Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
Highlights | Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps
Dialogue of Cultures
Panel IV

Open Discussion With
Lyndon LaRouche

'Hoover II' Has Happened!
The Global Financial Crash of 2002
Labor Day Weekend
August 31- September 1, 2002

The following transcript is an incomplete, unedited draft, but we are posting it now, in order to get to ensure the widest ciruclation of the content of the discussion, in which crucial historical and strategic concepts were elaborated. An edited transcript may be available in the future. Panel IV was moderated by Antony Papert. The proceedings of the entire conference are available on audio-video. Scroll down to the bottom of the page, or click here for links to audio-video and other transcripts.

PAPERT: Let me just make one quick, relevant news announcement, before our discussion begins: Lyndon LaRouche was the surprise guest speaker, today, at the 30th anniversary celebration of the National Association for Chinese Unification. Over 200 top Chinese leaders from around the world were in attendance. The first speaker was the second in command of the Chinese Embassy in Washington, followed by Lyndon LaRouche, whom you will hear in just a moment.

So, this session is discussion. In substance, it's a continuation of previous discussions. We're getting questions from the Internet...questions from the audience here, and questions which have come in from around the world by other means.

Let me begin with this one, from Levante Somersol [ph] (many of you know her, I think). She says, "This question is directed to Lyn, Helga, or anyone else who can answer it thoroughly. When I tell people about Lyn, the biggest objection I hear, over and over again, is: 'Well, that's interesting, but that's your opinion.' My question is: What's at the root of people's denial that there is such thing as truth, and that truth is knowable to man. Where did this view come from, and why is it shared by people from all walks of life? What is the best way to overcome this objection?

LaRouche: The origin of this is fascism, especially as radiated from Germany, in the form of the followers of Friedrich Nietzsche, who included the members of the Frankfurt School, so- called, which had two divisions, in the course of its history. All were fascists. But they divided, because some were Jewish. And the Jewish members found they were not qualified to join the Nazi Party. And they had to be told that; it had to be explained to Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt, for example, that they were not qualified for membership in the Nazi Party.

Remember now, this is not surprising, entirely. Because, remember that Vladimir Jabotinsky, who was a joint British and Russian Okhrana agent, was the founder of the fascist movement in Zionism, which is typified today by the Likud, and which is represented by the group of war-makers in New York and elsewhere, such as Max Fisher and so forth, who are called "Mega." They used to call themselves the "Billionaires Club," but they got too much money, so they had to call themselves "Mega." These are the people who brought [in] Joe Lieberman and John McCain, and so forth and so on—all relevant.

Now, remember that Jabotinsky was a Russian agent, but also a British agent: That is, he went to Paris. He worked for the guy in the Okhrana, who issued the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" from Paris. He was attached then, to a British intelligence operation, a Foreign Office operation, called the "Young Turks," which was based in Saloniki, in then Turkey; and this was the group that formed the Young Turk rebellion. Jabotinsky was the editor of a publication, the official publication of the Young Turk organization called Jeune Turque.

Another famous person of this group, who was not technically a fascist, was a guy called "Parvus," born Alexander Helphand: a close associate of Jabotinsky, who played all kinds of games in the Russian Revolution; and played a very interesting game in terms of working as a British agent, primarily; also an Okhrana agent of the Jabotinsky-type; also an agent of German intelligence, at a certain point, who funded Lenin's trip to Moscow, and arranged for it—just as a troublemaker, not because he had any sympathies for Lenin.

But, anyway, Jabotinsky was moved from his position as Jeune Turque editor, back to Italy. In Italy, he became the founder of a movement, called the Betar. The Betar was an avowedly fascist organization, a fascist-Zionist organization, backed by Mussolini. As a matter of fact, an element of the Betar was actually a naval unit for the Mussolini naval forces, during the relevant period.

Jabotinsky also made several applications to Hitler for an alliance. Hitler turned him down. But he didn't give up fascism on that count.

Now go back to Germany. Reality is interesting, here—real history. Truth is interesting. Opinions are generally worthless. All right, so, the truth: Hannah Arendt, who was very influential in this country at a certain point, had a very intimate relationship with a leading fascist in Germany [Martin Heidegger], a member of this same group. The same fascist who created Jean-Paul Sartre in France, as a protégé. But, he was German, and he could get by with it. So he became the leading anti-Semite, purging the Jews from the University of Freiburg. She, who admired him to the day she died, went over to the United States, after discovering she could not qualify for Nazi Party membership.

Kant, Arendt, Heidigger, and the Denial of Truth

In the United States, she and Adorno, in the last 1940s, produced a book called The Authoritarian Personality. And this book was based on the common ideas of Martin Heidegger, her boyfriend, and anti-Semitic purger of Jews; [making a joke about feedback from the mike] her agent—she's now dead, but under the floorboards, you can probably find still wandering around.

Anyway, the theory which she is responsible for, and a number of other fascists worked on it, including—well, Heideggger was on the same theory—was based on a study of Kant. Now, these people were called "existentialists," who were in this group. This group adopted this argument of Kant's saying, there is no truth in the universe; there is only opinion. They praised it, and set forth a doctrine, which was published as an influential book, in the late 1940s in the United States, called The Authoritarian Personality. Now, this doctrine is now a prevalent doctrine in secondary schools and universities and elsewhere, in the United States today. That is, teachers and other kinds of enforces—the Ritalin-pushers for example, in the schools, will say, "There is no truth. There is only opinion." If you say there is truth, then you are an authoritarian. And this was the definition of this.

Now, it happens, that this crowd is backed by the other crowd, the crowd which is behind the attack for the war on Iraq, the crowd that's pushing that war, the crowd that's supporting Sharon. Sharon is a fascist. That is the truth. He's a member of the Likud. Netanyahu is a fascist—a Jabotinsky fascist. Shamir, a fascist. The hard core of the leadership of Likud is fascist. What these fascists are doing in Israel-Palestine today, is, they're doing the same kind of thing that the Nazis under General Stroop did in Warsaw, against the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto. The same methods, with the same kind of results.

"There is no truth": You can't say that a Jew can be a fascist. Why not? Jabotinsky said he was a fascist. Jews can be fascists. And most Zionist gangster types in the United States are. And that's the core of the thing.

So, what you have is, you have the biggest circulator of rumors, which targets us, with a certain friends who will do it for them; target every place we organize and spread the word, that therefore, "LaRouche is wrong, because there is no truth! There is only opinion. He says, that Sharon is a fascist. That's his opinion. There is no truth." Jabotinsky who was the founder of Likud, said he was a fascist. He said he tried to make an alliance with Hitler, on the basis of fascism, to get Hitler to give up anti-Semitism, and have one, big fascist movement, a unity soup of fascists. That's the truth!

So, what can you say about this? That people who believe, there is no truth, belong to a society which has lost the moral fitness to survive. And, under present conditions, a society which accepts the doctrine, that there is no truth, but only opinion, such a society will die—including the United States.

I would add to that, that, today, it was pointed out to me by Helga, that [Deputy Secretary of State Richard] Armitage was quoted in the front pages of the local rag—the local Washington rag—as saying that the problem is people abroad: We're more powerful than ever before, and people abroad envy the United States. Now, the attitude of people around the world, toward the United States, and particularly toward the Bush Administration today, is not envy! It's contempt! And even hatred, growing hatred. So, that is a matter of truth, not a matter of opinion.

So, the point is, the whole thing is, that the whole that Delante [ph] is referring to, is simply, she found herself being targetted by somebody who repeats this stuff. And we have some people in Chicago, some young ladies in Chicago—one young lady, still young—was also directly targetted in her school on this issue; and by a sociologist-fascist enforcer type, in that school, who says, "We don't allow truth in this school." "So, what are we paying them to teach for?" [applause]

PAPERT: Krishna Munger...has a question.

Krihsna Munger: Hi, Lyn. I'm Krishna from About Sudan.com. My question for you is, especially at the January webcast, but also over the years, you've referenced FDR and how the United Nations as we know it is a tragic mess, perhaps? Compared to what he intended it to be. We don't have a One and the Many, I think, in the way that you would prefer. But, what I'm interested in knowing is, how would you see the United Nations as a perfect instrument to have, if you were to design it? I know we have the Bretton Woods idea and the Eurasian Land-Bridge, but the UN as an institution specifically. How would you see it, dealing with, say Iraq, or Sept. 11? I think that's my question.

LaRouche: I would keep it out of that whole business. The United Nations should never become a government. It should Become—. It's most useful function, is as a diplomatic forum, which is especially useful in cases in which direct diplomacy otherwise is difficult to accomplish. To bring a number of different people together.

Generally, for example, the United Nations is an abomination. The "no-good organizations," the so-called NGOs, are an example of that. NGOs generally, around the world, are a disease. They're like syphilis: You don't want it in your home.

Remember, the United Nations was taken over, and given a different quality than Roosevelt intended, immediately after his death. Roosevelt's intention was very simple, and people have to understand this, and take the historical facts into account. It's difficult for people these days, because the schools are worthless, and they don't teach anything of any worth, and therefore people have "explanations"; they look it up on the Internet, and they think they've got some information. Have they got the truth? Aha, that's a different question.

All right. Remember—let's go back one step, because these and other questions come up in this form, about the United States. I'm going to reference this in more detail, in an EIR Special Report, which will be forthcoming very soon, on the question of infrastructure, as a passing business. I've mentioned it in other connections, about Europe and the United States, on why is the American Revolution, an absolute exception, in history: That there is no other state, that was created in this way. And there is no other nation which could have played that role. And the American Constitution, in its original intent, as expressed by the Preamble, and expressed also by the Declaration of Independence, expresses an intent, which has never been realized by any form of government in Europe; or any other part of the Americas, except as a spillover from the United States.

For example, people say this: That the world is divided between capitalism and socialism. That is absolute nonsense! Because, when they say that the American System of political-economy, is like the British system, or that our economics comes from Adam Smith: That is a lie! It's not a mistake. It's not an opinion. It's a lie!

Let me explain what happened: The rise of the Roman Empire, which began to become an empire (as opposed to the formal establishment of an empire) about 200 B.C. This corresponded with the murder of Archimedes in Syracuse by the Roman soldiers; it corresponded to the invasion of Greece, and so forth. At that point, Rome, which was never a very good culture—Roman culture was never good; and that's another story—but, in any case, it began to acquire this great power over Italy, and moved out to conquer other countries. It destroyed the existing highest level of culture, which had existed, which was the Classical Greek culture, which had internal problems; but, Classical Greek culture, as such, is the foundation of all modern European civilization. The Classical Greek culture was spread, in a somewhat imperfect form, but an important form, as Hellenistic culture: That is, Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian Empire, which was a good thing, and then he was murdered by the admirers of Aristotle, and therefore, the whole system was weakened. But Hellenistic culture and the Greek language, with a Classical influence, became the predominant culture of the Eastern Mediterranean, and spread into other parts of the world, as in the case of Cicero, the great Roman orator. Who was influenced very much by the Greek Classical culture, and particularly by Plato.

But, by 212 B.C. approximately, this changed. And civilization was going to Hell, in the form of the Roman Empire. Everything was hellish. In this moment, Christ appeared, late in the reign of the first Roman Emperor Augustus. And Christ was murdered by the successor, Tiberias, by Tiberias's legal son-in-law, Pontius Pilate, on order from above. The Jewish element in this murder, was a bunch of people who were oppressors of the Jews, who were the local occupier force, the local Quislings. And there was a general revolt among the Jewish population, in particular, of that area of Palestine at that time, of this group, which was responsible for the murder of Christ, under the direction of their master, Pontius Pilate. They were simply that: They were the oppressors of everyone.

In the process of the emergence of Christianity, you had a turning point in history, with the birth, and especially the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ—a change in human history, of the whole European area. But, it took a long time for that to begin to take hold. It first took the form of the Classical Greek culture: The Apostles John and Paul, epitomized Greek culture. There was no Hebrew language spoken at that time. There were forms of Arabic spoken at that time; there was a written Hebrew, which nobody could quite agree on how to speak. And it was often spoken with elements of Greek mixed in, and other languages were mixed in, in trying to interpret, because the indicatives of the Hebrew—you know, there were point indicatives, which are characteristic of those kinds of languages, were often missing. And the Hebrew belief, the original Hebrew belief, had been destroyed extensively, in two periods in the first Babylonian occupation; and second, where the Jewish books, or the Hebrew books were re-written and some other things stuck in there, by the conquering, occupying party. And a second period, under the Persian Empire, the Achemaenid Empire, in which the magi-priests again went to work, and rewrote what people call the Old Testament. And out of this, you had these two divisions, which divided Europe in terms of the Old Testament: You had the Catholic Old Testament, which came from what was called the "Egyptian Talmud"; and then you had the Protestant Old Testament, in terms of the Lutheran version, which was given by three rabbis from Padua, who did the translation. This was from the "Babylonian Talmud."

So, there's a lot of confusion in this area. But, in any case, Hebrew was not the language spoken in Palestine, at that time. The dominant language in the Hellenistic world, was Greek. And people who were ignorant, spoke ignorant Greek. And also some other languages. But the lingua franca of the Hellenistic region, was Greek. And the best-educated people spoke, as a lingua franca, they spoke Classical Greek, like the Greek of Plato. For example, in the New Testament, the Gospel of John, and the Epistles of Paul, epitomize, in their original version, Platonic Greek. Not only is the Platonic Greek, Platonic in form, as a language. But it's in content, that the idea of the Socratic dialogue, the idea of the Platonic method of the discovery of principles, is the basis of Christian theology in the John-Paul tradition.

So, the importance is, that the Greek Classical culture was preserved, largely in the Christian world, to some degree among Jews, such as Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, who attacked Aristotle, devastatingly, as a fraud. And also, then, later, in Islam, especially typified by the Abbassid dynasty, the Fatimids of Egypt, and so forth. This culture, the Greek Classical culture, spread through Islam and through Jews, through North Africa, into Italy through Sicily; into the court of Frederick II Hohenstaufen; into southern Spain, and so forth; and became an integral part—you can not find, the basis for the viable culture in Spain, without looking at the rich contribution of Islamic and Jewish contributors. Take Moses Maimonides, for example, who typifies European Jewry, in terms of the roots of European Jewry.

So, this was the history of the business. So then, we come along, with all the troubles in civilization: with the Roman Empire persists; the Byzantine Empire was a Roman empire; the struggle among Popes, inside Western Christianity, was a struggle between the pro-Byzantine tendency, the so-called fake, Donation of Constantine wing, who had the idea that the Pope was an emperor, in the Pontifex Maximus tradition of the Roman emperors, and therefore, the world was run as an empire. The Empire of the East; the Empire of the West. And in the Western Empire, the Church was often treated as a Western Empire, under an emperor. That is, kings had no authority to make law. They could make statutes; they could make rulings; they could make decisions; they could kill; they could fight war. But they couldn't make what was accepted as law. Only the Pontifex Maximus, the Emperor, could make law.

Now, the struggle in Europe, was a struggle to revive the Classical Greek view, of the nation-state. That is, that there exists an implicit natural law, which all men are capable of recognizing: That they have intellectual powers to become capable of discovering the truth of this law, recognizing and be governed by it. That each people, no matter what the difference in culture, has the ability to know natural law, as a commonality of law among nations, rather than being sent by some emperor, who runs a Pantheon, and says, "Each of these religions will do as I tell them. I'll appoint the bishops; I'll appoint the priests. And if they don't agree with me, I'll kill 'em." Like Constantine, for example.

So, this was the history.

Only in the 15th Century, with the 15th-Century Golden Renaissance, did we get the possibility, the actually possibility, of reviving civilization, from the legacy of Roman and Babylonian traditions. That occurred, then, and it was fought, hard, by the enemies of this movement. The enemies were led, by the imperial maritime power of that period, the Venetian financier oligarchy, which actually ran much of the world, from behind the scenes; and otherwise, as a bunch of bankers, who controlled the politics and the wars and the religion of the period, of the whole region. So Venice fought back, against the great Golden Renaissance, and tried to destroy it.

In 1511, when Venice was on the point of being destroyed, by an alliance of the nations of Europe, including Spain, England, France, and others, suddenly the tide turned: Venice survived; Spain joined Venice; and Europe, from 1511, 1513 on, was subjected to the horror of religious war, and went into what is called a little "New Dark Age," from 1511 to 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia. In which Urban III, a Pope, had a diplomat, who was trying to stop this religious war. The diplomat was named Jules Mazzarini, who was known in France as Cardinal Mazzarin. Cardinal Mazzarin organized, in France, the effort to create, what became the Treaty of Westphalia. Mazzarin had a protégé, a powerful protégé, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. And Jean-Baptiste Colbert began to organize France in a magnificent way, as a great power.

Then, this effort was destroyed: Europe was plunged, again, into a series of wars—now dynastic wars, the Wars of the Spanish Succession, and so forth. So, a situation existed, with the accession of George I in England, in which Europe was dominated by two forces: One, the reactionary Habsburgs, including the legacy in Spain and Portugal. The reactionary Habsburgs in Central Europe. And rubbish of this type.

But, the impact of the Classical tradition, the impact of the Golden Renaissance, had not died. So, you have two forces: The forces who were for the Renaissance, the Classical Greek Renaissance; and the others, the Romantics, that is, those who adhered to the anti-Classical conceptions of ancient Rome. These included the Aristoteleans and the Empiricists, who are very similar, but they had big fights with each other.

So, in this period, the question is: How do we get—Europeans said—how do we a nation-state? This is about 1714—before then, but about that time: 1714, when George I rises to the throne of the United Kingdom, the first throne of the United Kingdom. Before that, you had separate kingdoms. So, this became the British monarchy. At that point, "How do we get a nation-state?" they said. "How do we get back to the idea of the nation-state based on natural law?" And, they turned to the Americas, in which refugees and others, from decaying, decadent Europe—from decadent Spain, from decadent other parts of Europe—fled into the Americas, to try to build up nation-states, at a distance from the corruption in Europe. Because of the Spanish problem, the corruption spread from the Spanish tradition, the Spanish influences, the so-called latifundista tendency, English-speaking North America was the only place left, in which to initiate the establishment of a true modern nation-state.

The leading forces of Europe, including the circles of Gottfried Leibniz, concentrated on North America, around the kernel represented by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and Logan's role in Pennsylvania: to build a force, which was built around a young man, Benjamin Franklin, to establish a true republic in North America. And this was done, thoroughly, with participation of the greatest minds of Europe. This was never an idea that sprang from the mud and forests of the United States: This was a conception that came from Europe. That came from Classical Greece, by way of Hellenistic developments, by way of Christ and Christianity, the Christianity of John and Paul; which finally emerged after great struggles in the 15th-Century Renaissance—the birth of modern European civilization. That frustrated birth, then, focussed upon building a republic in North America, which is the American exception, the American historical exception, which everybody who is good, of importance in Europe, helped to make possible.

Now, this is our trust. So, that's the way to understand these problems.

American System Vs. American Tories

Out of this came two tendencies in North America: One, the tendency associated with Franklin—the Leibniz-influenced tendency. The American patriots, which I represent; and which Roosevelt, with his imperfections, represented. And so forth, and so on. Others: John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln represented that; Alexander Hamilton. All the greatest thinkers of the United States, the greatest heroes, represented that same tradition that I represent, that I'm trying to keep alive, and defend, today! And bring to the triumph that it deserves today. [applause]

Now, starting 1763, there was another tradition: Called the American Tories. And we've documented a good deal of this. Chaitkin's done a lot; others have done a lot. 1763, Judge Lowell: The French wars had stopped. The American colonists had been allies of the British monarchy, against the French operations in North America. Immediately the British monarchy turned on America, which became the United States, to destroy North America. So, at that point the population of North America went into a clear division: Between the patriots, who were determined to defend the freedom and the rights of the North American colonists; against the Tories, who were determined to suppress those rights.

And that's what the division is. So [Teddy] Roosevelt, coming after the assassination—successful assassination, I may say—of McKinley: An assassination conducted by the friends of Teddy Roosevelt, to make him President. Then, after Taft, Teddy Roosevelt brought in a Ku Klux Klan fanatic, the co-refounder of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, Woodrow Wilson, as President! Wilson was followed, after a short "Harding times" (shall we say), by Coolidge. Now, Calvin Coolidge was not silent: He just was smart enough to keep his mouth shut in public! Because of what he said in public, me might have gotten lynched!

So, then came the Great Depression, the Great Depression as a result of this process. And in this, here's the United States, which is in the mud, doomed, wrecked, about to go into fascism, or something—just like Hitler Germany. And Franklin Roosevelt captured the American people, with an appeal, not to those in power and privilege, but to the Forgotten Man. Nineteen thirty-two: West Virginia—the Forgotten Man. And, Roosevelt was not some kind of bungling political fool, picking up slogans. Roosevelt had a deep, personal, and knowledgeable commitment to the American System of political-economy. And knew what and American Tory was, and said it often enough, as President: "The American Tories are our problem." They are still our problem, inside the United States. They're still the same scoundrels; they've gotten worse and more stupid. They're like certain snakes, that degenerate: They get more poisonous as they get mentally more stupid.

So, that's the background. So, Roosevelt now—here's Europe: Europe has never had a good government. The closest they got to it, was de Gaulle, and that was almost an accident, with the Fifth Republic. Without de Gaulle, without an effective de Gaulle, the Fifth Republican was nothing, because it began to degenerate, as he was isolated. So, Europe has never had a republican government. Never! What Europe had, was two kinds of governments: One, which was controlled by Venice—the Habsburg model; imperial model; feudalis, in modern garb. But, not always in modern garb: Sometimes, they stuck to the old stuff, like the Spanish court, garb, which Helga and I met one time, in the Castle of Thurn und Taxis, at a dinner we unfortunately went to. All these poor slaves were dressed in Spanish court garb, because Thurn und Taxis is a European family, which associates itself as being the dominant family—the lead family, of the princely organization of all Europe. And they associate themselves as being of the Spanish Hapsburg origin. The very worst. The lowest of the low. They work from the bottom up, as you know, if you knew more about Johannes [von Thurn und Taxis].

All right, here we are. So, Europe is otherwise governed by what? Well, the governments in Europe, the reforms in Europe, liberalism in Europe, came in the form of Venetian influence on the Dutch and the English. The Venetians, who were a financial oligarchy, were losing power at the second half of the 17th Century, particularly after the Treaty of Westphalia, they lost tremendously in power. They made one effort to establish another physical empire in Greece, in Euboeia [ph] and so forth. And that failed. So, in this process, the Venetian apparatus, which was spread throughout Europe, organized the Dutch to become an imperial, maritime power, based on financier oligarchy. This became known as the Dutch East India Company, whose most notorious figure was: William of Orange. The guy who killed the Irish, and establish a dictatorship in England. Through William of Orange, a process was set into motion, which established the British East India Companies, as the power in England. The systems were based on control, Venetian-style control. Venetian-style control is what is called, a "central bank": A central bank is a private organization, a coalition of private organizations, which exacts from government, the control over credit, finance, and banking, from the government. So therefore, you have the currency, and the finances, of a nation are controlled by a foreign body! A central bank, which is a corporation, of a group of wealthy families, who control the central bank. And the government agrees to lay down, and put up with this nonsense!

We have one in the United States: It's called the "Federal Reserve System." The Federal Reserve System, was introduced by the King of England: Edward VII, who had a banker. The banker had a man in New York. The King of England had a vast amount of money he wanted to invest in taking over the Union Pacific Railroad. But he wanted to do it through a nominee, not have his name on the stock ownership. So, he used Jacob Schiff, in New York, an agent of his banker in London, to take over the Union Pacific. And Jacob Schiff got a sucker, E.H. Harriman, to take over the Union Pacific—for the King of England! That's the Harriman family, in the United States; the ones that worked, later, to bring Hitler into power in Germany! They funded Hitler's rise to power in Germany.

All right. Jacob Schiff also organized, with the same group of bankers, organized the Federal Reserve System. They didn't get it through, immediately under Roosevelt; but when Roosevelt ran the Bull Moose campaign, it was run for the included purpose, of ensuring that the United States would ally with Britain, for the war in Europe, and also establish the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal income tax. The Federal income tax was originally created to get the funds, to pay the central bank, for the costs of running the Federal Reserve System. And under Wilson, we got all of it: We got World War I; we got the Federal Reserve System; we got the income tax; and every other thing, that people like to complain about, these days.

So, at that point, we ceased to be a true republic! We had lost our Constitution. We no longer had sovereignty over our own credit, currency, and related banking affairs. This system: This Anglo-American system, this Venetian-model system, which infected us like syphilis, called the Federal Reserve System—this brought us into a Great Depression.

From this, Europe, which had no brains, at the top—you know, Kaiser Wilhelm; Franz Joseph, the Tsar, the Kings of England, with this idiot, this maniac in France: These fools, who made that war, were relics of the system. It was the European system; it was a parliamentary system, based on these relics, of an old, quasi-feudal parliamentary system. And these governments were incapable of avoiding this mutual warfare, which slaughtered Europe. Only in the United States, did we have the potential, in terms of our Constitution, and power to be able to deal with this war. We went through World War I, and we were a failure: We didn't stop the war; we built the new one. And the crash. Then, we came to the Second Depression. And Franklin Roosevelt went to the people of the United States, appealed to the Forgotten Man, made drastic reforms, fought the Supreme Court (which was a corrupt institution), and prepared for the war, he knew was coming, at least in 1936. Hitler made the war inevitable, and we knew it. So, the process of recovering from the Depression, and preparation for war, the logistics for war, were already full under way, when he was running for first re-election in 1936.

As a result of all this nonsense, at the end of the war, the United States was the only nation on this planet, which was qualified as a natural world power. It didn't work. Why? Because Roosevelt died. Only a living, powerful Roosevelt could have mobilized the American people to chuck out what Truman and so forth represented. And the scoundrels represented.

So, it was a mess. That's what we must understand in all of these questions—that general background, which I've summarized, that history, in one package, so to speak. So, Roosevelt was faced with the fact, coming through the war, he knew that the United States would emerge from the war as the only world power. He was determined to eliminate two things, which his son referred to in a book As He Saw It. 1) He told Churchill: "We're not going to tolerate your stinking, British 18th-Century methods in economics, any more. The end of Adam Smith. The end of everything that Adam Smith represents. We're going to stick to American methods: The Hamilton-Lincoln American System of political-economy." He also said, "We're not going to tolerate empires any more. We're going to free all the colonies, and we're going to help them build!" And he laid out a specific program for Northern Africa, for building Africa.

Then, he died. And the people that had been pent up, while Roosevelt was still President, tore loose.

Now, among the things he did, was this idea of the United Nations. Why? What was the purpose of the United Nations? What was the purpose of the great power agreement in the Security Council? The purpose was, to make China and Soviet Union equal partners in a great power agreement with the United Kingdom and the United States. And thus, with the impetus of freeing people from colonial subjugation, and launching an international program of development to liberate people from the effects of this economic subjugation and colonial slavery, to destroy the remnants of the British Empire, and the Venetian system! So, the intention behind the United Nations, was not to find some utopian group, that would make "peace" in the world. The intention of the United Nations, was to do a job: To break up the British Empire, and everything like it! To break up the Dutch Empire! [applause] The French Empire! The Portuguese Empire! The relics of the Spanish Empire! To break these things up; to eliminate colonialism from this planet, forever. And, based the planet on a community of emerging, sovereign nation-states. And the United States, as the only world power, must put its power behind that mission, otherwise, it wouldn't happen.

So, Churchill and that fool, Truman, and other traitors, and idiots, and scoundrels, prevented it from working out that way. So, the United Nations we got, with Roosevelt's death, was different. It had no intention. It was like six actors, in search of a play. They were wandering around, saying "How're we going to make peace?" But the United Nations, so designed, was based on commitment to war. In 1945, the United States launched a totally unnecessary war against Japan, which had already been defeated—a nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And those two cities were hit, because we didn't have any more bombs. If we'd had three bombs, we'd have used them. We used two, because we only had two. A war to which MacArthur had objected, and Eisenhower had objected, as incompetent: An attack on a defeated nation, is a crime.

Dirty Bertie Russell

And the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Nagasaki was an attack on a defeated nation. To what purpose? To the purpose of doing what Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells had been proposing: H.G. Wells—. Bertrand Russell was, technically, the creator of nuclear warfare. Wells had proposed it, since 1913, but Russell actually did it. Russell was the guy that actually got the nuclear programs going. And Russell's policy was, that we would create world government, by using nuclear weapons, as weapons of terror—so terrifying that nobody would be willing to fight war to defend their national sovereignty again. And therefore, he intended to make the United Nations, an instrument, of world government through nuclear terror.

And that has been the history of the United Nations: It has been a sham. There have been honest people in it. Many of the discussions have been useful. The diplomacy is always useful, if it doesn't become silly; but people meeting and talking, having a dialogue, is always useful. But we can not have that kind of system, that is, where, now, we have what's called "international terrorism." Next time, it will be "eliminate Islam." Whatever! The idea of having some international purpose, to establish world government—a new Roman Empire, in fact—is what the controlling force is, and has been, behind the United Nations. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and afterward.

We are dealing with a Satanic evil, of the type, that people would say, Christ died to prevent us from suffering. And that's the way to look at it. So, don't look for utopian schemes. What we need, is a system of sovereign nation-states, united around purposes, intentions, which are defined by natural law. No matter what culture you have, the people in any culture have one common feature: They're human. They have the power of reason, if you develop it. And therefore, they may express their intention differently, because of their cultural heritage, but they will express that difference in a common term: The term of natural law: knowable natural law. Not from a book! Not from a set of instructions! Not from a shopping list! But natural law, which is known to man, by study of human history, study of the difference of mankind and animal, and things of that sort.

So, if we have that kind of society, where we are committed to building, not by dictating to people what natural law should be, but by building. For example: Building the Land-Bridge! Connecting the railroad between South and North Korea, which is crucial! These kinds of things: Building! Giving hope to Africa! Building nations in Africa! Rebuilding nations in Central and South America! Rebuilding Europe! It's by engaging ourselves, together, as nations, to rebuild this planet, and improve it, that the reality of natural law, will emerge among the people. The cultures will still be different. The specifics of the cultures will be different. The religions may not all be the same. But we will agree on natural law, and we will agree, not because we sign a document to agree to it—a utopian prescription: We will agree, because we've come agreement through practice, the practice of doing good.

Thank you.

Message from the Phillipines

ANTONY PAPERT: [announcements] Anton Valdes, who's come here from the Philippines—is he here? Anton Valdes is a leader of the LaRouche Society of the Philippines.

ANTON VALDES: Mr. and Mrs. Lyndon LaRouche, Mrs. Amelia Robinson, members of the Schiller Institute, greeting from the Philippines.

As the world is now approaching her darkest hour, I feel truly blessed and honored to be amongst people with pure intentions, in an attempt to save civilization and humanity as a whole. Thank you for giving me this opportunity, once again, to be in the presence of the greatest minds and the noblest of hearts.

Up until about two decades ago, we were fortunate enough to have a glimpse of a rising economy. Some of our leaders had initiative and a foresight to develop infrastructure programs for power, transport, water, and other utilities. Unfortunately, their terms were cut short, and their programs were never followed. Since then, the economy has been crashing down.

As you all know, it's been a wild and crazy couple of years for us. You see, despite our love for the republican heritage, we'd rather resort to democratic methods of resolving disputes. In a span of three years, we've had two Presidents and Vice Presidents, three Defense Secretaries, three military Chiefs of Staff, three National Police chiefs, two Education Secretaries, two National Tax heads, and two Foreign Secretaries; and the list goes on. See? Democracy works!

To give you an overview of the state of the economy today. For the past decade, the Philippine peso has devalued over 100%. More than a quarter of the population have not experienced the basic necessity of running water. There is no efficient transport system within Metro Manila, and it gets worse in the outside province. All utilities have successfully been deregulated. The stock market is now worth only one-third of when it was at its highest. The peace and order situation has been deteriorating, giving you a sense of how the state has lost its ability to defend itself and its people, against internal (much less external) enemies. And finally, we consider our nation's most important resource, our people, are leaving the country in droves, hoping to find a better future abroad. With them, they bring the best minds and the best skills, and whatever glimmer of hope the Philippines was depending on for its development.

Oh, but one thing that hasn't changed, is our economic policy. But, we're working on that. It has been over a year now, since our organization was begun, and despite assorted moments of fun we've had building the movement, it has been a source of inspiration, education, and personal fulfillment for all involved.

Our involvement with the LaRouche organization, has compelled us look into our own history for Classical cultural traditions. The most notable intellectual link, resides in the writings and thoughts of our own national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal [ph]. Dr. Rizal has been trained as an ophthalmic surgeon, by leading specialists in Paris, Heidelberg, and Berlin. He was an artist and a poet, and by choice a scholar, an historian, a researcher, and a prolific writer. He wrote in Spanish, Tagalog, German, French, English, and Italian, and spoke a few other modern languages. In addition, he knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He often referred to Cervantes, Schiller, Shakespeare, and Dante, in his writings.

Curiously, and perhaps inevitably, Rizal was enamored of the writings of Friedrich Schiller. During his visit to Altdorf, Rizal was so inspired by Friedrich Schiller's Wilhelm Tell, that he translated it to Tagalog. In an article, entitled "The Philippines, A Century Hence," he forced Filipinos to look to the day, when they should have shaken off Spanish rule. He also speculated that the United States might one day think of acquiring the Philippines, but added that this would be against U.S. traditions.

Rizal wrote: "I want to show those who deny us patriotism, that we know how to die for our duties and convictions." But, unlike his compatriots, who advocated armed revolution as a one- time solution, Rizal was also critical of the follies of man. He wrote (and I quote): "I am most anxious for the liberties of our country. But I place, as a prior condition, the education of the people, so that our country may have an individuality of its own, and make itself worthy of liberties. Only love can work wonders. Only virtue can redeem. What is the use of independence, if the slaves of today, will be the tyrants of tomorrow?"

He continued, "I do not mean to say that our freedom must be won at the point of a sword. But we must win our freedom by deserving it, by loving what is just, what is good, what is great to the point of dying for it. When a people reach these heights, God provides a weapon, and the idols and tyrants fall like a house of cards, and freedom shines within the first dawn." [applause]

The universal influence of Schiller was apparent, even in his moment of trial and death. The republic, however, was short-lived, because the United States of America, ironically, embarked upon its own colonial experiment. While the Philippine Republic was consolidating its governance of the entire country, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States for $20 million.

Today, in the Philippines, much like in many parts of the world, the tradition which is based on culture and intellectual Renaissance, is all but gone: Asia and the rest of the world hangs in the balance. But, as in the past, mankind has been able to think itself out of its own predicament, producing geniuses that provide the necessary guidance and elucidation in the darkest of times. The Philippine LaRouche Society is named after individuals who choose to pull mankind out of its erotic fantasies, and into the realm of what makes us in the image and likeness of God. As all of you know, building a movement from scratch, has been a rough, and often confusing journey, especially a movement committed to establishing a new, global Renaissance. But, as Lyn has often said, "A mass movement is not built through broad coalitions, but through ideas. Given the right and true ideas, one man is a mass movement by himself."

Our nation's history of fighting for freedom has always rested in the noble idea, that the Philippines has a unique mission in the world. So, despite a tough road facing our nation, and knowing that we are part of a global Renaissance movement, we will continue to have fun! Indeed, that is what leadership is all about: Just as the great minds of history inspired Jose Rizal and other ordinary citizens to become geniuses, so, too, inspired by Lyndon LaRouche, shall we labor to be worthy of being called "beings imago viva Dei."

And finally, as Schiller says, "I would not wish to live in a century other than my own, or to have worked for any other. We are citizens of our own age, no less than of our own state. We must, at the same time, be citizens of the world, and patriots of our nation."

Thank you, and good afternoon. [sustained applause]

Message from Berlin

PAPERT: I have a short e-mail message from Berlin, and I wanted to put that with a question from Cody Jones, who came up to the mike earlier. From Berlin:

"Dear Helga and guests:

"This is Stefan Togsdorf [ph] writing, another new student organizer, here in Berlin, Germany. I'm with our other youngsters, including Ulrike Lillge, watching the conference. As well as yesterday, we were really fired up about the mission we all decided to dedicate our lives to, and which we now see going on at this conference. Already yesterday, Lyn gave a very brief, but vital answer on our question about the Baby Boomers' role for the youth movement.

"I just now want to announce to every one of the American and all other student organizers following the discussion, to come up with ideas to continue the L.A. impact on the youth movement, and inspire us in Europe, as well as they can. Let us work together, in continuing the American Revolution. Let us get a youth movement, with a spirit of a real American Revolution, as Lyn and others were demanding throughout the recent weeks.

"Thank you."

Cody? Go ahead.

The Hypothesesis of the Higher Hypothesis

CODY JONES: My name is Cody Jones, from Los Angeles. I'll try not to set myself up, this time.

The other week, I was watching a video you had done, a number of years ago, Lyn: "The Power of Labor." And, in there, you're discussing the principles of hypothesis, higher hypothesis, and hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, and you start to discuss the work of Kepler, and the further developments of Gauss on conic spiral action. And you had said that these discoveries, in this type of conic spiral geometry, represented not a higher hypothesis, but, in fact, a hypothesis of a higher hypothesis, which was a further elaboration of the isoperimetric principle.

So, I was wondering if you could elaborate, on how this represents a hypothesis of the higher hypothesis, as opposed to just a higher hypothesis?

Thank you.

LAROUCHE: Probably the simplest example, is my commentaries on Vernadsky, which are circulated, I think, in book form, in part— not all of it, but some of it; and some of Vernadsky's work, as well. The point is, that, when you abandon the school of utopian mathematics, or ivory-tower mathematics, and start from physical geometry, like the physical geometry of the line, of the surface, and the solid, and so forth; and realize that principles—that what you're dealing with in mathematics or geometry—is different physical realities: You can not get a surface from a line.

Only a faker can do it. True! And, fakers do it. They call it rotation. Lagrange said he could do it. But, he was a faker. You can't get a solid from a surface—not mathematically. You can define the physical concept, and get it from that. All right.

Now, using that principle of experiment, of saying: We look at physical effects, and we look at the unique way, in which certain physical effect are generated—they can be generated in one way, and not another way, as physical effects; this causes us to distinguish, in the phenomena of the universe around us, among things we call "abiotic." These are processes, which are not living processes, and by their nature, could not be living processes. Unlike some idiots, who think they're going to make a super-brain out of rock, out of dirt. They get dirty minds, but not much brain.

Then, you have living processes. And, as Vernadsky did, you can prove this: You can prove, by physical experiments, which are of universal implications, that there is a distinction between abiotic processes, and living processes.

Then, you have a third process. The third process is the process of the human cognitive mind. The ability to generate discoveries, which enable human beings, to increase the human population above ape-levels, from millions to billions—and who knows how far beyond.

So, thus, you have different effects, which can not be explained by other effects. You can not explain a surface, from a line. You can not explain a solid from a surface. These are different physical principles. You can not explain living processes in terms of non-living processes: Only a quack would do it, would attempt it. You can not explain human processes, from the standpoint of animal life: Only a quack would do it. So therefore, these are different principles.

Now, thus, we have many physical principles we know, which are all demonstrated in a Platonic paradoxical way: by hypothesis, a validated hypothesis.

But then, you have groups of hypotheses, which have common features, and are distinct from other hypotheses. The hypotheses, which are appropriate to dealing with abiotic processes, are different than those which you must take into account to deal with living processes. And human behavior can not be explained, by talking to snails! There's a different principle involved here, than lower forms of life. So, thus, that is a form of higher hypothesizing. And then, you say, "Well, how is the universe put together?" And that is: Well, how was the universe put together in the first place?

Well, there was no first place. There is nothing before universality. There's nothing that comes after it. There is nothing that exists outside it: By definition, universality is universality; there's nothing outside it. Einstein tried to put it in the following terms, in his defense of Kepler and Riemann, later in life. Einstein made a very famous statement. He said, the universe is finite, but unbounded. He could have said it the other way: The universal is finite, but unbounded. It's finite, because it's self-contained. It's unbounded, because there's nothing outside it.

So therefore, that being the case, then the principle of cognition, which we, as human beings express—being human! and not trying to imitate lower forms of life: Such as, you have a President of the United States on this Air Force One treadmill, looking out the window of a plane; sees a cow, down there below, and says "Bovine," and goes on pumping away—that's not being human. That's being something else.

So therefore, if the principle of cognition is universal, was there cognition before man was walking on Earth? [pause] Was there life, before there was any living creature? The principles are universal: which means, that all these principles were acting on the universe, at all times—universally. And that's why the universe is what it is. Because, yes, there are abiotic principles, but the abiotic principles live in the same universe, with very efficient principles, which are living, and cognitive. So therefore, the universe has always been a cognitive being; always been a living being. The ancient Greeks had a term for this, of living processes, that is, living matter, always, and also cognitive.

So, that's the concept. The theological, Platonic concept of God, as defined in light of what I've done, and what Vernadsky did also, is just exactly that. God expresses the universality of a personal kind of power, which is called creativity. And we know it's always sovereign; it's always individual. You can not wire people together to get cognition. It doesn't work. You may get a short-circuit, but you won't get cognition! Cognition is the act of an individual mind.

So therefore, we find that, in hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, we have this; we also have the notion of the absolute. And the absolute includes the notion, that what we know, universally, of the act of the cognition, it is always the work of a sovereign, individual mind. Which can be replicated in other minds, but it can not be effected by wiring minds together, to say, "We'll click you together. We'll turn the switches, and you'll 'cognate,' or something." Doesn't work that way.

So, that's an example of what this is about. That there is hypothesis—we know what that is, from a physical experimental standpoint. From the standpoint of looking at the Noosphere, as I somewhat more adequately define it, than Vernadsky does: a perfect example of universal "hypothesizing of the higher hypothesis." Because the universe has always had these principles in it: You had hypothesis, the higher hypothesis, and hypothesizing the higher hypothesis. And the absolute. The absolute is, that the universe is a cognitive being, a cognitive personality, a thinking personality, and you call it "God."

He's run the joint, folks! You better acknowledge the management! [laughter, applause]

PAPERT: Maria Elena Milton wanted to introduce a new-comer, with a question.

LaRouche and FDR

MARIA ELENA MILTON: This is Sig Overgard [ph]. He's no new-comer. He's a 97-year-old youngster, who's just joined the international LaRouche youth movement. Among the very remarkable things, about this very active LaRouche organizer, is that, he recently purchased a computer; installed it; learned how to use it; and is a part of the Saturday organizing meetings, as well as EIW and all the things that go on, on the websites. So, here is Sig Overgard, who wants to share some ideas with you.

SIG OVERGARD: Well, I'm sorry I'm 97 years old. It's a pleasure for me to be here at this meeting, and meet our leader. I've been reading a lot about him for a long time. As an oldtimer, I went through another Depression, where the euphoria was just as great as we're exhibiting now. In fact, it was so great, that it was impossible for anybody to be poor. We were all going to have two chickens in every pot; we were all going to be rich; and just overnight, almost, people were jumping out of the window, killing themselves, because of the catastrophe. That same thing can happen again. I can't imagine it could be worse than that, but I can tell you, there are some things about that old Depression, that reminds me of history repeating itself, and we have to be very careful. One of the things, that attracted me to Lyndon LaRouche, is his implementation of the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was my hero. [applause]

On the farm that I inherited from my father—we were a big family; we were nine kids—and Dad died when he was 49 years old, and I was 20. I had to quit school and go home and run the farm. And it wasn't long after that, the bank sent me a note, saying they were calling it[the loan note]. And back then, you know, they didn't have mortgages like we do now. You just signed a note, and every year, you went in and paid the interest; and if you could pay some principal—okay! But, there was no compound interest either: It was all simple interest. And the time had come, when I couldn't pay any interest, so they just sent me a letter, and said, "Come on in. The farm's going to be mine." And it just happened at the time, when Franklin Roosevelt was the President. And he sent out an edict: You can not foreclose on any farmer's home. Period."

And they gave me a chance to live in that home for a few more years. Then, along came four years of drought and Depression; I lived in North Dakota. And, after four years, during which time I had to borrow money from the bank to buy seed wheat, and gasoline to put it in [the ground], and the seed never sprouted. And, in that effort, I lost all credit. I had no more credit. The next year, I couldn't put in a crop. I walked away from a farm, after 34 years of labor and money invested, and had nothing. I had absolutely nothing: That was what the Depression did for me.

I had a chance to go to Pennsylvania, and start a new job, which happened. And, God has always been good to me, so—.

But, enough about me. I want to talk about Roosevelt. The things that made me think to so well of him, and honor him, was the changes he made. He came on track, and said, "We have to make some changes, and they're going to be radical." And I had a little, old crystal radio that I had made, and I could listen to him. And we'd listen to him in his nightly chats, and in that quiet voice, he told everybody that our country was headed for trouble, and that he needed the support of everybody. And he told us what the trouble was: He was very accurate, and careful in what he was telling us. And he created, among the citizenship, a fellowship that was so solid, and everybody listened to him, intently. And something, that we didn't know at that time—we found out later: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after he became President, never could walk! He couldn't even stand up at the podium. We didn't know that. And here, we were listening to this voice, that was so calm, so careful, so strong. And the brilliant mind that was behind it.

And he directed the buildup to the Second World War. And I remember, on the farm, we were having trouble getting steel. You know, the steel that came out of the factories in Pittsburgh and Chicago, came out of iron ore from Minnesota. Well, that's a long, laborious trip to get the steel. It was about the time, when the horse-and-buggy era was coming to a pass, and we all had old, worn-out steel farm machinery, that we would use with the horses. That was all over the country. We were told to gather up our cultivators, or old plows, put 'em on the train and ship 'em to the steel mills. And I was involved in that, and so were my neighbors. And we gathered steel.

He talked to the women in the factories. One of the things that we were troubled with, was boats: As we started to help England and France in this Second World War, they needed goods. And the only place they could get it, was from us. And the German U-boats were sinking those ships almost as fast as we could make 'em! Roosevelt talked to us, and told the women, "The menfolks are all gone. Now it's time we need your help in these factories to make these boats." And, do you know, we started to make boats and we made 'em so fast that the submarines couldn't sink 'em all! And that was the beginning of some success in that war.

After he came along, he told us that there was some radical things that had to happen. One of the first things he did, he stopped the banks. Well, that was a terrible thing—to stop all the banks! But, he was a person who sharp-minded; it was amazing. He knew that the run on the banks was imminent, and that the only way to stop it, was to stop the banks from operating. But then, to show the shrewdness of that man's mind, he came back—I think it was about three days later—and opened the bank again. He told the bankers, "We have to have the banks. They're important. And I will see to it, that you have money enough to run your bank. But, you've got to meet some new regulations." And, he said, "I will print the money. There's one thing that I'm going to ask of you, though. We're going to control the gold. I want to have absolute control of the gold, so that the paper money we print, is going to be worth every cent it's worth." And that's exactly what happened. That was anathema to the bankers. And that section of our economy never found any love with Roosevelt.

And then, along came the build-up and the great need for power: He realized, that if we're going to get to be that revolutionary power that grows, we've got to do something about power. Back in the beginning of Roosevelt's term, there were no electric lines. (Well, there were a few, but many.)

And he started the WPA [Works Project Administration] project—remember that one? He loaned money to those companies that built those dams, at 1% interest for 40 years—simple interest! No wonder they could build, and build, and build. But every penny of it was paid back. Uncle Sam never lost a penny. They built the Hoover Dam, and the Roosevelt Dam in Arizona; the Coulee Dam in Washington. And that was the beginning of power. And then came along the industrialization that was required, that made that great revolution, that made our country so great.

And one of the things that I thought was so good: His appeal to labor, where he gave them the power to organize. And he said, "We need a strong labor organization. And this is what's going to happen: You can organize, and we expect you to help the economy, by growing yourself."

And those are the things that attracted me to Roosevelt, and made him my hero.

Now, going on further with that—enough about me. The new bust that's coming on, as it seems like now, is going to attract leaders with that type of leadership that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had. And I've seen nothing, in any leadership in our country, or anywhere in the world, that can equal the literature and writings that I get from LaRouche. [applause] And it was a great pleasure for me to come here, and shake his hand. And I wish for you, LaRouche, the same strength that he had. I know you have the wisdom. And you can make those changes. Let's make them!

Thank you. [ovation]

Going to the Mountaintop, Like Martin Luther King

ERNEST WASHINGTON: Good afternoon. I think I'll take the advice of Sylvia Olden Lee, and just thank Mr. LaRouche, Helga, and the International Caucus of Labor Committees for this joyous weekend, joyous occasion.

On the question of leadership, I started reading a guy who has some experience in leadership: Dr. Martin Luther King. What I discovered out of that book, is that the key to society and politics is the church. And I surmised that we kind of lost that somewhere, because Satan's church is running our government through the Bush Administration, and the fanatics behind him. So, I joined the church, and I extend greetings from the church—the New Life Baptist Church, which I think the good reverend that you were speaking about yesterday, is the associate pastor, who has experience with Martin Luther King, in the civil rights movement. And my intent is to discover as much as I can, as to how to—not to replicate the civil rights movement—but to help make what you have proposed, as a strategic decision, successful from the standpoint of getting a New Bretton Woods and implementing the Eurasian Land-Bridge.

So, my question is—. Let me back up a step: In 1995, our good Reverend came up with the idea of the holy day of atonement. And the way I see it, America has to atone for—we, each, individually and collectively, have to atone for violations that we have committed against our Constitution and our fellow human beings, around the globe. And, in the course of that, I was thinking about, how is it that we can actually jump-start this whole process, in relationship to what the Saudis are doing, moving their money out of the Federal Reserve note, and move it into a fixed monetary asset, like gold; and, again, direct those credits from those fixed monetary resources, into the whole development project of the Eurasian Land-Bridge?

I would like to ask you, Mr. LaRouche, is there a way that we can do that, from the standpoint of a private initiative, which is in the proper entrepreneurial spirit that you were talking about, and discussing yesterday?

Thank you for your time.

LAROUCHE: Well, Ernie, you can't do it on a private basis. There's no way to sneak up on it. It's like trying—it's like a flea trying to sneak up on an elephant: It isn't going to work.

See the point is, take this money system: Now, there're idiots, who run around the world, cutting statistical charts and trying to show you how money reveals the secrets of money. Well, money has no secrets. It gets dirty. And that's not a secret.

We create money, why? We create money as a medium of exchange, and especially, as a medium in which to issue credit. By issuing credit, on any basis, or just printing money, you can't accomplish any predictable result. What you have to do, is, you have to establish constitutional principles, and legislation of government, to regulate currency, banking, and credit. Therefore, if you cannot establish government, first, there's nothing you can do, to deal with crisis or problems like the President. There's no local solution. There are no local remedies. There are no "build it up from the basement" kinds of things. They don't work!

Because, the issue here, the problem is: the system! And the system is a system of government. See, what confuses people is, they hear about "central banking systems," and they think that banking systems should be, or could be, independent of government. They are not. Individual banks may be, in a sense, but a banking system can never exist independently of government—unless it is the government! And the problem we have today, is that the central banking system is the government! That's the way we got into this mess! That's what the magic word "free trade" means: Let the central banking systems be the government! That's what "free trade" means: Let the financiers be the government! Let the swindlers rule!

Therefore, you've got to take the sword out of the hand of the killer. You've got to take over the government: You start there. [applause]

You're going to have people—you have it all the time—have people say, "Well, can't you come up with some local way to organize?" I mean, people are hungry; you going to organize around that? Well, I say, you have a depression coming on—deep; it's already here. You're going to organize local people to stop a depression, on some local issue? That doesn't function. That's like trying to handle a boat, with no bottom in it: It doesn't function. You have to do two things: You've got to take the power of government, back to government. You've got to make government accountable to very simple principles, which are all in the U.S. Federal Constitution. But the problem is, you've got dual government: You've got a government, on this side—the Federal government; and you've got on this side, another government, which is more powerful than the Federal government—right now—which are interests which control the central banking system. If you can't remove the power from their hands, directly, you can't solve anything. You're not going to solve poverty; you're not going to restore pensions; you're not going create employment; you're going to correct health-create problems. You're going to do nothing! You've got to go for the Big One: government. Because, what makes a system sound, is that it's properly designed. That design, is constitutional law, plus other laws, that are necessary to facilitate constitutional law. It's to the degree that government establishes laws which control money, which control credit, which control banking, that you can have a system that works. Because there's no system of money that works automatically—except to cause chaos. So therefore, you set up rules of government which are oppressive to people, who don't want you to interfere with the way they run credit, banking, finance, and money. They say, "It's our property." It's called "shareholder value."

You have this agnostic, who calls himself a Catholic, but he made one mistake: He called himself a Catholic, but he wasn't a Christian! (We've got a few of those running around loose.) The man is absolutely is Satanic. You have a Chief Justice, who officially comes from a law firm, which specializes in organized crime—working for it, that is, not against it. Rehnquist! Ask anyone from Arizona, who knows about Rehnquist's history out there. And Rehnquist, the "Friends of the Keating Five Society," in Arizona—the people who know what the Keating Five is. The McCain organization: organized crime.

So, the point is here, that the idea of trying to come up with some suggestion, some little program, which you think will catch fire, and somehow move the nation to reform itself—give up all such ideas. They're called "utopian ideas"; we have to do it the hard way. We must do what Roosevelt did: We must rally the majority of the people of the United States, directly or indirectly—that is, some directly; others, happy to see the motion and support it—as Roosevelt did. We have to take over the government. We have to pull us out of the depression, from the top down. We have to appeal to the people, to do the things they must do. We must force government to give them the right to do what we tell them they have to do. To give them the authority and backing to do what they have to do. There are no cheap shots.

I tell you, it's a hard thing to say, but it's a true thing to say; I don't know how many of you are willing to accept it, yet: But if we were not doing, what I'm doing today, there is no chance to escape a global Dark Age of all humanity, in which the population of this planet would drop, probably, below 1 billion people, from between 5 and 6, right now.

Some people talk about "ideas"; they talk about schemes. That doesn't work! Name a scientific principle, that is valid, that you actually know, but don't know it by a personal name. You don't know any principle of science, which you don't know by a personal name. Someone did it. That is the principle of leadership. Leadership in ideas, comes from people, who generate ideas. The ideas are known by their personal names. Someone says, "Well, I don't want to discuss personalities. I want to discuss ideas." I say, "You're sexually impotent, too! Right?" I believe in "sex." I believe in "money." People who say, they want to discuss "ideas," not personalities, are impotent fools, and a public menace!

So, the issue is, who is going to stand up, and hold the banner of leadership? Who's going to put the guidon, on the top of the hill? Who?! Not what. Not "what idea," but "whose idea"? That's the principle of history.

And all these schemes: Let's be little people; let's be modest; let's come up with a little idea; this idea's going to do everything good for us—it'll work. Let's see if—give it a chance. Maybe this idea will work. Maybe this scheme will work.

No, it won't! No such ideas will work: They will only work to amuse people. To distract them from reality. The question is: Who is going to do it? Who is going to act? Who is going to support that action? Who's going to rally to it? And what is who going to do?

See, that's the point, where I had this argument with this preacher-gurdy [?ph]: about Martin Luther King and Christ. He was wrong! He didn't understand Christianity! He didn't understand how the world works. He didn't understand Martin Luther King's secret of leadership! Martin Luther King did not criticize Christ, and say Christ made a fool of himself, and that's how he got crucified. Christ actually did save humanity. It was not a futile act. Because a soldier dies in a war which is won, does mean the soldier's death was a futile act. If the action was necessary, and they died in the course of the action, the action was necessary. And therefore, we shouldn't try sneaking around and failing to understand, as you saw: When Martin was killed, the civil rights movement disintegrated, into a virtual collection of side-shows. So-called "leaders" of the civil rights movement each went in a different direction, all looking for their little foundation, their own deal. Jesse Jackson fled to Chicago; he was never really a leader of the civil rights movement—he was an appendage. And he ran up there, immediately. And they all set up their own shops, and they ran from the unity of the movement. And the unity of the movement was expressed by Martin Luther King—personally.

And the FBI and the military people associated with J. Edgar Hoover, knew exactly what they were doing when they killed him. They said the same thing about Martin Luther King, they said about me in 1973—the FBI: "If you eliminate this man, the movement is no danger." And that was true in the case of Martin Luther King. You eliminate Martin Luther King, and the movement was no longer a danger. And look where it is, today: On all the leading issues of civil rights, where is the civil rights movement? It doesn't exist. We are the civil rights movement: We're fighting for the principle! [applause]

And what killed the civil rights movement, is, people went off and tried to set up their own little shops, and peddle their own little merchandise: "I got this deal." "I got this deal." "I got that deal." They all ran in different directions. But, there was no unified action! There're proposals, like this crazy reparations thing, which is a piece of absolute insanity! It's Moon-shine. It's destroying the movement! Again! On and on! The foolishness goes on!

And leadership is the question: Are you willing to take up the sword? Are you willing to take up the rifle? Are you willing to plant the guidon, on the top of the hill? And do you know what you're doing? That is, is your leadership competent? Movements are not movements of schemes, not of "ideas"—not good movements. They're movements by people, by individual cognitive minds, which happen to have the position and qualities of leadership. That's how we save.

See, mankind is small-minded. We haven't grown up yet, as a species. We have all the capabilities of being truly human: We're born with that gift; it's good. But, somewhere along the line, people become small. They're concerned—"Well, yes, I want to be a good person. But, how am I going to pay the rent?" "I'm going to a good person, but..." "I want to be important in life, but..." "I know the nation needs to be improved. I know the nation's in jeopardy, but I gotta worry about my community." "I gotta worry about little things." And they make themselves small. And the essence of all evil, is smallness of mind.

And thus, because even people who like to be good, are not capable of rising to that, they don't focus and folks won't master the things they need to know, what happens is, history so far—all history, exemplified in one case, by the case of Christ; in another case, by the case of Martin Luther King—without these few, exceptional leaders, who emerged from among the people, as having developed something better than the smallness of the people around them; who were able to evoke something from the people around them; to lift the people around them, out of their own smallness, nothing good ever happened in humanity.

Ernie, you can't do it—and our dear friend, the Parson—you can't do it his way: It'll never work. He'll wander from one project to another, and always fail. We gave him the best opportunity he ever had. And he walked away from it, because it was too big for him, and he wanted something smaller, something less restricted. And that's the problem. It's not that he's a bad guy; he's not a bad guy. But he just happens to be a small guy—smaller than himself, and he runs away from the opportunity: like the way he ran from Martin. He said, "No, I'm not going to get killed! Martin got killed, because he made a mistake! I'm going to survive! I'm not going to make that mistake of getting killed." And Martin said the opposite. Martin said, "If I have to get killed, I'll die. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And life is important. But immortality is not everything. There are things that are more important."

And Martin was able to make that kind of commitment, above himself, and he used himself as an instrument for humanity. And Martin was probably a true Christian, whatever you want to talk about, whatever his denominational characteristics were. But, at that moment, with that speech "on the mountaintop," and the actions before that: Martin Luther King walked in the footsteps of Jesus Christ—as a true leader. [applause]

Conference Proceedings
Audio Archive and Transcripts

Requirements for listening:
 In order to listen to the webcast, you will need to have a free piece of software called Windows Media Player.  If you don't already have it loaded on your computer, click on their name  to go to their website, and download it.

Check back soon for transcripts of the panels.

Saturday, August 31, 2002

Panel 1:
Introduction: Amelia Boynton Robinson
"The World Will Never Seem the Same"
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Chairman
ICLC; Founder and Contributing Editor, EIR

ENGLISH: Transcript (above)
High Speed Internet Connection (Audio-Video)
Low Speed Internet Connection (Audio Only)

SPANISH: Transcript
High Speed Internet Connection (Audio-Video)
Low Speed Internet Connection (Audio)

Panel 2:

Ibero-America Turns to LaRouche —Dennis Small
Growing Resistance to the War —Jeffrey Steinberg

ENGLISH: Transcript
High Speed Internet Connection (Audio-Video)
Low Speed Internet Connection (Audio Only)

SPANISH: Transcript
Sunday, September 1, 2002
Panel 3:
Musical Introduction: Youth String Quartet
Introduction: Amelia Boynton Robinson

"Reclaiming the Fututre for Our Youth"
Helga Zepp LaRouche, Founder and Chairman, Schiller Institute

ENGLISH: Transcript
High Speed Internet Connection (Audio-Video)
Low Speed Internet Connection (Audio Only)

SPANISH: Transcript
High Speed Internet Connection (Audio-Video)
Low Speed Internet Connection (AudioOnly)

Panel 4:
Dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche

SPANISH: Transcript
High Speed Internet Connection (Audio-Video)
Low Speed Internet Connection (AudioOnly)

Panel 5:
Tribute to William Warfield
Short Video Selections

The Key to Victory

Phil Rubinstein
Harley Schlanger
Brief comments from Syliva Olden Lee

ENGLISH: Transcript
(Article About Youth Movement)

High Speed Internet Connection (Audio-Video)
Low Speed Internet Connection (Audio Only)

SPANISH: Transcript
High Speed Internet Connection (Audio-Video)
Low Speed Internet Connection (AudioOnly)

To ask a question
to Mr. LaRouche, Mrs. LaRouche or the other speakers,
send your email message to:

Conference Invitation

(back to top)


The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244

Thank you for supporting the Schiller Institute. Your membership and contributions enable us to publish FIDELIO Magazine, and to sponsor concerts, conferences, and other activities which represent critical interventions into the policy making and cultural life of the nation and the world.

Contributions and memberships are not tax-deductible.


Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps
Dialogue of Cultures

© Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2002. All Rights Reserved.