, which we trace in European history from Solon of Athens, and from especially his revolution, which was made under his leadership in Athens, against the usurers. And his letter, as a poem, to the Athenians, who he said had gone bad, after what he had led them to do for good before, is the history. So, the struggle for the existence of the modern nation-state, the modern nation-state republic, as best typified by the creation of the United States, is the only model which is fit for society.
Now, the modern nation-state came into existence, in the first form, it was struggled for, it was known and struggled for, for as far back as we know in ancient history back to Solon and so forth, but, the rise of empires, which are globalization, introduced evil. Feudalism was evil. There's no good in feudalism, as such.
Finally, as a result of the aftermath of a great collapse of civilization in Europe, in the 14th Century, the weakening of the powers of evil, made it possible to have an Italy-centered Golden Renaissance in Europe, which led to the revival of the Classical Greek culture as a foundation, as opposed to a corrupt Latin culture. This led to the formation of the first nation-state, Louis XI's France, and then the subsequent establishment of a follower of Louis XI, that is, a person who had been in his court, Henry VII of England.
The powers of evil, typified by Venice, struck back, and organized religious wars, and related kinds of wars, on the continent of Europe and beyond, over the period 1511 to 1648. This period of religious wars, was ended under the influence of Cardinal Mazarin and his protégé, Jean-Baptiste Colbert of France, in the form of the Treaty of Westphalia. The Treaty of Westphalia was an agreement for peace among sovereign peoples, sovereign nation-states.
Now, the question here is: What's wrong with globalization, morally? Why is globalization inherently immoral? Why does it lead always to forms of imperialism? Why is imperialism nothing, but the generalization of globalization, which is not a new development? Why will globalization never lead to anything good, but lead actually only to a dark age, and to the destruction of mankind?
The answer to that lies, essentially, in the nature of the individual. The human individual is a creative personality, that is born creative, not like an animal. All ideas of globalization are based on herding the human herd as a pack of animals, as a pack of cattle. Globalization is already destroying civilization. If it is not halted, I can assure you, that within the next decade or so, humanity globally will go into a dark age, in which the over 6 billion people today, will be replaced by, maybe, a couple hundred millionmaybe less, under globalization. So, there is no redeeming quality in globalization down the line, nor ever in the past of mankind. It has always been evil.
Now, the characteristic of mankind, is the ability of the human mind to discover a universal physical principle. And we have to think about, how that is done? How is this quality of the human mind, developed in a baby, a child, an adolescent, to produce a civilized adult? What it involves, is: A human being is formed within a culture. It's a language-culture, largely, it's a culture of practice associated with a language. A human being is able to discover ideas by means of the equivalent of what we would call, in a refined form, a Platonic or Socratic dialogue. It is not through the literal meanings of words, as dictionary meanings, but through the ironies of meaning, found in the paradoxes in the way in which terms are used, in which ideas are spreadthe quality of humanity.
Therefore, you have to take a people, and you have to use its language, not for its literal dictionary qualities, but for its ironical qualities. We're constantly coming up with ideas, for which no names previously existed. How do we get those new names, for the things where the names, the definitions, terms, didn't exist for them beforehand? They occur, for example, in poetry, in what's called irony, or Classical irony: a juxtaposition of terms, in such a way, that a term which has two contradictory meanings is juxtaposed together, two different connotations. And the juxtaposition of these connotations, in a proper circumstance, suggests to the mind, a new idea, which didn't exist before; and the juxtaposition, the contradiction, the paradox, now becomes the basis for the name of the new concept in society.
The development of mankind, is always the development of new ideas; the generation of ideas through these methods of paradox. The culture which people have, the national language-cultures, or the bringing together of, say, two or three languages in the same people, as we have done the United States. The best part of the United States is, that we are a melting-pot nation; we are the true republic, because under optimal conditions, people coming into the United States, from any part of the world, bring their cultural heritage to us, to interact with our existing cultural heritage, and become part of the process of developing a more universal concept of mankind.
But, we act together in a process, a decision-making process. The crucial thing is, that the individual member of society, is enabled to participate in the deliberative processes concerning principles of the nation-state. And without a cultural context, a national cultural context, of the type best typified by the melting-pot character of the United Stateswhen we have a good system of public education, for examplethat is the model of a true republic. As a matter of fact, our republic, as defined by our Constitution, particularly with its Preamble, is the only true republic on the planet at this time.
The objective is to bring the world as a whole, into a family of republics, true republics, like our own, to cooperate as nations, according to the same principle which is reflected in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. That's the only way that humanity's going to survive. Any continuation of the present trend toward globalization, means a prolonged dark age. It means the disintegration of most existing culture.
Q: Hello Lyn, this is Danny from New Jersey. I'd like to know if you can explain the context in which the war in the Balkans took place during the Clinton Presidency, with the role of Madeleine Albright and NATO. And is this similar to the current conflict which the neo-cons are provoking, using Chechnya and the Caucasus region?
LAROUCHE: There is a relationship. This was an abomination. You know, Clinton is an interesting fellow. He's very intelligent and a good-hearted person at heart. He's a Baby Boomer. He came into Washington from Arkansas, which is not the great metropolis of the United States. And he had a lot to learn. and he had to adapt to a lot of things which he might not have liked. But, in order to maintain his position as President, he went along with themmaybe not too happily, but he went along with them. Madeleine Albright was one of those things.
Now, before Clinton came to Washington, you had a long fightand I was part of it, a key part of it, from the inception. Actually, I go way back to the end of the World War II period, where my political character was defined, by the shock of returning to a different United States than the one I had left under Roosevelt, to the United States under Truman.
So, what happened was, in this case, with the fall of the Soviet system, there were Anglo-American currentsof which Brzezinski, for example, is merely typical; Kissinger is typicalwho believed in a British Commonwealth conception of empire. In other words, you have a certain alliance and rivalry, between certain imperialist tendencies in the United States, such as Kissinger, Brzezinski and so forth; and British imperialism, as typified by, for example, Tony Blair. It's the liberal imperialism of the Fabian Society, and this is about as nasty as you can get on this planet. These people quarrel among each other, as to who is going to have what degree of supremacy. but they generally agree on the idea of an English-language union. They think of themselves as being a new empire, the Liberal model, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal model. And the question is whether the United States is going to control the remains of the British Empire as an asset, or whether the British interests are going to take over the foolish United States and steer it. That's the direction.
So what happened when the Soviet Union collapsed, or began to collapse, as I had forecast it would, first you had Desert Storm. Now, the real reason for Desert Storm was imperial. There was no good reason for it. Saddam Hussein had been a George Bush asset, and I know it. I know it, personally. We had some fuss about that with the Iraqis. I told the Iraqi ambassador, at one point in Washington, "Watch out for Vice President George Bush. You think he's your friend today. Watch it! There's going to be a change." Anyway, Desert Storm was an imperial operation, which went on essentially from 1990-1992.
The second phase was the Balkan War. Note that the instant we pulled out of Desert Stormand correctly so; I mean that was no mistake in pulling out of thatwe went into the Balkans. We have destroyed the Balkans! Anglo-Americans destroyed the Balkans, with the cooperation of France's Mitterrand government. That's a fact. And the Clinton Administration came in, as an author of the tail end of that series of Balkans Wars, from which the Balkans have not recovered, and under present policies would never recover.
We're now moving into Transcaucasia; the Anglo-American interests are moving into Transcaucasia, attacking Russia. The same imperial interests are moving on this Iran question; moving on the so-called Middle East question; moving toward setting up a conflict between Taiwan and mainland China, which could lead to a war in the year 2007, according to the best estimates of people looking at this thing.
So, it's this imperial trust which was represented and typified by the role of Madeleine Albright and others in the Balkan Wars under Clinton, which is simply a manifestation of this. The problem was, with the Clinton Administration, they had no comprehension of this, and were rather influenced by the very strong pressuresparticularly take the pressure that Clinton was under from the right wing, from the fascist wing in the United States; the Bush wing, the fascist wing, in the United States. And therefore, he adapted to a lot of things he didn't have time to understand.
Clinton did not understand the economic crisis. He didn't understand that. He believed in the "golden generation," which is a screwed-up generation actually, but he believes that somehow that they had some mystical quality, which I think he probably may be reconsidering now.
So, that is the fact. These are the facts. This was a crime, in which the United States participated, a crime against the Balkans. But we've got mess in the Middle East, so-called, is a crimean Anglo-American crimewhich our government got into partly by foolishness or blindness, ignorance or whatnot. But it's a crime. What Bush did was simply take that, under Cheney's direction, and continue it. It's a crime. It's a piece of evil. And, we as a nation have to grow up and recognize that when we make a number of mistakes as a nation, we have to correct them. And that's one of the mistakes we have to correct.
Q: Hi Lyn, this is Alison [ph] from the Detroit office. My question is a two-part question. The first part, is the relationship between freedom and leadership. And I was wondering, because I think you have a lot experience with this, if you could talk about that. And maybe, use Christ as an example.
The second part was, in Detroit, it's really an abomination to humanity, what happened there. I was wondering if you could talk about the role of the fundamentalist churches. Because there's lots of them there. There's also lots of liquor stores and prostitution!
LAROUCHE: Got you.
Well: Freedom and leadership, that's important. In the post-war period, you had a bunch of former Communists and others, who, as we outlined in our reports in this book we have out now, on the Children of Satan, became fascists. And they moved very easily from Communism to fascism, as the case of Sidney Hook, for example, typifies this. Sidney Hook also typifies an enemy of mine, typifies the way in which the Congress for Cultural Freedombetter called the Congress of Cultural Fascismwas set into motion, largely by people who had been Communists or influenced by that, you know, left-wing Trotskyists, and others. Our neo-cons today are a product of that.
Now, what they did, was to spread fascism in a very interesting form. Take the case of Hannah Arendt. Hannah Arendt and Theodor Adorno were key figures in the process of spreading of this propaganda in the United States, which has caused the kind of issue of discussion, which you reflect in discussing this alleged conflict between freedom and leadership. This is what they did.
Now, the nature of humanity is leadership, and especially leadership among the people. You must contrast leadership with dictatorship. You have a President of the United States presently, George W. Bush, who is a mental case: an incompetent mental case, and anyone who saw him last night on television, should have been able to recognize a walking mental case; a virtual case of psychosis; a psychopath, walking, before a national television screen. That is the opposite of leadership.
Cheney is a sociopath, a brutal, fascistic sociopath: A lying sociopath. You saw him on television, the previous week, or earlier in the week. That is the opposite of leadership!
Leadership is, essentially, the fact that in society, so far, a limited percentile of the population is willing to base itself on a commitment to knowable truth. Most people will say, "You have to go along with public opinion." They say, "You have to be democratic." By what? By submitting to lies! If you overhear most people saying something about somebody, or some nation, or something, you say, "Oh! Well. I guess I'll have to agree, because all my friends agree." You raise the matter of truth, you have the evidence, they say, "Well, I'm sorry, I can't agree with you! All my friends tell me..." Now this is non-leadership.
This is worse than non-leadership: It's an opposition to leadership! Leadership essentially takes the form of the innovative discovery of truth, or re-discovery of truth, where it's needed, or where it might be needed. That's leadership. That's what I do. I provide leadership. I have no particular power. I don't command things. Even people associated with me don't do what I think they should do most of the time! So, I don't have any dictatorial abilities. I have a certain amount of influence, but that's only because I have a mind. And my mind is a little bit better or better-developed, than the minds of some people around me, so therefore I'm able to exert some influence. That's leadership.
Jeanne d'Arc, sitting before the Inquisition, who burned her alive, was exerting leadership, even though she exerted no command over the people who were holding her there, and murdering her, there. So that's the difference. Leadership, freedom is a commitment to truth. A rejection of public opinion, when public opinion is recognizably wrong. Leadership is the ability to resist social pressure from your family and friends, when you should know they are lying, or simply wrong. Leadership is learning how to stand up to that, and how to reactnot violently, not wildly, but react with careful calculation. What do I do in this situation?
Look, I was raised, for example, under a father who was bipolar. I've seen other people raised under bipolar fathers. Often, they have an abreaction against the father. And they become sick and they become bipolar themselves. You have legacies in the United States, of fathers beating children, generation after generation, down the line. The child who was the victim of the father, becomes the beater in the next generation. His son becomes the beater in the next generationor his daughter! Many mothers are beaters: They may use different methods than beating, as such: manipulation, cruelty, sadism. But these sadistic practices associated with bipolar behavior are commonplace in society.
And that's, of course, what Cheney represents. That's what George Bush the President, represents: an acute case, a mental casea psychopathic case, actuallyof a fellow, who was in effect beaten by his family. That is, the psychological effect, is a beaten child, who hates his fatherand yet, who does to an entire nation, what his father did to him, or what he thinks his father did to him. You have Cheney: Cheney is a complete bipolar sociopath! I don't know, I think his wife beats him, in one way or the other. She controls him. Perhaps she uses a whip. I don't know if she's a dominatrix or not, but that kind of process.
So, that is the difference. In the case of Christ, it's the same thing. Christ exerted leadership, and is the epitome of the exertion of leadership, which is admired by all Christians in that respect. The martyrs of Christianity, are examples of leadership. Leadership is not command. Though, when you have a capable leader in military command, or in leadership in responsibility for a nation, they will exert command, because that's the function which is assigned to them, in the role they are playing at that time. But leadership is usually the fellow who's being beaten upon, not the one who's doing the pushing around. He's beaten upon, because he's the black chick among the white chickens. But he's right. He's right.
Now, in the case of Detroit, and, in particular, this fundamentalist thing: Fundamentalism is actually a form of insanity. And it is accepted by people who are beaten down. Accepted as, "I'm denied everything," either psychologically or even physically, "but I'm gonna get mine. I'm gonna get mine. Jesus is coming! I'm gonna get mine! When he comes, I'm gonna get mine. And when he kills all these people I hate, I'm gonna get mine. When he kills all those people in the Middle East I hate, I'm gonna get mine. When he kills all those black people, who I think are oppressing me, I'm gonna get mine. When he kills all those white people who I think are oppressing me, I'm gonna get mine."
Liquor stores? What else? How else are you going to get spirituality, except out of a bottle, in that circumstance?
Q: Hello, Lyn, this is Randy from Philadelphia. I asked Harley a similar question on World War I, and I wanted your input...
LAROUCHE: You think I was there?!
Q: Maybe, I don't know. What happened, I mean, what went into World War I? Because it seems, just doing some cursory study, that a lot of the stuff is very relevant to even things going on today. And I wanted to know what went into it? And who is behind the Treaty of Versailles coming out of it?
LAROUCHE: Okay! Well, that's a nice big question! Which fortunately, I'm equipped to answer. Being an old geezer, I get to pick up a lot of knowledge around, in the course of life.
I've written about this at great length, so I'll just summarize the point, because you'll find in the things I've written, that back up the documentation, or the allusion of documentation which refers to this.
In 1763, as I've pointed out, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system established imperial power, in February of '63, with the defeat of the nations of Europe, in the process of taking over India, and taking Canada for the French. So, the British East India Company became an empire, even before the British monarch became an emperor.
So, at that point, we face a crisis in civilization, European civilization. We had, in a sensedefeated, with the Treaty of Westphaliawe had defeated the initial form of the Venetian system, that is, the so-called Catholic form of Venetian system. But then, we had the Anglo-Dutch Liberal or Protestant form of Venetian system: Because the Anglo-Dutch Liberals were literally clones of the Venetian financier oligarchy, who had established a new maritime power, to replace the political maritime power of the Adriatic, by a maritime power based on the old Hansa connection: northern Europe, the Baltic Sea, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and England.
What happened is, in the struggles which occurred between 1688 and 1763, the British Empire, the British monarchy as defined by the British East India Company, became the dominant factor consolidating power over Scandinavia, over the Baltic, over Northern Europe, the coast, and the Netherlands in particular. For example: Hamburg was essentially a Dutch city, an Anglo-Dutch city; Denmark was largely an Anglo-Dutch province; the Netherlands itself, of course. So, they established this. So therefore, the British monarchy, in effect, as a monarchy which was then a captive, or a stooge, for the British East India Company, or the Anglo-Dutch Liberals, became an empire.
This meant for us, in North America, that we were threatened, in 1763, which began, in effect, the open struggle. We had already had struggles to establish a republican form of government in North America. That went back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It went back in principle to Miles Standish, in the Plymouth Colony. But we had been struggling in that direction. But, in 1763, things were laid down to usbetween 1763 and '66. And Franklin made noble efforts to try to avoid a war with England, in defense of our liberties. But, this led, then, to inevitable war, because the British East India Company was not prepared to tolerate the emergence of a strong nation, or the equivalent of a strong nation, in North America, even an English-speaking one. So this led in a process.
Now, the forces in Europe, from that period on, from the middle of the 18th Century on, the same forces associated with the rise of Classical humanist culture in the 18th Century, against the so-called liberal culture, against the so-called empiricist culture, the so-called Enlightenment culture. These forces saw in Benjamin Franklin and his associates, a core of people in North America, who had the capacity, the potential, to create a republic with help from friends in Europe.
So the formation of the United States, as a republic, was the result of this relationship between the Classical humanist current in Europe, including especially France, as typified by the case of Lafayette, with the people of the United States.
With the defeat of us, by the burning of the Bastille, which was a British intelligence operation, intended to prevent France from becoming a constitutional republic allied with the United States, and it worked. The people who ran the siege of the Bastille, was largely Philippe Egalité, a British asset. It was run on behalf of a British agent, Jacques Necker. And so, you had passage of that, run by British intelligence through Jeremy Bentham, who was the secret committee head, the equivalent of the British Intelligence Service, for the British Foreign Office, then. And Danton, Marat, were British agents, and so forth; Robespierre effectively was a British agent. But then the thing was done, through a Freemasonic organization on the continent, which was associated with Comte Joseph de Maistre, who created Napoleon Bonaparte.
So, you had this period from July 1789 through 1815, in which the Bonaparte-dominated French Revolution screwed everything up in Europe! And Europe has not had a true republic, from that time to the present, as the result of this process. The so-called liberal economies, the parliamentary systems of Europe, and their slight modification in the direction of a Presidential system, have never been true republics. There is no true republican tradition, in the constitutional structure of Europe to the present day. None.
So, in this process, we were isolated. And the imposition of expanded slavery upon us from Spain, which went back into the slave-trading business, went on. We were corrupted, we were controlled, dominated by the British East India Company. We were threatened, by the Hapsburg system.
We attained our freedom, under Abraham Lincoln. And we emerged in 1876 as the leading nation-state power on this planet. The British could no longer attempt to destroy us by external application of force. We had defeated the British, the French, the Spanish, in throwing Maximilian, in effect, out of Mexico. We affirmed the John Quincy Adams principle of our nation, the principle of the Americas.
So the British had to operate against us in a different way.
The result of this was, the son of the dotty Queen Victoria, became the fulcrum of a plan, to conquer the United States by absorbing it. The method was to intervene in U.S. politics, to destroy all those who represented the American tradition, by introducing the British Liberal tradition into the United States as much as possible, using largely leftovers from the Confederacy combined with New York bankers, in the tradition of Aaron Burr, whom the British controlled.
So, the British monarchy set about to break up the cooperation among nations of continental Europe, cooperation which had been based on admiration of the American model, particularly from 1876 on. This included Russia, whose Czar Alexander II, an admirer of Lincoln, had adopted according to Mendeleyev's proposal for the Trans-Siberian Railroad and similar kinds of development. In Germany, Bismarck changed the policy, by adopting the American System of industrial development as a model. Japan, through the influence of Henry Carey, adopted Carey's model of the American System, as the model for the modernization of Japan. Similar things happened in France, between 1872 and 1898.
So, the British moved in to set the nations of Europe against each other's throats, starting with the capture of France, as a stooge for the British Empire, pitting France and Russia, against Germany, and so forth and so on. So, Edward VII organized World War I, which came, in fact, after his death. Now, this was an anti-American operation, during this period: The assassination of McKinley in the British interest; the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, both of whom were complete British agentsand Wilson was a Ku Klux Klan fanatic. I mean, somebody call him a democrat! This man was a fascist! An out and out fascist. So we had that.
We had the corruption of the United States following World War I, in the form of the Coolidge Administration and the Hoover Administration. The 1929 crash did not cause the Depression in the United States, Hoover did. Hoover reacted to the 1929 crash, in the way Annie Krueger, the mother of Freddie Krueger, reacted to the debt of Argentina. Hoover collapsed the United States economy by 50%, and the incomes of Americans by 50%. Roosevelt saved the United States. And saved the world, because the world was going fascist, at the time that Roosevelt became President. Had Roosevelt not become President, if Hoover had been re-elected, the United States would have joined Hitler, in a world fascist system. And we wouldn't be talking today.
So, that is the general nature of our situation. We still have the same problem. We have, again, the people who organize fascism, were the Anglo-Dutch Liberals, and as I've said repeatedly, as I said recently in the webcast: "Liberalism on Sunday, is fascism on Monday." Liberalism is the power of a Venetian-style collection of private banking interests, financier oligarchic interests of the type called fondi. That is, the old Roman tradition of the members of a family become the voting interest in controlling a financial entity. This entity acts like a pirate. But groups of pirates, as in the case of Venice, while cutting each other's throats in rivalries, gang up together against the rest of humanity. This is the Liberal system.
This bunch of Liberals, at the Versailles Treaty, set out a plan for destroying the nation-state. Their plan was to set up a fascist system. And these were bankers. What they didthey planned a post-World War I system, which they knew from the beginning, as Keynes described it, was doomed. And it was doomed. They set up a system, based on reparations by Germany to France and Britain. Britain and France, which were in debt to New York, used the payments from Germany to them, to be able to pay their debts to New York: That was the post-World War I system. It was doomed to collapse. And it did collapse. And the people behind it, like Keynes, knew it was going to collapse. Keynes was a pro-fascist, as he wrote in 1938, in the introduction to his General Theory, which was published in Berlin, in German.
So, 1922: British-controlled banker Volpi di Misurata of Italy, a Venetian, put Mussolini into power in Italy. And from that point on, there was a wave of fascist dictatorships and movements arising, which in the wake of the Hitler success of 1933, became, over the period from 1933 through 1945, the dominant system of continental Europe. The United States under Franklin Roosevelt, not only prevented fascism from coming to the United States, which it would have if Hoover had been re-elected. You have the same thing today. If George Bush is re-elected, you must expect a fascism regime in the United States, almost immediately; even after the election, and not wait until the inauguration.
Roosevelt saved us from that. Roosevelt had plans, to prevent Russia from being crushed by this fascist movement. Roosevelt had the good fortune of a Churchill, who was himself a fascist in every respect, but was a British fascist, and did not want to surrender the British Empire to control by a bunch of German fascists. So therefore, out of this kind of peculiar imperial patriotism, Winston Churchill led the British into an alliance with Franklin Roosevelt, which prevented the Nazis from establishing a world empire. And then, the United States, with the encumbrance of Churchill and company, went on to lead in crushing the fascist movements around the world, temporarily.
When Roosevelt died, the day after he died, under Truman, the fascists began to come back into power. The same group, who had been pro-Hitler at the beginning of the 1930s, but who had joined the British, in fighting fascism in order to defend the British Empire, now came out of the closet in seeking to establish and Anglo-American system, based on the same principles. At first, they couldn't succeed too much. They could start what became known as the Cold War. But, after the Missile Crisis of 1962, the assassination of Kennedy, and the launching of the Indo-China War, we were transformed into a junk heap. Not all at once, but step by step and remorselessly. We are now an international junk heap.
And we're now back at the same point. We're now back, where we were when Roosevelt became President. This election is the same. Kerry is not a Roosevelt. He lacks the noble qualities of a Roosevelt. He's an intelligent person. Under the right influence, he can be useful, he can be decisive, in defeating this process. But he's no Franklin Roosevelt; he doesn't have that depth of character, of understanding, of commitment. He's shown it. He doesn't.
So therefore, we're back to the same thing. Our job, today, is to take a Kerry election, and ensure that the Kerry election becomes the launching of a solution for this great danger that faces the world today. Our opportunity to do so lies in the fact, as today, in the morning reports, that George Bush lied his head off last night, to the extent he knew what he was saying at all, in saying the U.S. was in recovery. George Bush lied about the U.S. economy, as he lied about a number of other things, last night. But the collapse of the economy is not going away. Oil is $53 a barrel. That's going to come down and hit the pumps soon. It's going toward $60 a barrel at present. That's going to hit the pump, too. The U.S. economy is collapsing. The world economy is collapsing. Some time before the time of the next inauguration of the President, it will have gone into full-scale collapse.
This is our last opportunity: Either we defeat Bush-Cheney now, or the United States and its people don't have a chance.
And so, we have to learn the lessons of history. We have to learn the significance of the United States in world history, where the United States came from, what it came out of. We have to understand what the forces are, on an historical scale, over the greater part of millennia, which have shaped the circumstances which confront us today. We have to respond, with that understanding, to these circumstances, not on simple man-in-the-street idiocy and babbling. We need leaders, true leaders, not ones who go along with public opinion, but those who educate the people to give up popular opinion! In order to become sane, and safe, again.
Q: This is Vicky from L.A. You might have answered this question before, but looking at the debate last night, Kerry keeps mentioning killing people and stuff like that. And actually having conversations with people in the campuses around Ohio, and a lot of these kids are having the reaction, especially Republicans, that they really don't want to vote for Bush anyways, but they really don't know who they want to vote for, seeing what Kerry is doing. And I was just wondering, how are we going to organize them around voting for Kerry, knowing that he's saying these kinds of things? Because even I wouldn't vote for him, if I wasn't in the LaRouche campaign. So how do we convince them, that this is the best thing to do?
And also, I wanted to ask you, because you had said in your webcast that you had never actually spoken to him; but I wanted to ask you if you were actually planning on doing that?
LAROUCHE: Oh, I plan to speak to him any time. What I'm speaking to now is his campaign organization, which I'm very closely informed of, and in touch with. And, there are a lot of people who are working in this campaign in the Democratic Party, for example, who are close to me. We are the hard core, in the sense of what might enable Kerry to win. This includes President Clinton, who is recovering from a serious operation, and recovering I understand very well; but not recovered well enough to be an active factor on the stage, in campaigning at this point, unfortunately. That's where we are.
Kerry knows this. He's well aware of me. And his people have been in touch with me, particularly on clarifying certain things, which needed clarification. But he's a stubborn guy and he has much to learn.
The point is, the education of Kerry is going to occur in two stages. First of all, we've got to get Bush and Cheney out of there, defeated. But Kerry's going to face immediately, the shock of his life, in the way this financial crisis comes on. He can not continue to flop around, as he's doing on these issues. You know, there's various kinds of leaders in society. One of the leaders in society, is history itself: When history intervenes, and shatters the delusions of some people, it's the only way that delusions get shattered. And if Kerry has any delusions, of the type he's talking about, they're going to be shattered.
Another thing is this. Kerry's a very bright guy. He's very well-informed and he's not been a lazy Senator. Very active, very well-informed, under normal circumstances. But he does not have certain qualities of judgment, which are found among people who tend to be a little older than he is; people who tend to be on the retired side, who are doing other things, not in government proper today.
In getting in these crises we're into, Kerry is going to find out that his particular program, as he indicates it now, it will not work; it can not work. And faced with the awesome responsibility of the Presidency of the United States, under these circumstances, he's going to have to come to some of the rest of us, for help in learning how to deal with some of the terrible, frightening problems he's going to have to face, beginning about now. Look at the actual reports, from the world, about what the truth is, respecting the lies which George Bush spewed so copiously about the economy in last night's events. Now, Kerry did not respond to that and call them lies. He should have! He didn't. A couple of days from now, or maybe a little bit more, he's going to have to. By the time the next debate rolls around, we're going to see a more interesting world, than you've seen so far.
MODERATOR: Lyn, thank you very much.... And we look forward to ensuring the delivery of the State of Ohio, not simply to the Kerry campaign, but to the LaRouche movement, to which I think we've made significance progress on, over the course of the last three weeks.
LAROUCHE: And don't forget those good, Ohio Republicans: We're counting on them!
|